User talk:DGG/Archive 62 Mar. 2012

                                       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

PREDICT team

Could you take another look at the Prod for PREDICT Open Source Intelligence Team? I don't want to dispute it, as such, but the principals in that team have been trying to get it off Wikipedia and keep it "secret" for a while, despite the official NMSU Youtube channel featuring it prominently. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sarek, why is it possibly notable ? It's just a research group within an Agricultural Experiment Station. How could their UTube channel show notability ? I didn't think that even passed A7, but if you want to discuss it, sure. I'll undelete and send it to AfD. It's at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PREDICT Open Source Intelligence Team DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

School copyvios

DGG, I've been patrolling new medical articles lately, but that keeps leading me to copyvio. This new editor's articles were all cut-and-paste copyvios: [1] I've cleaned out the copyvios and stubbed them, but I'm not up on school notability. Should the middle and high school articles at least be deleted? One of them was sourced only to a blog. I've notified Moonriddengirl to keep an eye on the editor, as he had been previously notified about cut-and-paste editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

the middle school articles should be redirected to the towns or schools districts (or dioceses, or organisations or whatever seems most helpful). High schooMayls are still considered always or almost always notable , so I'd leave a stub, but if necessary they could be redirected similarly. I will admit that for one or two particularly horrible cases, I've just deleted, basically our of pure annoyance, I can't actually recommend this to others, though I'd guess that anyone spending much time checking NPP and speedy and prod has experienced the feeling also. (I'll also keep an eye on the editor; sometimes I think that a block primarily to get attention is a reasonable course of action.--it can always be technically justified as a block to prevent further disruption)

I have been getting the impression, that the more extensive the web gets, and the better the googles, the more old copyvio we will find. As a personal view, I think we need to consider the degree of seriousness, and concentrate on rooting out blatant copyvio, ignoring at least for now what is just inadequately extensive paraphrase. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm finding outright cut-and-paste copyvio of massive amounts everywhere I look, and jeeeeez, I'm just trying to patrol new medical articles that come up on the new article bot! I wanted to help recruit new medical editors, not root out copyvio :/ Sheesh, I just found another one that has been taking wholesale pages for months ... depressing. If I keep trying to patrol new articles and finding so much copyvio, I'll never have time to improve articles or mentor new editors ... ugh. OK, I'll redirect the middle school, thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I already did. I also added a warning to the user with wording that I find has sometimes served to convince people. If you like it, you're welcome to adapt it also. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! This is miserable work ... I didn't expect patrolling new medical articles to lead where it did :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You have to look on it as educating people, not a fixing bad articles, and then it becomes less miserable. At least, it does if they actually get educated--my satisfaction as a teacher was that two really responsive people per class were enough to make me feel useful; the experience of the Wikipedia educational program is that about one person in each class project goes on to become a regular editor; I think we probably do succeed in educating about 1 in 5 of the people who come here and start with copyvio or pure COI or other equally bad editing, so that is by those standards very worthwhile. (As a confirmation of the number, we keep about 40% of the submitted articles, and perhaps an equal number get screened out at afc or by the edit filter which = 20%) DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

okay; almost all the copy pasted from web articles have been removed; I will make sure to write without copy pasting from website next time. but i have a problem with Article "Tsenkharla Middle Secondary School" being redirected to "Khamdang gewog". Can you please help.

TshewangTgyeltshen (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

why? that's where the article says it is located, and the school is mentioned in the article on that group of villages. We usually do that sort of redirect/. Or is the problem that you think it should still be a separate article? It is rare that we keep an article on a junior high school, but possibly you have the references to show that it is particularly important. If you do, you can yourself replace that redirect with content, provided it is 1/ your own content, and 2/sourced to reliable sources. Unless those sources unambiguously show that the school is notable--which is possible--it may be a pioneering school, or started by a famous individual--the article will then be nominated for AfD, and =you can defend it there. If in doubt, try starting a page User:Tgyeltshen/sandbox, and writing it there -- then I'll take a look at it and give you my best opinion about the chances. But it will only be my opinion about what the consensus is likely to be at the AfD, and I can't guarantee it. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello sir,

Hi David, hope you are well. I'm not canvassing for any !vote or anything, (to be honest, I'm not sure which way you'd go if you had a desire to), but I was interested in your input on an AfD. My reasons for asking you directly are not only my respect for your views in AfD's over the years - but also your chosen profession (which deals with books and authors). Without further adieu, I shall drop said link:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transcendence: Healing and Transformation Through Transcendental Meditation

If you have the time or inclination to have a look, I'd be greatly interested in your thoughts. Thank you and cheers. — Ched :  ?  17:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

for the record: as I've frequently said, and as you have apparently noticed, for the variety of AfDs I get notified about, notifying me does not necessarily or even usually mean that I'll say keep. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And yet your views are always soundly based in logic and a firm understanding of policy. I try to never be above learning from those with more experience in any field. I'm just looking for some insight. :-) — Ched :  ?  19:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Ref list?

I'm far from being a newbie here.....but man, I just don't get "reflist" stuff. I put in loads of references all the time......I put them in manually....ok, great. What is a reference list and why would I want to use it? thanks for your help. Bddmagic (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

There are many acceptable ways to do references, but to avoid questions, it helps to do it the way most people do, unless there is a different system already in use in the article. When using the standard reference system , you put them each between a <ref> and a </ref> tag. Then to get them to display in a references section, you also add a section heading saying ==References== followed on the next line by either <references /> or {{reflist}}. The {{Reflist}} method has greater flexibility, see Template:Reflist; the usual one is to permit 2 columns in a reduced font size if there's a long list; use : {{Reflist|2}}

The easiest way to add references is to use Proveit, a relatively newly developed gadget; go to your user preferences, select "gadgets", and in the editing section, select "Proveit", and save. (You still need to remember to add a references section with the {{References}} tag. But I, like you prefer to add the references manually.

Looking at a page you recently edited, the main problem is that when you give the source of the quotations, you just gave the name of the periodical , e.g. " Boston Herald" . You must give a fuller reference, including at least the date, and if online, the url. Normally, also give the title and the author, e.g. .<ref> J. Smith, "Steve Dacri's new show" ''[[Boston Herald]]'' February 30, 2019 [http://www.whatever]. Date accessed: 2019-02-31. </ref> -- I've shown the standard punctuation, which is what I use; ProveIt does it a little differently. You can also add the quote in the reference in stead of the text, e.g. .<ref> J. Smith, "Steve Dacri's new show" ''[[Boston Herald]]'' February 30, 2019 p.A3-A4. "...a master magician with a quick wit. Standing ovations!"[http://www.whatever]. "...a master magician with a quick wit. Standing ovations!" Date accessed: 2019-02-31. </ref>. (If you don't have the online ref, leave it out; if you do not know the pages of the print, leave them out, but an ideal ref. has both. )

For a full description of all the possibilities, see Wikipedia:Citing sources DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Tremendous help!! Thanks!! Bddmagic (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

RSN, CRS report

Thanks for your input. I left you a brief follow-up question at the noticeboard. If you get a minute, I'd love to hear your opinion. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 06:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Postgraduate Schools UCSC

Can you check these pages?and resolve the problem with the title?the problem is about Hyphen (long or not long)... These are the page:

• ALMED – Postgraduate School of Media Communications and Performing Arts vs. ALMED - Postgraduate School of Media Communications and Performing Arts
• ALTIS – Postgraduate School Business & Society
• ASA – Postgraduate School of Environmental Studies vs. ASA - Postgraduate School of Environmental Studies
• ASAG – Postgraduate School of Psychology Agostino Gemelli vs. ASAG - Postgraduate School of Psychology Agostino Gemelli
• ASERI – Postgraduate School of Economics and International Relations
• SMEA – Postgraduate School of Agricultural and Food Economics vs. SMEA - Postgraduate School of Agricultural and Food Economics
• ALTEMS – Postgraduate School of Health Economics and Management vs. ALTEMS - Postgraduate School of Health Economics and Management

Thanks--79.31.158.37 (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I suspect the best course will be to use some other punctuation: For one thing, neither is correct according to our manual of style: we do not normally use spaces before and after em dashes or en dashes. Other European languages do, but not English. Looking at the various websites, I see they in general use one of two forms "ALTIS, Alta Scuola Impresa e Società" or "ALTIS (Alta Scuola Impresa e Società)"; of the two, the parenthesis is closer to what we usually do, so they should all be changed to that. the alternative would be "Alta Scuola Impresa e Società (ALTIS)" but putting the acronym first will work better if someone does not know whether to use the English or Italian title. I shall do it, making the necessary redirects. If anyone disagrees, they can revert me, &figure out where to discuss it. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the best form is ASERI Postgraduate School of Economics and International Relations. we remove - all the voices. What do you think?--87.9.61.66 (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Music of Canada

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Music of Canada. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC) ok, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.9.61.66 (talk) 10:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Transcendence: Healing and Transformation Through Transcendental Meditation

Thanks for your participation in the AfD. I also value your comments about the tone of the article. I have made some edits to give it a more neutral tone and added the sources listed in the AfD. If you have a moment could you take a look at it and see if there are any areas that you feel still need improvement? Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

a considerable improvement: had it been this quality originally, I doubt it would have been nominated for deletion. But I did remove a sentence of what amounts to name-dropping. DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

in general, for articles on books that advocate controversial topics, a quite modest article is best; an attempt to repeat the argument of the book will attract the opposition. This may not always seem fair or reasonable, but it's a practical way to do it. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks DGG, great tips and I agree with your removal of paragraph that reviewed the books acknowledgements. It was started by another editor and began to have a life of its own and in the end created undue weight for a single page in the book. Good edits, and thanks again for your help.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

John Tarrant

It looked like you intended to contest the PROD on John Tarrant, but forgot to remove the tag. As such, I removed the tag (and generally agreed with the assessment that it wasn't a clear cut case). I just thought you should know, it's now at AfD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Resource-based economy

I saw you were involved in an article with a title previously Resource-Based Economy the current article lacks outside citation or third party references, here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource-based_economy It looks like it was decided to speedy delete it before for copyright issues though it seems also to not be notable or sourced legitimately to outside or third party sources, its only self sourced with no indication that there are other sources available that are notable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Resource-based_economy

Thanks for checking this if you do, I have had no luck debating about the merits of the article information with the person returning the same self sourced information though have tried on the talk page. Its the section on Zeitgeist and J. Fresco Venus Project that is at issue this article may have been created for information related to that mostly it looks like. It could be spam in that sense. 175.100.40.163 (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

See my note on that talk page. It is not a neologism--there are hundreds of available references. It is better to check for sources, than speculate that there are none. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there are none for the disputed material being notable beyond self sourcing. Also it uses the same '-' between words which points it to only Fresco concept which is not notable. 175.100.40.163 (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you by any chance looked at any of the references on the topic and seen that all of them were talking about something else? I have not yet, but it seems clear from the summaries that they are talking about exactly the same topic as the article. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Postgraduate School UCSC

the official name on brochure is ASERI - Postgraduate School.....(http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/brochure%20Master%20ASERI%20International%20Cooperation%20and%20Development%202012.pdf) but if it is not correct I think the best form is ASERI Postgraduate School of Economics and International Relations. we remove - all the voices. What do you think?--87.9.61.66 (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

that page also uses just ASERI,. The official name would be the Italian one in any event, and they seem to show no consistency on the Italian language pages either. What the official legal form may be I have not yet determined, and is not relevant if they don't actually use it. It is equivocal matters like this that can give the longest debates , & I avoid participating in them. The real problem to me is with the acronym is that the acronym is the acronym for the Italian name -- it is meaningless in English, though they nonetheless use it. I'm going to go with your last suggestion (no punctuation) since it is better to do any one thing than discuss it further. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker): I've added the necessary hatnote at Aseri, as that's where you get to if you search for "ASERI". Presumably the other similar institutions also need hatnotes or dab page entries at the initialism or lower case version thereof. PamD 19:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

And at a quick glimpse ALMED should be a redirect, Altis needs a hatnote ... PamD 19:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The university uses acronym (for example ALMED ..) followed by the english name (postgraduate school of....ecec) in international website (http://www.unicattolica.it/brochure_istituzionale_ALTE_SCUOLE_inglese_bassa_ris_def.pdf)--Cormeun (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me as if the commonly used name is just plain "ASERI", with redirects to be provided from the "Alte Scuole.... " name and any other likely alternatives. Look at the director's welcome: http://aseri.unicatt.it/about_aseri/directors_welcome. He signs himself as "Lorenzo Ornaghi - Rector of the Università Cattolica - Director of ASERI". When I find a stub which has both the abbreviation and the title in the article title (in the way usually used in the lead sentence), I usually move it to one or the other, providing a redirect from the other. Are you sure, David, that these institutions ought to have both forms in the article title? Does anyone actually refer to it as "ASERI – Postgraduate School of Economics and International Relations", with whatever choice of punctuation? PamD 19:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I would be very reluctant to use an acronym that is meaningless in English as the only title of an article. Beytond that point, I do not think it matters, DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have seen the title of other schools. for example the business schools of spain uses the spanish acronym followed by "business school" or like in this case "postgraduate school" (ex:EAE Business School--79.31.3.251 so ASERI Postgraduate School of Economics and International Relations. --79.31.3.251 (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If you have time

Hey DGG, thanks again for the help on the Transcendence book. There is another short article that I created about a year ago Nancy Lonsdorf and recently made some changes to it. There is no controversy there but I just would like to have a second pair of eyes on it, to make sure its balanced. Do you think you might have time to give it a quick look? If you go there, could you please check my recent post on the talk page. I'd like some feedback on a source, I'm using. Thanks very much! Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

There are some additional books she wrote listed on WorldCat, [2], included multiple translations of one of her books. They should be added, because such translations are a good indication of notability--along with any available book reviews. I removed some material about her family, and a phrase in the intro which isn't needed. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Great, I'll add those books. Thanks for the prompt reply!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep the Lights On

Once a film has screened at a major film festival, it's "released" (and therefore sufficiently notable for an article) whether it's gone into general release yet or not. If it had been screened at the Dinky Little Local Film Festival in Podunkville, Iowa, then probably not — but if a film's been screened at Sundance, which is one of the most notable and prominent and influential film festivals on the entire planet, then that's more than good enough. Bearcat (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep the Lights On won the 2012 Teddy Award for Best Feature. I've added a few references. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, at least i had the sense to ask before I prodded it. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Prestige golfshire

This page is not anyway intending to adver the proj..its one of the landmark development in the indian city of bangalore..and m jus tryin put it forward as a civil engg projects..tats all..nothin more..if yo could help me with this tat would be wonderful..bcoz m findin diffic with infobox for a development like this, so have to put it in words..thanks. - Sayowais 5:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I did the necessary rewriting--see your talk page. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot..will update the page with reliable sources and other changes as you suggested very soon..will get back to yo to do a cross check after reqd changes..thanks again DGG - Sayowais 6:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your contribution to the article NXIVM!Chrisrus (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Birkenhead Public Library

Hi DGG. We should keep the article history intact when delisting Good articles. Also WP:GAR is the normal process to go through (individual assessments are fine). Generally we give editors time to fix any problems (although this is not always required). Just for future reference. AIRcorn (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Strike that. For GAR we should always give people time to respond. I will look into this more later (have to catch a bus), but am thinking it might be best to revert and go through the proper reassessment process. The main editor appears to be retired, but we should at least give it a chance to be saved. AIRcorn (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you should read the article first. As you say, the editor is long gone, so there is no point in giving people not here a time to respond, or else of course I would have communicated with him first. Nor do I think it fixable. It is so far from a GA by any formal or informal way of looking at it that it would take complete rewriting to even make a minimally acceptable article. I gave my reasons on the article talk p, as I would for any other major edit.

If you insist on a review, revert me and start one if you care to, & copy over what I wrote on the talk p.

In any case, when I have time to go back to it I shall cut the article back to a proper stub. What I do here is edit, and sometimes rewrite, and try to get rid of the utter junk. I always try to do something about any article I see of this abysmal quality regardless of what tag may or may not be on it. Some may think it limits me, but I am not willing to learn additional wikibureaucratic processes. I've learned to deal with XfD, but one briar patch is enough. I'd rather try to be as good as I can in what I specialize in. To use an analogy with that, a formal review for this is like asking for a full deletion review for a speedy deleted article which could never possibly make it. The controlling principles are NOT BURO and BRD and, if needed, IAR. DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Steady on. I am well aware that people specialise around here and that Good articles might not be your thing, but they are something I take quite seriously. I was offering advice on how the process works and while I am slightly disappointed that don't want to learn new processes I am not trying to force them down your throat. I will take you up on your offer and intiate a review. You never know who might come out of the woodwork to fix an article and I am sure that you will agree a fixed article is better than a delisted and tagged one. AIRcorn (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. You can find it here. AIRcorn (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Please don't get me wrong, I meant to to change the wording last night, but was too sleepy. There's a limit to what any one person can do, which is why people work on different things. Among the things I rarely do if they are beyond the trivial are GA/FA/DYK, images, CCI, SPI, MOS, Arb enforcement, and formal Mediation; the reasons vary. that I do not work on them is not to downgrade their importance; I work on what I work because this is where I opsersonally work most effectively, not because I think it more important than anything else. I indeed came here originally to upgrade the quality of articles, but have insensibly found myself working to improve the lowest stratum. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you fucking with me?????

Half of those articles are about events which did not happen for christ??? How fucking stupid are you? You are editing information you don't know shit about. Lenin was never General fucking Secretary, so why in gods fucking name do we have an article which says he was elected to that fucking post??? Seriously, why? You don't have an answer, oh, that probably, I don't know for sure, that those event did not happen......... Not fucking cear about civility if a stupid son of a bitch tries to ruin and fuck up wikipedia - learn about the topic before you actually enter a conflict, OK? --TIAYN (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry..... Bad day i guess. Short, you are keeping articles on events which never happen - if an event did not happen, we should have an article on it, should we? And these were not elections, rather appointments. Again sorry, but those articles can't be kept. --TIAYN (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Then use AfD and see if anyone argues against it, which is the advice Peridon also gave you. I'm not entering a conflict--I'm telling you to get explicit or implied consent, in order to avoid one. Speedy is intended for a particular types of deletion only, and there are many things that need to be deleted that must be deleted in other ways. I will not use speedy deletion for purposes that it is not intended for. If content is wrong, I can edit it as any editor can, but I cannot delete the article on my own account for that reason. Admins have no such power over subject matter disputes or errors. I do know that in the USSR, an appointment to a vacant position was often called an election, and that in Stalin's time there was very little difference. Sort of like in medieval England, when there was a vacancy in a bishopric, the king would send the canons who theoretically elected the next bishop a mandate to elect a particular person, called a congé d'elire. DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

John Glad

You added a bunch of links to WorldCat as references and described them as "3rd party references" that establish notability per WP:AUTHOR. While some of the books were available in some libraries, I'm not sure how this plays into notability ("cataloged in libraries" doesn't appear to be an element of the guideline). Additionally, none of the actual material of the article is referenced other than to his own work. We can stipulate that his demographic information may be accurate while referenced to him, but beyond that using primary sources to write the article is OR. Nathan ^T 23:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The bibliographic references prove his accomplishments; the cataloging is done by reliable third parties and establishes that he is the author of the works listed, and who it was that published them, and the number of libraries that hold them. The formal evidence that he meets WP:AUTHOR are the third party reviews of his works in academic journals which I cited. Supporting evidence is the publishers; academic publishers use peer review. Further supporting evidence is the number of libraries that hold them and the languages they have been translated into. This provides the necessary notability for WP:AUTHOR. It also establishes notability as an authority in his field by WP:PROF. It would be really peculiar that we could not establish notability for any full professor at Harvard; that's not a formal criterion, but I don't think any such has ever been deleted and almost none have ever been to AfD.

You will have no doubt noticed that these indexes of notability are much stronger for his earlier academic writings on Russian literary history than for his later writings on genetics. It is the academic work on literary history that establishes his notability. It would be somewhat more difficult trying to say that he notable based only on the work in genetics, but notability is not a criterion for article content. I presume it is the importance of the later works that concern you--would you have even thought to question the article if his career had stopped in 2000?

I have restored some of the material you removed. It describes the topics of his later books, and the languages they have been translated in, and WorldCat is an excellent third party source for this material. The books themselves will also serve as a suitable source for the actual content of the books, a third party source is no more needed for that than for describing the facts of a plot, I've left that out for the moment, because I haven't read them, and the best way to support the material is by quotations.

I can find the facts of publication in the journals you questioned, and his awards, and I suppose if you insist I shall have to do so. My opinion is there is otherwise not one thing in the article at present that is OR. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that he was ever a professor at Harvard, for what its worth. As for the texts; the most I think should be sourced to the books themselves is the barest description of their nature and topic. If his work hasn't been reviewed substantially by independent scholars, then it probably is not worthy of being described substantially in Wikipedia. Perhaps I missed the third party reviews you say you cited, can you point me to them again (or to where you mentioned them previously)? Nathan ^T 03:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The reviews are listed with *** after the respective books. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind being a little bit more specific? You mean they are listed after the ratings stars in the worldcat listing? If that's what you are referring to, I only see one worldcat record that lists reviews, and the two listed for that publication are not substantial or scholarly. Nathan ^T 18:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I mean in the article, in the bibliography section, where I list the books, under each book I have listed the reviews. Every one of them is from an academic journal. Some are short, but some are 3 or 4 pages long. DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Thor Heyerdahl

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Thor Heyerdahl. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucien (Mirbeau)

Any thoughts on the notability of this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I see a mass series of AFDs on recently created African films. Googling a few of them there do appear to be a few mention in sources. I awarded the creator a barnstar for his efforts and belief they met notability requirements. Any thoughts?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Abacus Data

Wikipedia:Deletion review suggests that one should "courteously invite the admin to take a second look". This is that courteous invitation. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

restored and sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abacus Data.I do not think the nomination that it has sometimes been cited by newspapers shows notability , but it could be considered a claim to significance. The community will decide. I will always honor a good faith request for an AfD decision on one of my speedies, unless it is truly hopeless. DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Cousens

I see the changes you've made so far and they look to be going in the right direction. One question about a piece you removed from the Reputation section from this reference which calls Cousens an "Internationally acclaimed health guru". Isn't it important to include as many of the direct statements of his prominence in the field in order to show notability? Thanks for your work on this so far. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

no, it's better to include a reasonable number. There are enough quote from noteworthy figures. Putting in every possible endorsement is promotional. and I have a good deal more to go--so far I have just been tightening it al little. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think we disagree here slightly. At the moment there is a dispute over whether Cousens notability outweights his request not to have an article. That's a life-or-death issue for the draft. (Also, You can see why I took issue with your characterization of the draft as not neutral at times, since there are certainly sections that include ample referenced praise about Cousens, and those balance the criticism and controversy). You made the initial judgment that this person is not that notable to support a long article. Though I understand the shorter-is-better approach in controversial articles, I would question how non-notable he in fact is, especially considering the additional sources that are popping up. Please take a hard look at the references to judge just how much coverage he's actually received, almost all of it noting that he's the leading expert in this (admittedly niche) field. I plan to keep adding sources in the interest of notability, but I fully support your efforts to synthesize and summarize them, and hope you continue to do that. Let me know what you think. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a middle ground is to still include these references but omit or tighten up the quotes and content from them, as I've tried to do in the Reputation section. Perhaps that will split things down the middle, sufficiently representing his notability but still being reasonable. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

One final note: I've also attempted to contact Cousens directly, in the hope that he will view this new draft as more fair and less threatening to him. In the interest of him being able to see a complete version--and the possibility of him changing his mind on how controversial or desirable an article this is--perhaps you'll take into consideration what you cut and what you do not. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me put it more clearly: I do not care very much what he wants to include or not include. The only time the person's opinion matters, is that we have the option of taking it into account in deciding whether to keep an article when the person is just above minimal notability. I have almost never supported using the option. Personally, I think we never should have included it as a formal rule, because it leads to the abuse of letting a subject select what they want to appear, by rejecting an article unless it is favorable, and people have from time to time advocated using it when the notability is not borderline, but still less than famous. If we follow this course, we will have fair articles about famous people, and biased positive ones about the middle important people if they care enough to take an interest. That is the end of NPOV, and makes us no better than the Who's Who in America series, which does exactly the same. I have once or twice supported (with consensus) taking the person's preference into account when it would be a matter of major evident unfairness if we do not do otherwise--I consider that essentially an IAR exception under the general principle of do no harm, which I consider a moral principle that transcends Wikipedia. I think in this case that is he notable enough that the option cannot be applied, and that removing it on the basis of do no harm does not apply either. DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've never doubted your opinion on subject requests, nor do I consider it germane myself, except in the most borderline of cases. It smacks of censorship. The reason I contacted Cousens was not to get his approval or make changes that he would find favorable, but because if he withdraws his objection then the deletion review will be a non-issue. Unfortunately, YouReallyCan and S Marshall, 2 or the 4 people who have commented (including myself) have voted to keep this article deleted. That means proving notability is of the highest order, although I agree with you that it should not be in doubt here. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 23:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess my request is simple. If you are going to cut/consolidate/synthesize/summarize, keep the references in the article to show notability if you can. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 02:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

yes, it makes sense to do that. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Advice regarding Arts Tasmania page

Hello DGG. In response to the removal of the Arts Tasmania page - thank you for your feedback, I can see how the content was not encyclopedic enough for Wikipedias standard and how the length was also not suitable. I still feel I have something to offer on this topic and would like to submit a much revised and shortened article. Would you want this to be done in a sandpit and proof read by yourself first or are you happy for it to be uploaded and reviewed by the general wikipedia community instead? Cheers, ovann86.

I've made a new page for you to use as a draft User:Ovann86/Arts Tasmania. Remember to be careful about copyright and Close paraphrase When you're ready, ask me or some other admin to look at it. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Zsuzsanna Budapest

Could you please take a look at this article? I believe I have eliminated the copyright problems, but I don't know what the next step is to delete the prod. I would appreciate any help you can give.Rosencomet (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I took care of it, but the "references " section is a list of additional reading s on all aspects of the subject. It should contain only the books that mention her and perhaps one or two of the best books on the general subject. You can probably trim them down better than I can. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to get to the references soon. Thank you very much for your help.Rosencomet (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Talk:U-8047_Replica_Submarine#Connection_with_trust.
Message added 18:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 18:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Weston (merchant adventurer)

Thank you so much. Mugginsx (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Crummock (Scotland) Ltd

Hi there

I note that you deleted Crummock (Scotland) Ltd, but Talk:Crummock (Scotland) Ltd lives on.

Cheers WhaleyTim (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It has gone - sorry to have bothered you. WhaleyTim (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mike Myers

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mike Myers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: World Association of Eye Hospitals

Noted, thanks. I think I misinterpreted the history of the article - there were a couple of occurances of the bot replacing already, which tends to set off red flags for me. =) I'll review the article tomorrow and decide if it's going to fall under AFD at this point, though given you're statement that it's been fixed, I'll defer to that for the prod. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 09:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of FutureChurch

Hello! I see that you have A7-deleted the article FutureChurch, which I and other editors worked on long ago, at 06:56 GMT 10 March 2012.

I would like to discuss the deletion with the deleters, but I can't do that intelligently without a copy of the deleted page. By any chance did you save a copy?

Long ago I knew a techique that allowed a non-admin to see the history of a deleted page but it doesn't seem to work anymore.

Personally, I wish that Wikipedia rules said that even A7 deletions require a 48-hour notice on the Talk page, but I'm just one lonely voice....

Thank you very much! — Lawrence King ^(talk) 23:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I've restored it to mainspace. Looking at it, it was not literally a speedy A7. I should have been more cautious with an article that had already existed 3 years. But I do not think it can stand without better sources; I was probably influenced by that, but I shouldn't have been. I think I make fewer errors than man admins, but I do make errors, and doing a lot of deletion of what is mainly utter junk tends to make one look at everything with a jaundiced eye. See what you can find; I'll hold off on AfD.

I agree most speedys could wait 24 or 48 hours, but not all. I'm concerned about is the promotional value of having something even temporarily in Google. I think if we wanted to wait, we'd need a rule that noindexed them to keep them out of Google, but since it takes a while for Google to remove from the index, possibly we might consider no-indexing everything for 48 hours, unless they've been patrolled; but considering the incompetence of most NPP these days none of this would be at all simple. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I share your concern: miniscule advocacy groups, unknown rock bands, brand new novelists, and bloggers often use Wikipedia to promote their new material. I hadn't thought of the Google angle. And in this case, there was an edit by the organization itself at one point, although that was reverted. Anyway, I'll investigate the notability of FutureChurch ASAP. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 02:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, I notice the resurrected page has no Talk page. I can't recall whether it used to have one, but if perchance you forgot to restore the Talk page and you can do so, many thanks (again). But as I said, it might never have had one in the first place. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 02:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

there does not seem to have been a talk page. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again! — Lawrence King ^(talk) 18:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

ipad picture

Hey DGG this ipad picture[[3]] says its own work when i can tell it is not because of the apple glare that is on it, but I don't know how to change it to non-free. DreamFieldArts 02:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

the file is on Wikimedia Commons, a media repository for all projects, not the English Wikipedia; it has to be discussed or deleted there-- see the Commons deletion procedure. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

So apparently he made it in photoshop so its fine. But I told the guy that the difference between that one and the other one is the retina display, which you can notice in one of the photos, while the other looks the same to the iPad 2. I don't want to get in an edit war with this guy, because I know the outcome will be bad. Mind helping me with this situation? Thanks DreamFieldArts 02:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Moved to talk page. Zach Vega (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That is indeed the place for the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Sir William Haldane-Porter

I'm sure you don't like my adding to your list of stuff, but I found some unusual references on an article "Porter family archive - unpublished" and "OPCS birth and death records" [4] so I asked the creator about it, The editor said "It is research taken from face to face contact with Porter's surviving grand-daughter. Not sure how to otherwise describe it." and I offered some advice.[5] explaining why we can't use original research, and recommending you as a contact if they needed help. That was almost a month ago and the diffs from before and after [6] don't show much change except the "refs" named were changed to not look like original research, by an anonymous IP. Not so much a rush, but it looks like a lot of self-admitted OR, and not sure the best way to proceed. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I've started following up there; the article shows the usual signs of OR and COI, & will be the better for some trimming. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Soliman redux

Hi. You and I discussed this article previously User_talk:DGG/Archive_61_Feb._2012#Abdel-Hady_Soliman here. I'd cleaned up the article as best I could as a lay person, but he has returned and added back his resume (guessing it's him past on 1st person). I just dropped him a note at User talk:86.96.60.136 but you have far more experience with academics, would you mind adding anything you feel necessary? This is not at all about notability, I think that's established as best it can be, it's more about explaining what Wikipedia is/not. I didn't want to template him and I wasn't sure thee was a good one that explained things well. I'm watching the article and the IP's talk, but not here. Thanks! StarM 23:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to explain, perhaps off wiki. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Coalition for Marriage CSD tagging

Hi DGG, comment regarding your tagging here, shouldn't that have been {{db-group}}? I didn't think it as falling under G11. I have since changed the criteria and am just letting you know, and clearing things up in my mind (you aren't typically an incorrect speedy tagger).--kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

yes,Isort of realized that after tag, but I hoped someone would clean it up before I got back to it - and you did. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Selina...again

This isn't calling attention to new problems, this is continuing the old disagreement. Even if she isn't "involved" in the discussion after making the section, I think that alone is issue enough. I thought we were past this whole thing and were going to go our separate ways, but I guess not. Silverseren^C 15:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

...and this. I don't think making singular comments in a discussion is actually raising points or staying out of the discussion overall. It just seems like gaming the unblock requirements. Especially when she's still going after me and others. *sighs* I really don't want to have to deal with this. Silverseren^C 19:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I have made an comment at the AfD , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement which should give my views plainly enough. I note your comment is not canvassing because, of course, I too watch Jimmy's talk p. along with the 100s of others. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean for it to be canvassing at all, since i'm not talking about the AfD, but about Selina. Silverseren^C 19:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Userified copy

I'm not sure what way the AfD is going to go at this point (though its looking Delete), but if it does get deleted, could you get me a userified copy of it that I can keep working on? I'm fairly certain more coverage will be forthcoming. And I can always work on the format too. Quotes are kinda too long in there. Silverseren^C 20:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

as it has not been deleted, you do not need me for this. You can copy the source code and call it a draft--and if you improve it during the discussion, you can go into the discussion and point people to it. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That's true. I didn't think of the simple solution. :P Silverseren^C 21:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Can't log in

I'm user "Unfree", but I've lost my password and e-mail account. Can you help me reclaim my Wikipedia account? 169.139.19.207 (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Our concern for user security and anonymity is so great that there is nobody at all who has access to your password. There is no practical recourse except to make a new account, and connect the two by notes on the user pages. You might want to use something like "Unfree2". You can do this yourself. If you consider your ip address confidential, you can then ask at WP:Oversight that your ip address here be hidden. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Dear User, you deleted one of my article, you said that it was advertisement. I disagree with this. It is a company in Thailand in the top ten. This is unfair. Maybe i made some appreciation, but I correct it easily. Why deleting without asking correction first ???? It's not the first time i'm writting on wikipedia, but I forgot my username of my other account. I've never been censored like this. If i made mistake, users aked me to correct, or to devellop, or to put some references. But never deleted. I think I will never write again on wikipedia. I agree it's an encyclopedia, but not a censored encyclopedia. Tyler Tylerdurdens2000 (talk) 08:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

first step before you leave is to ask me to reconsider. You are doing this. So let me look at it, & I'll get back to you this evening. DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the article, not for no indication of importance, but because it was too highly promotional. I've decided, however, that some editing will fix it, so I have just undeleted it, and will do some edits. I don't have time to rewrite as much as I would like to, but I'll do this one. I may need some help; if so, I'll ask at the article talk p. I think you will find that about 1/2 of the admins here at least will restore an article for a good faith request if there is any chance for it. But remember that anyone here may still list it at WP:Articles for Deletion, in which case the community will discuss it and decide. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Big Bang Theory (disambiguation)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Big Bang Theory (disambiguation). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you please take alook at this ?

User:MBisanz has requested suggestions as there is a requirement for new crats.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Suggestion_for_new_crats You are one of the senior most Wikipedians and one of the most highly respected . Would you be interested in being nominated for cratship ? Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Your praise is very much appreciated, but I think I'm more needed to focus on both the promising good faith new users and the less promising promotional ones --and their articles. There's no reason to have a crat who wouldn't be able to help very much. A year or two ago, I might have said that RfA closing were erratic enough that some new people might need to join in, but they've been going fine for a while now without me. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 1998

So I know you have everything up to 1999 up, are you gonna be able to do 1998? Arjoccolenty (talk)

Wrong guy, I think; I have never worked on articles in this subject field, DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

List of most highly populated countries

What the heck are you trying to do here? I consider your entirely arbitrary move of an article undergoing an AfD which was clearly going to result in deletion as an attempt to disrupt the process. I ask you to revert. If you do not, I shall act accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to revert. You of course can. I changed the article title to reflect the article: it is not a list. It may of may not be acceptable, or it may be OR, but it is not a list. Those voting because they think it a list are giving non policy based and non fact based reasons, and if it is deleted under that misunderstanding, it will be very likely overturned at deletion review. What it needs is to have the discussion continuing with the proper question, whether it is unfixable OR, or based on sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You are right. It isn't a list. It isn't an article either. As for the rest of your comments, they are bullshit. You haven't given any 'fact based' or 'policy based' reasons for your actions at all. The AfD was clearly going to end in deletion, and you have chosen to side-track it in order to score some sort of WP:POINT. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

the AfD did end in deletion. I made an error--I should have done the rename much earlier. DGG ( talk ) 16:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The administer who closed it did so in direct response to a (unfortunate) comment about "incredulous deletionists." There is probably a case to be made that he did not make his close from a neutral starting point, although I doubt it is worth contesting given the numbers.

Andy, your attitude of assuming bad faith is not conducive to a collaborative environment on Wikipedia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Thaddeus: it is not worth contesting. Not because of the numbers, because it would be possible to argue that most of the opinions were irrelevant, but simply because the article being discussed was simply not worth it. I'm not interested in scoring points. If anyone is unhappy, there is a much better course, which is to rewrite it in such a way that deletion review would not be needed. (The closing admin very reasonably suggested a history merge). I've done considerable work at deletion reviews, and my experience leads me to think it is usually better to find a way around it, except when a decision seems to cut off the possibility of an article on an important subject, or the admin decision was so very wrong (or part of so significant a course of error) that a public overturn would be helpful. DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Wilkins lumber

Hi DGG, I saw you declined a speedy delete for this page on the grounds of "has references for historical significance". The first source is a directory of New Hampshire lumber yards that provides only basic contact and business info. The other two links are broken. The text itself doesn't assert any importance beyond that of the lumber yard itself. I figured on AfD'ing this, but wanted to get your opinion first. Thanks, and I hope you have a great day. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I applaud your efforts at improving the article, but I still don't see a notability assertion. Could you tell me how you think the subject is notable? --Fang Aili ^talk 18:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

As you can see, i added a historical reference--long standing companies are usually notable from that way of looking at it DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Norwegian sociologists

Thanks for your help with these articles. D1c2 (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Your interactions with DreamFieldArts

Hi DGG, from past sessions I've noticed that you very actively follow the activities of DreamFieldArts and I get the feeling that DFA is ignoring all your comments, advises and even clear instructions.
After earlier comments I made on his talk about deleting and editing other peoples comments on his page I added today a new section on DFA's talk page. If you are still seeing it as (one of your) 'tasks' to assist DFA in becoming a trustworthy and useful Wikipedian you might want to comment on my posting as well. Cheers, Tonkie (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

there are a number of people whose work I pay attention to, too many to follow continuously, and I don't use any fixed rotation. I tend to look at whomever has been attracting my attention anywhere, and go where the trail leads. Sometimes i see who is most active on the watchlist; sometimes I go to NPP and look for something new. what I like here is the variety of approaches. DFA has not been my major concern the last week or so. I tend to not keep watching problems, but to do something, and wait till they resurface. I took a look, and it seems that he's doing useful work; I hope it continues. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

@DGG: Yes, it is because I also do think he is doing useful work that we (meaning the Wikipedia community in general) should try to "keep him on-board". You showed loads of patience with him and I assume this is/was because you do think that he does good work, or at least tries to do good. If I didn't believe in his good intentions I wouldn't even put in any effort in trying to correct 'bad behavior': I will make one comment and then ignore such a person. Anyway: thanks -on behalf of the community- for the time and patience you did put into this guy. Tonkie (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS advice

Hi, On Talk:International Journal of Transpersonal Studies someone suggested that your advice would help. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

responded there; this is not as straightforward as it looks. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

UFC 149 AfD merger discussion

You closed out the UFC 149 AfD saying the article should be merged into a "list of" kind of article. The template on the UFC 149 page directs discussions to Talk:Undetermined. I'm not quite sure that was the best place for me to start a discussion of a possible merge, so I created one in the MMA Wikiproject talk page here. Is it possible to have the template direct to that discussion? I looked at {{Afd-merge to}} and it didn't look like it was possible. If you have other suggestions, let me know. I'll keep an eye on your talk page. Thanks --TreyGeek (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You are right that the template cannot do it. Rather than write a new template, I wrote a manual message to direct as you suggested. If you want to put it into a box, etc., feel free, but I think italics are sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If you have a chance, would you be willing to review the discussion on this issue here. One editor's interpretation of your closure comments suggests redirecting UFC 149 to List of UFC events which already includes an entry for the event. (That could possibly be the easiest resolution.) There has been some discussion of creating "year in UFC events" articles. A couple editors are claiming we don't have to, or shouldn't, merge or redirect UFC 149 contrary to your closure comments. Thanks. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

inre this discussion

I do appreciate that as the verifiable directorial debut of a notable person, this article meets a criteria of WP:NF, and that it does have coverage... but I ask that you take a look at this edit and consider that a "redirect" is pretty much okay for now just so long as there is no prejudice toward a recreation of the article if/when more sources become available AND as long as the returned article be properly sourced and maintain a properly neutral tone. Reasonable? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

my bias is generally towards a single article in cases like this of borderline notability and a single major work, and the article being on the person, not the work. (The rationale is that the person is likely to do more work, and thus the article will be a place to add it. DGG ( talk ) 22:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Vehicle registration plates of Brazil...

...and all the other sovereign states listed in the template have a problem. Namely, no citations. My instinct says that the information is encyclopedic, but I'm no expert in these cases. I have no reason to doubt the information, and the overall format and prose isn't bad just needing sections. I have tagged for refs some time ago, but felt an experienced admin should take a look at these simply because of the volumes of (useful but unreferenced) information being created. Some date back to 2007. Or if this is something that you feel should be ignored and just tagged until sourced, that's ok, too. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

nor am I able to work in this area. What's needed is to find someone who is. DGG ( talk ) 23:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Then I will try to find someone more familiar, unless you can recommend someone. Thanks for at least looking at it. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Colonel Warden

Apologies if you are already aware, but I though you would like to know that Colonel Warden is the victim of a highly unjustified and unreasonable indefinite block. There is a discussion about this on the ANI board: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Colonel Warden.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

he's now been unblocked by another ed., with essentially unanimous agreement; it now remains to deal with the admin doing the block. I am a little puzzled, because much though I disagree with that admin both in detail and general approach to Wikipedia, this is much weirder on several levels than anything I recall from any admin: blatant involvement; incident 8 days old; block for a reason given in deprodding when any deprod reason is acceptable; block for the reason being false when it was both technically correct and totally justified; continuing lack of understanding that it was wrong; intention of the admin to continue to pursue the grievance against the editor; continuing violation of NPA even in the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes all very odd. And the endless comments about "deceit" on the ANI have merely served to confirm beyond any possible doubt that there is a highly personal aspect to all of this. The individual in question has obviously never heard, or at least heeded, the phrase "when you're in a hole, stop digging". Rangoon11 (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Please unlock.

Hello! Please unlock http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universiteti_i_Prishtin%C3%ABs&redirect=no, it is closed since 2008! :) per the outcome of the discussion at Talk:University of Pristina, Talk:University of Pristina/RfC: split proposal. I saw that you are online in HAU. --WhiteWriter^speaks 11:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

done. DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

UFC 149 should be fully restored

The UFC has announced the event in Calgary, and has stated that Jose Aldo will defending his featherweight title there in the main event.

http://www.sherdog.com/news/news/UFC-Announces-Fall-Events-in-Toronto-Montreal-Aldo-Officially-Headlines-July-21-Event-in-Calgary-41265 Glock17gen4 (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

For more contextual information, four days ago you closed out an AfD in regards to UFC 149 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149) stating that it should be merged to some other article. After a discussion at the MMA WikiProject, it was determined to redirect UFC 149 to List of UFC events. Today, a number of editors have been wanting to undo the redirect. UFC 149 contains the redirect at the moment, and the contents of the article under it. I believe Glock is asking your opinion about removing the redirect and keeping the rest of the article's contents. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection, if the new material is immediately added. If anyone wants to start another AfD, they can do so. DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Re:Speedy deletions

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Sleddog116's talk page.
Message added 05:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Boruch Szlezinger

As the deleting admin, would you comment at WP:REFUND#Boruch Szlezinger? The situation has been confused by suspicions of sockpuppetry, but I think the article should maybe be restored and sent to AfD. JohnCD (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

as it happens, I was able to relay an informed comment. DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Monique Mbeka Phoba

Thanks for un-speedying this one. A quick search would have shown the nominator there were masses of sources. A hostile notice like this could make a new editor decide not to contribute any more, even if the nomination were rejected. Blatant copyvios, personal attacks and other damaging stuff should be removed quickly. With other new articles it might help to enforce a 24-hour grace period before any speedy delete nomination is allowed. Just grumbling - the process is unlikely to change.

I see you commented on Ekal Vidyalaya. Good luck!  :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

the process of dealing with new articles is very likely to change in some way. After all, it almost changed in the most drastic of all possible ways, of disallowing it for new editors. We will get the messages modified, but it's a very slow process. No matter how we modify them, the true difficulty is that most of the time it really needs a personal message customized for the actual problem and the recipient (not a machine-written message designed to pretend it's customized--few contributors are naïve enough to fall for that one), and there are a relativelt small number of people who can do this well, and a much smaller number who actually bother, and nobody at all, including myself, who always has time & patience to do it properly, let alone follow up on it. (In the previous week alone I know I didn't do this right at least twice where I know from the messages we have lost a potentially good person) The 24 hour problem is much more complicated than it looks: Some things need to be deleted immediately (and any rules we make for that, someone will abuse them); The promotional effect of having an article here is so great that we'd have to NOINDEX everything to keep it off Google the 24 hours; And to effectively communicate with a new user, we have to do it while they are still here, and for many, that means at the first edit. Basically most of what I do these days us try to patrol the beginning new page patrollers.

As for Ekal Vidyalaya, I may not get anywhere, & it may be too frustrating to pursue it, but at least my opinion is on record on the talk p. and on WP:RS for someone to follow it up later. DGG ( talk ) 15:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• I can see that changing the speedy process would open up all sorts of issues. Too bad. Ekal Vidyalaya seems to just be one of those controversial topics that will never get resolved into a stable compromise. Not all that important in the scheme of things. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Remarks about an -imho- overactive NewPagePatroller

Hi DGG,
I saw that you were involved in a Speedy Deletion Nomination (SDN) on the article about Csongor István Nagy from User Lovehongkong. The SDN came from User:DreamFieldArts, and he had also nominated my article on the former CEO of ABN AMRO where he was the main driver for the sell-off of the bank to a consortium of banks: Royal Bank of Scotland Group, Fortis and Banco Santander. This sale was one of the additional reasons why both RBS as well as Fortis collapsed at the beginning of the Banking problems - leading to the current economic downturn in the US and Europe. Although DFA did remove the SDN when I started a discussion with him I do have problems with his attitude.

I really don't think he is the right person for NPPer. In my initial mail to him (or her - didn't check) I made the comment that Rijkman Groenink might not be known in the US and he directly reacts as stung by a wasp with: The fact that you believe everyone in America is a 13 year-old girl is depressing. None the less he is on the Netherlands Wikipedia because he has some importance to it, while on the English he has none. Even if he does, (I have been proven wrong) have some significance, it is not needed. Many people have done what he has, but aren't on Wikipedia

Another problem that I do have is that he deletes comments made on his Talk page (I had to search really good to find back the Deletion request Rijman Groenink version where he made above comment, and also came later with an explination why Kevin O'Leary is notable and Rijkman Groenink wouldn't be (Kevin O'Leary is also Shark in TV program Shark Tank (see THIS version of his Talk page) (also note the difference in the entire Talk page taking into account that there are only 2 hours between those two pages)).

According to himself he hardly ever uses the SDN process, but when you look at his contributions many SDN's can be seen. And his Talk page only consists of SDN comments (there aren't that many on his Talk page as he deleted older/completed discussion threads on his Talk page. (and worse: he removes text in current threads). There is also a formal Mediation request from User: Bill shannon in regards to DFA. (ah: you are in on that as well)

But what struck me the most was his 'its my job and it will never change' statement (not sure if it is still at his current talk page - but if not you can find it HERE (comment: That's my job, and it will never change. DreamFieldArts 13:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC))

After that point in time I also can be blamed for coming close to personal attack: although I do think that it must be clear that I'm exaggerating and being sarcastic; but I started to loose my patience and could hardly believe what I was reading.

I do refer to the 5 pillars of Wiki, and especially Assume Good Faith: and also with DFA I do assume that he is just doing his best but if he truly thinks that his role as NPPer is the same as a teacher who rips up a paper made by one of his students because it is crap I really don't think he is fit for the job. If my first article had been controlled by DFA I probably would have stopped contributing anything to Wiki ever again. He even tells that he has experienced the same thing, so he knows the feeling, and in the same sentence he says it his his job to 'rip up a paper' and say that it 'is crap'.

I do appreciate that NPP is not the nicest job in the world; but I do think that a NPPer should be very aware about 'new users' (I'm not in that catagory: but as he doesn't seem to do much research when he nominates a SD - other then on articles about persons to check if they had a TV show on top of their 'main' job....); so I can hardly imagine that he checks if the user who wrote the article he nominates for SD is a new user or not.

Could you as (far more) experienced Wikipedian give him some good guidelines and tips: as said, I do assume that DFA handles in good faith: but the way he is working now is really not healthy. Thanks a lot, Tonkie (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah: I see that you already contacted him and that he did extensively answered to your comments. Thanks :-)

While I was writing above letter to you I did see that you already contacted him on his role as NPPer but because above text was nearing completion I decided to post in

New page patrolling; DreamFieldArts

As per your discussion with me at 01:29, on 9 March 2012 (UTC), you said, "I am giving you a two week ban, running through March 23, from new page patrol, from page moves without clear prior consensus, and from tagging articles for deletion except in cases of clear vandalism or copyvio." I took this very seriously, as I knew I was doing something extremely wrong. Knowing the only thing I could do was to just stop new page patrolling, as that seemed to be where the problem was diverting from. As I have read from some of your discussions^{1, 2, 3}, you say that I am doing much "better at my job," and Tonkie agreed with this statement, and I felt very complacent about it. Since I am becoming better at what I am doing on here, on 00:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC) I will reclaim my position as a new page patroller. Even though I am very avid about being able to be a new page patroller again, I know I need to be careful about what I do. Now for the first few days, I will patrol lightly, until I feel that by success rate is 95% or higher. Being a new page patroller on Wikipedia is a very important job, and should be taken seriously. With out new page patrollers, there would be havoc on here. (spam, hoaxs, etc.) If you believe that I have done one thing wrong, please do not hesitate to tell me, and to handle the situation appropriately. DreamFieldArts^Talk 21:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I really appreciate that you let me know, and I'll keep in touch with what you do. Remember that part of the job is to not miss the really major problems. Many promotional articles are in fact copyvios, and that's always a sound reason for deletion. A page marked as patrolled without sufficient checking is worse than not patrolling it. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Review content for 'Arts Tasmania' wiki page

Hi DGG - I was hoping you could review the content for the 'Arts Tasmania' wiki page which is current in my sandbox. I've taken your advice on board and this time kept it short and concise.

I would appreciate if you could review the content and advise if it is now appropriate for inclusion as a live wikipedia page.

My sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ovann86/sandbox

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ovann86 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Perkins Engines and Perkins Engines Company Limited

Hello DGG, it appears that when you moved Perkins Engines Company Limited to Perkins Engines, the page history was deleted. Perkins Engines Company Limited now redirects to Perkins Engines, but Perkins Engines is now a self redirect. It appears that you deleted the page in order to complete the page move. Could you please restore the page history when you have the time. Thank you, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Perkins Engines

Hi, thanks for doing the G6 deletion in respect of the above. It looks like something went wrong with the page move though, I would be grateful if you could take a look. Thanks.Rangoon11 (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Apologies read the post immediately above this after I posted. Rangoon11 (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

GD23

Hi DGG

You edited a page I worked on, and I would love to go over a few things in order to improve the page. I also would love to learn how to improve things for going forward. I do not want any of work to be deleted, so I am reaching out to you on how to proceed.

Thanks GD23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GD23 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hope of Jesus Children's Home article

I wrote the subject article in August. My position with such a deletion is it seems better to put an article's fate up to discussion a few days, rather than immediately delete it. Perhaps someone could find reliable independent sources to add to this article. When I wrote it, I found nothing independent at the time. I hate writing articles that provide only one source for the info in them. Since then, I have met at least six persons who have been to the home to help improve structures and build new ones. Since Wikipedia does not allow original research I probably could get a few persons to provide info they gathered.

Bill Pollard (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I've put it back, since you think it can be sufficiently improved; after a few days, I'll list it for AfD if it hadn't been. I will always restore almost any deleted article for a good faith request.

But I deleted it for promotionalism as well as lack of indication of importance: it appeared to me as a request for donations. When I restored it just now, I removed a US contact address that is inappropriate promotional content as a start towards improving it, and added the external link to their website, where such information is appropriate. What is needed for notability is not people contributing accounts of their own experience, so I suppose you mean local news sources; the rule for whether they will be sufficient is WP:LOCAL. Looking again at the article, perhaps it could better be turned into an article for the red-linked sponsoring agency Hope for His Children International; if they have multiple projects, there is likely to be more material. I also notice the page for the other sponsor, South American Missionary Society has no information about activities later than 1887. DGG ( talk ) 14:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Samanta article

Thanks for the kind words about the article you left on my talk page. I jumped into it based on a post on a noticeboard and ended up in rather more than I was expecting. I think it's only the second time I've seen the article subject directly mention and attack me in an article or blog. An interesting learning experience for me, all-in-all, trying to get the right balance on a subject that has SPA's on both sides. If you wouldn't mind, I would appreciate you userfying the article. I think there's a chance of it eventually being article worthy with some more digging and research, looking for sources with a broader, national scope. Of course, if their lawyers keep up their anti-Catholic vitriol in their bankruptcy cases, it might end up with more exposure from that! Once I think I've got something viable, I'll contact the regular editors in the AFD that voted for delete and ask them to review it. Thanks again! Ravensfire (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

done. Now at User:Ravensfire/Samanta Institute of Science and Technology, DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Self-reference

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Self-reference. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Oddities

I happened to notice this. I hope that you'll get a thoughtful response, and that an earlier experience of mine was atypical. (Uh, yes, what do you think about the need for templates at the head of Hans Marchand?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I did what I thought needed to be done about the Marchand tags. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolution

David, you said,

... -if it said the inverse, "click here to see how to show the images" , as in the ill-fated and community rejected WMF resolution, ...

The WMF resolution does not say that. It calls for an image hiding feature that would be inactive by default, and that the user would have to specifically enable (hence opt-in filter).

(I also want to say that, given that we have hardcore porn available through the Wikipedia interface, up to and including a film showing sex with a trained dog [7], the absence of any kind of filter is bound to bring this project into disrepute sooner or later.) JN466 08:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

1. As proposed, once one has opted into the system, all images in a category are hidden. Whether to call this opt in or not is a little ambiguous. Fortunately the details don't doesn't matter, as we're not going to be doing any of this.
2. But you might have pointed out that my willingness to accept a button for the Mohammed page leading to instructions for hiding the images on it, is contrary to my general principles. So it is: it's a deliberate exception I'm not comfortable with, a compromise to avoid damaging conflict on a particularly culture sensitive issue (not that the zealots will accept it as sufficient, but at least it shows them as unreasonable.)
3. The only way I think acceptable of handling the problem in general is for all pages to have a button for a test-only view, which has virtues for other purposes also. I'd also let an editor select it by preference. And also, anyone who chooses can fork a text only encyclopedia, or even an encyclopedia without the images in any particular articles. If you wish to make a fork without what you consider pornographic content, nothing is stopping you: your liberty is not being interfered with.
4. That particular image is used in no articles. But I think the discussion about it may soon reach a point that there is enough discussion in RS non-wp sources to justify one. I doubt that's what you've intended, but it's what those of your view may have accomplished. Myself, such films do not interest me, though I sometimes encounter such on the internet, so I do not play them and thus they never bother me in the slightest. There is a good deal of coverage in the encyclopedia of things I consider disgusting, as there should be, because I might nonetheless want to learn about them. What people, especially children, may need to be protected from are horrible real things, not images of them. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

1. The point is, it only says what you say it says if (and after) the user voluntarily activates it.
2. I might have mentioned it if I had thought there was any necessity to reassure you. The above wasn't meant as criticism. I always appreciate and respect your perspective, even where I disagree with it.
3. We should have pornographic content. But we should handle it according to mainstream views of what is a responsible way of handling pornographic material. Making bestiality porn available unfiltered to all comers on the world's no. 5 website does not fit the bill.
4. I'm not worried if the mother of all Streisand effects causes a billion page views for that dog video. The point is not to prevent people from seeing the video. It is to demonstrate that we are embracing a fringe position. Regards. --JN466 09:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

1. The entire concept of freedom of expression is a fringe position in a good deal of the world; a few years ago the respectability of a user-content encyclopedia was fringe concept everywhere; to avoid using it in a content where we are discussing a non-porn subject would be using it inappropriately. (that we have sometimes done so is indeed irresponsible. I think avoiding that is what we should be working on.) DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

DRV of Andre Barnett

Hi DGG, You voiced your opinion on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andre_Barnett, a discussion I closed, and it's currently at DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#25_March_2012. I'm notifying you of the discussion on behalf of User:Valenciano, who can't notify you because of a problem with his connection. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

commented there DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The Exodus conundrums

Hi DGG: There is still much discussion about what the article about what The Exodus should be. If you are able, please see the discussions at Talk:The Exodus#Historicity issues and Talk:The Exodus#Article outline. There is an important need for editors knowledgeable about Judaism's and classical Torah views on this subject. Most of the discussions lack this and would benefit from your knowledge and input in this regard. Thanks! IZAK (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Question on Columbo broadcast history

I think your decline of my A10 is reasonable. I am thinking about taking it to AfD, but I'm not quite sure. I got involved in this article through an ANI complaint about User:B3430715. I disagreed with the majority of the complaint, but that article creation struck me as a problem. Technically, it's not A10, because it's not actually a copy of something currently in Wikipedia; rather, it's a copy of a section from Columbo that was removed by consensus at Talk:Columbo/Archive 1#Proposal to delete section. Is a user creating a new article to avoid consensus on removal a legitimate deletion rationale (which, I should note, B3430715 did not participate in)? Or does the article need to be measured on its own merits? In other words, if there was already consensus that the information falls under WP:TRIVIA, is recreation of that information as a stand-alone article a violation of consensus, or just a bold move to try to preserve information (note the edit summary the user used to create the article, "why remove things done by the earlier people?") If the latter, then I'll probably leave it alone, because I have a terrible track record with nominating List articles for deletion (basically, I don't understand the current consensus on which list articles are acceptable and which aren't, so I pretty much just have to ignore them). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:POV fork? - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not what is meant by a POV fork. It's not a question of POV, but whether to include detailed material of releases in different countries, and where to put it. Almost any opinion is defensible. My feeling is that for questions like this, leaving the status quo alone is a very wise solution. This is not the sort of question where we have a stable consensus. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

By status quo, you mean deleting the article? Since that was the most recent discussed status quo, as far as I can see at the original article's talk page. Or do you mean, the de facto status quo created when a new editor ignored the previous consensus? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I mean that the only real question is whether or not the content is appropriate. The question of whether it should be divided between one or two articles is trivial--it is simply not worth arguing about in most cases, including this one. It doesn't matter. As for how much should be copied in just a split, there's no general rule-- sometimes there is no duplication sometimes a good deal it. My own preferences is to have at least some duplication, but I never try to change what I find. By status quo, I really mean a policy of laissez-faire--whatever it done about split whether making it or combining it, it is not worth changing, fixing, or arguing about. Whatever other people do about it, let them do it. The debate should be over what content to include in the first place, not where to put it. (I personally consider country by country production or release detail useful if the work is popular enough, but not justified for routine inclusion. It's not the sort of content dispute I would personally bother with.) DGG ( talk ) 11:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Please help out at the Paid Editor Help page

While not a huge backlog yet, we're getting to it on the Paid Editor Help page. The sections that need replies include Colin Digiaro, Guy Bavli, Strayer University, Stevens Institute of Technology, and a general backlog in the Request Edits category. If you could help in any of these sections (primarily the first four), I would be really grateful. This notification is going out to a number of Wikiproject Cooperation members in the hopes that we can clear out all of the noted sections. And feel free to respond to a section and help out even if someone else had already responded there. The more eyes we get on a specific request, the more sure we can be on the neutrality of implementing it. Thanks! Silverseren^C 03:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help. We need more members to be involved on the Paid Editor Help page if we're ever going to get that process to work. Silverseren^C 01:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Columbo episode history list

You should be aware that User:B3430715 is only trying to create a new article out of material that was properly rejected from Columbo. Qwyrxian requested speedy deletion to which it appears you responded[8]. I have tried to discuss this in general with Q., but have such a bad history with B3 that I have backed away - and I notice B3 has since ceased all activity on WP.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

the solution for this is AfD. Just explain the case, and people will presumably decide properly. If he should come there, let him have his say--there will be no need to reply. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. A great idea, good advice.—Djathinkimacowboy 04:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149

As the admin who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149 can you watch list UFC 149 as some editors keep undoing the redirect. Mtking ^(edits) 06:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

DGG has already addressed this matter here and apparently believes it needs another AfD. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine, another AfD it is then ..... Mtking ^(edits) 20:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I said, to clarify it, that in view of the information I had no objection to a separate article, and if anyone wanted to delete it, they would need another AfD to do so. not believe it needed an AfD, I said it needed an AfD if someone wanted to delete it. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, in my haste to comment, I put words in your mouth. I intended to say "... and apparently believes it needs another AfD to handle the situation further". At least in terms of whether the consensus in the original closing AfD from a couple weeks ago is to be upheld. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

yes, that's right, unless you want to leave things be. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

i've been blocked

Hey DGG this is DreamFieldArts Apparently I have been blocked, because they think that my account was a company account. But it is not. I uploaded an image as a banner for my user page, and i subconsciously wrote "company's logo." You know that I am not irresponsible on here and should be unblocked You know I am not using a name of company. Please unblock me DGG thanks! here is the link talk page. I hope that you unblock me DGG thanks. ~DreamFieldArts~ Tricdl27 (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellectsoft

DGG, I notice you often !vote keep in AfDs. as an experienced editor i do wonder why like in this case, then the other person to !vote keep was one with a vested interest. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

While you may not agree with the rationale DGG presented, and indeed it may have been in the minority, this was a case where he or she explained their argument out. The !vote, while not necessarily right or wrong, certainly wasn't just baseless or disruptive or anything; the logic behind it was explained. I'm not sure why your talk page was on my watchlist, forgive me if my comments here are unwanted.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yaksar, I never mind people watching & commenting; but I also am never displeased when someone comes here to question my position. Sometimes it even means they are hoping I will defend it further :).

When an editor with COI strongly defends a borderline article, the usual result is it gets deleted, unless there is a strong interest group supporting the article. This is the response nowadays to the increasing amounts of promotionalism--to simply throw out anything that smells like promotionalism, rather than rescue. There are two reasons for it, one semi-rational. The semi-rational one is that people think they will be supporting the promotionalism if they take the trouble to make a keepable article out of it. The one which is not even semi-rational is that the people who do it should be punished. I can explain it, but I can't defend it, but I recognize it's the current mood to the extent that very few people seem able to resist it. .

Myself, I am not at all abashed to support an article nobody else will support. I will do it particularly when one of the arguments raised for deletion is particularly wrong. In this case, the bad argument, was that we should be reluctant to accept articles on these topics, as proposed in the essay User:Ihcoyc/The presumption of non-notability for Internet related, computing, and services businesses The refusal of Wikipedia to cover the commercial world exemplified by that comment and the apparent acquiescence in it is an utter disgrace. To hear someone actively supporting it as a policy--worse, to hear someone actually saying with approval "It seems to me like the general consensus is reflected by B2B, and many editors here are casting their !vote on some related basis." is likely to attract my opposition. Nobody may listen at the time, but I have found over the years that often they do eventually. I thank you for asking me about this, because I hope people do start to notice before the situation deteriorates further. I can't follow up myself everything I don't like--it is much too frustrating. I think most people deal with what they think wrong by not protesting at all, but I've never been able to do that. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Targeted and low-threshold primary health care outlet

Please re-evaluate the "newsrelease" tag that you placed on this article. I believe that I have succeeded in toning down the proselytizing tone of Feeha's original text and in eliminating the non-NPOV issues by describing accurately the views expressed by those opposing needle exchange programs. However, WP:NPOV doesn't mean giving all ideas equal time. Its WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT sections requires us to be clear when views have only minority acceptance in the field. I believe that I have been fair in my rewrite. Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is greatly improved; I removed the tag. There does remain som tone advocating the importance of these facilities--we usually try for a plain statement of what they do & let the reader infer why they're important. But the other problem is what looks like specific promotional jargon for the title: What is needed is some documentation for the actual use of the title term from different sources--as it is the title of none of the references, I wonder whether it might not be just a preferred term in some particular system (it would in particular be important to know specifically what the terminology is in different countries). I'm puzzled at the inclusion of the word "outlet" in the title-- would "Targeted and low-threshold primary health care facility" or even "Targeted and low-threshold primary health care" be better? If there are alternative terms, the ones not chosen for the title should be cross-references. It also needs to be clarified how this is a separate topic from "Risk reduction program" or ?needle exchange program" or "harm reduction healthcare". DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I've discussed with Feeha the title - yes, it is a truly awful title, and the article needs to be renamed. I'll be reading up on the process. I've done a split in Earth Microbiome Project, and I've done a merge in J. Craig Venter Institute, but never a renaming before.

"Low-threshold primary health care" refers to programs that go beyond simple needle exchange to include comprehensive healthcare services, and it seems that this needs to be emphasized in the first few lines. I just let my wife read the article, and she, too, had a bit of confusion. Over 95% of the peer-reviewed literature focuses on the needle-exchange aspects of such programs, mentioning other services only in passing. There is practically nothing attempting to examine cost-effectiveness of comprehensive low-threshold healthcare services. Is there really a need for integrated facilities? Apparently yes, but is does definitive evidence there that they are cost-effective? No.

You are right, there definitely strong overlap with articles such as Needle-exchange programme and moderate overlap with Harm reduction. I might have suggested to Feeha that he merge his contribution with Needle-exchange programme, but I didn't realize the earlier article existed until I started wikifying my edits, and by then it was too late. Whoops. The present organization of the two articles is too divergent for a merge to be easy.

As for the remaining promotional tone ... well, I tend to get a bit enthusiastic about the topics that I write about, even when I am somewhat skeptical of their ultimate importance. Case in point would be Hologenome theory of evolution, where I happen to know Eugene Rosenberg personally. Possible conflict of interest? Nope, he's in Israel, and I'm in the US. Personally, I really don't see much to distinguish the hologenome theory from Mutualism (biology), but the hologenome theory is very big nowadays.

Thanks, Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

renaming is much easier than either splitting or merging, as long as the title you want to use does not already exist as an article or a redirect. If there should be any problems that way, I can do it--just ask me.

as you say, managing the tone of an article is often tricky. the aim is to sound positive, but in the sense of setting out its merits, not in the sense you are trying to convince someone of its worth. It's the approach of many of the best library market salespeople I know: this is what the product has. do you want it? There's a widespread misundertanding that promotion is only when you have a personal stake in something--I see you understand well it can happen when you just think something is important or like something very much. In that sense, some degree of COI writing is inevitable here.

the way to deal with overlaps is to explain them, not try to get everything into one article. The way you have just explained things to me is exactly what you should do in the article. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A.L.A. catalog

In case you didn't see this, a new article you might be interested in. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Strayer University

On Talk:Strayer University, you mentioned that you wanted to make some edits to the draft version created by Hamilton83 found at User:Hamilton83/my sandbox. Were you still planning to make those changes? Would you like some time to do that, or is it okay if I move over draft into mainspace? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll get there today. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Not yet ready--see my comments there. DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Education Under Fire

Hi. Is it time to reconsider a stand alone article? See Baha'i_Institute_for_Higher_Education#Education_Under_Fire probably from the "Developing a response" section. EUF is by far the primary response but there have been others. Smkolins (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

why ask for trouble? DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me there is an imbalance in the article - it's about BIHE yet a good half is about responding to the persecution about BIHE. And the content on the response is sufficient for it's own article. No? Smkolins (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Whenaxis's talk page.
Message added 01:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 01:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Are your ears burning?

I mentioned you in an ANI discussion, [9]. Nothing bad, but if you follow it back far enough, it stems from an AFD you closed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149 and your suggestion of a solution for future MMA type articles, to which a minority of policy minded people agree, and a majority of "MMA fans" disagree. Likely, the people involved don't realize that is where it started, but figured you would be interested anyway. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

As you probably know, UFC149 is back at AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149 (2nd nomination). I said again what I said before. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I had missed that, been working 12 hour days lately. I don't understand how or why, since there hasn't been enough time to fully implement the admin's (your) recommendations from the last one. Your original closing is pretty much becoming the the defacto consensus for how to deal with these articles, just not by rabid fanboys that won't use (and don't care about) guidelines as rationale. See what you started with your damn logic? Dennis Brown (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• I mentioned you again, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 in UFC events. Even though you closed one AFD that loosely relates, I think most people would find you disinterested enough to either participate in a role as admin or editor, your choosing. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• moot, was speedy kept. It looks like it is slowly starting to get back to normal with less bashing, but we will see what the week brings. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)