User talk:DGG/Archive 70 Nov. 2012

H                                       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

WikiProject Conservatism

Hi. I have a feeling you are probably much better at putting together "opening statements" and evidence for Arbitration than I am. I have been involved in Arbitration, several times actually, but most of the time more or less as a marginally involved party. I think, anyway. You have a lot more experience in general around here than I do, and I see from the talk page archives that you have been expressing concerns regarding this group from an earlier time than myself.

Deenis Brown has recently sent me a note indicating that he thinks that this issue might be best resolved by ArbCom. I tend to agree that, at this point, it is unlikely that any sort of agreement is likely to be come to by the more active project members and others. I have started just now a page at User:John Carter/WikiProject Conservatism which I hope to develop more fully over the weekend for presentation to the ArbCom early next week. If you can think of any things you think might be relevant, please feel free to add them. I know you can be extremely busy at times, and am actually grateful that you are, because I tend to think you are probably one of the best informed people we have on the history of this group and the history of the concerns expressed about it. But, given how busy you are, I think at this point that it might well be perhaps less important than a lot of other important things you do around here, and I don't want to see any of them suffer because of this taking too much time from you. But, if you have time, feel free to add what you think reasonable. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

John, I have no experience at all in preparing cases for arbitration. I have never yet encouraged anyone to go to arbitration--almost always, anyone who brings a case them comes out the worse for it. I gave little experience with giving evidence either. If they do accept it, I will probably make a statement, saying more or less what I said on the talk p., & I will try very hard to say nothing more. I would especially discourage an arb request in the form you seem to have started. I do not think arb com would take one where they are asked merely to investigate whether there has been improper behavior; it is necessary to first find the improper behavior and present it to them, with a request for them to take action about it. I examined the MfD debate in 2011, and the only proper course would by MfD2, saying that they have indeed done as poorly as those opposing them warned at the time. But I am not sure the MfD will succeed. What I would advocate doing is simply watching them on specific issues. Working on specific issues is the best way to affect things here, and I just responded to one on their talk p. (I also removed some hostile bias & opinion from two of the pages involved. I understand the feeling of those conservatives here who object to the use of conservative bias in presenting political issues. I feel the same from the opposite side of the fence. It demeans our respective positions to write that way. Even looked at it from the point of view of advocacy, the more we think we're correct, the more reason we have to write neutrally. Using bias shows a lack of trust that rational argument will prevail, or such a contempt for the audience as to think them immune to reason. But this is an illustration of what an be done by careful watching by people who do believe in NPOV--and they are fortunately the majority here ) DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You probably have a point. I think, based on working with the now-disappeared Lionel, that the best evidence I could probably come up with would be against him, but I'm not sure that there is a lot that anyone can do to someone who has seemingly retired already. My own choice would be to try to merge it into Politics, as I said before, but I'm fairly sure the active members would object to such an attempt at "forcing" it to merge. MfD might work, or maybe a proposed merger based on at least the perceived bias of this group, maybe. Dennis had been in contact with Elen of the Roads about this before, and Elen basically told him they can't do anything without a request being made. Personally, as a bit of a inconsistent mildly libertarian person myself, I know around here I inconsistently tend to favor authoritative action where possible against problems. Unfortunately. I've already committed to looking over the history extensively over the weekend, and I'll see if I can find any real problems. Otherwise, I think myself that a merge with a WikiProject Politics would be the best option, and might propose that a bit more formally later, maybe with an RfC. I'll probably get back with you over the weekend or Monday one way or another. John Carter (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Input needed at DRN case - RT Network

Your sage input would be appreciated at a DRN case regarding the RT (TV network) article. The issue is whether or not the article should have sections entitled "Criticisms" or "Controversies"; or would the NPOV policy require that the sections be more neutrally titled as "Reception" and "Incidents" etc. The DRN discussion is here ... after clicking that link, scroll down to issues numbered 2,3,4 and 5. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 05:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, that DRN case is closed. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

But, as I think you said there, this is a general question. The way I understand our current practice, the use of "criticisms" is strongly discouraged in favor of "reception", and I routinely change such headings when encountered. "Incidents" and "controversies" mean different things. An ongoing dispute about the possible political bias of a media outlet is a controversy; while coverage of a particular event which evoked a press response is an incident (the matters here are more in the nature of an ongoing controversy) Though not always possible, it's better to avoid both of them if there's a more specifically meaningful term. Looking at the article, I think the headings " News coverage of specific events" and "Objectivity" were good choices, while the subheading "Allegations of bias" and "Response to allegations" are not, though I have no immediate suggestion of what to replace them with. DGG ( talk ) 23:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Rainer Crone

Just a note to let you know that the above article is now at afd, you removed the original prod. Rotten regard Softnow 20:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Lipstick Prophets article

Hello! I found you on the Talk page for Lipstick Prophets, an article that seems to be in a bit of disarray. It seems from the old discussions that it has previously been nominated at AfD, although I do not see any consensus tags as would be typical and I'm not sure how it could have managed to pass. I removed some of the flagrant peacock language and general decay from age, but there's no real information that's cited besides some vague statements that the brand was featured in magazine articles. Additionally, the formerly listed "official site" appears to be a different company now - it's not for a fashion line as described in the article, but rather, a company involving the creation of textiles. I don't want to say the company is non-notable since I do not currently have access to the print magazines cited, but I'm not sure how or if the article can be fixed. What do you suggest? Thanks in advance, Feather Jonah (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently I did not nominate it for afd, possibly because I forgot. As I said on the talk p., the notability would seem to depend on whether the magazine appearances cited in the article are editorial, or PR--if there is indeed any difference in cases like this. I have minimal knowledge in the subject, and further steps would be better taken by someone else. I'll leave a note for a wikifriend who might know someone. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, the content of the print refs would really make all the difference...the lack of text cited to them leads me to wonder if they may be paid ads or similar. I'm not sure even the info in the lead is appropriate - and it's definitely not written well. I appreciate your help! Feather Jonah (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Iranian Embassy siege

Hi David, I noticed your move of the above article. You moved it to "Iranian embassy siege", which suggests to me that the article is about a siege of an embassy in Iran rather than a siege of the Iranian Embassy. Because it refers to the Iranian Embassy (proper noun), I've moved it back to its former title after seeking several other opinions (off-wiki). If you disagree, especially since it's a featured article, could I trouble you to use the WP:RM process and give a more elaborate rationale? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It seemed plausible at the time, but you seem to be right. It was another editor who suggested it, , so I notified them, if they want to pursue it. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

4 November 2012 (UTC)

Tory Burch‎

Are you following Tory Burch‎. Please respond at the talk.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

AfC question

Hello again, The article has been, once again, rejected, this time by Zach Vega, admonishing me to "use footnotes". Otherwise he offered no useable advice. I doubt if he really read the article. At any rate, I have included the interview as a reference in the bio. This is the best source I have for this. Since you are the reviewer who has helped me the most, I sincerely hope you get the chance to review it again. If you do, you will see the other changes I made for clarification. I will now re-submit. All the best,Geoffrey Kline (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

note:SarahStierch accepted in on 6 November 2013

Arigatou Gozaimasu on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shozo Fujita

The first item in my last link was an omen that made me confident you would ride to the rescue. ;)John Z (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was joking, though I had thought G was your MI. Did give me a double take though.06:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Cantaloupe

Again. A "fresh start" might be necessary to avoid him in the future, as I see IBANs are quite hard to obtain, but I don't think it would work out well either. Corporate 01:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

There is such a thing as the Boomerang effect at administrative boards. ibans are imo very useful in discriminating between editors who can control themselves and those who cannot. Repeated breaches of ibans often lead to long blocks, by clearly demonstrating the intention to evade or ignore restrictions. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I would argue there is consensus for an IBAN, based on comments by you, Noun, Gigs and EdJohnston. I am not sure what is needed to make it official. BTW, I think you accidentally directed a comment at me instead of Cant, which made Ed very confused and the comment got oddly cut in half - perhaps due to an edit conflict. Corporate 16:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As you're discussing on me, I believe its fair that I comment on this. You were calling people in in a hope they agree with what you want which is exactly what I meant by canvassing and vote stacking. They're not comments from uninvolved editors. They're comments from editors you selected to comment. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Can't Resubmit for Approval

I submitted an article for creation and it was denied. I added references and cited sources, but now I can't see a way to resubmit for approval. It can be found here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Paul_T._Entrekin Can you help with this? Thanks CleverOgre (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I will get there tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I am working on it. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! CleverOgre (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC) I have updated the Ref tags as requested. CleverOgre (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

HMI merger

Why was my merger proposal on HMI light removed? There is no technically clear distinction between HMI and lighting -> HID -> metal halide lamp, as there is between say high pressure sodium lamp and metal halide. It is sort of like people calling automotive HIDs "xenon" or "HID" yet they're merely automotive application of metal halide. An example of being it called synonymously [1]. I thought the purpose of merge disposal was so that this can be discussed on talk ?Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD. You put up the tag, I reverted it. We can now discuss it. Reading the two articles, it seems there is sufficient distinctive comment. We both care about reducing promotionalism. There are multiple strategies: one of them is to reduce the opportunities for promotionalism by covering this sort of material in detail in the general articles on the subject, not the ones under the different companies. It would probably be quite possible to split this very far into individual subtypes, and , just as we write articles on individual species of animals, I'm trying to push in that direction, using the general model of WP:Summary style There's a conference coming up this weekend; after that, I will have some time to try to line up the articles & figure out with you how to divide up the contents, DGG ( talk ) 15:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Deleted edits

Please note that I have detailed your editing statistics at RfA as a benchmark for comparison with the candidate. The statistic in question — deleted edits — seems quite technical and I hope that I have explained the issue correctly. One reason that I selected you as an example is that you are fairly well-known as an editor above reproach so I trust you will take this as a compliment. Warden (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. And to repeat my clarification there, anyone who does significant work listing articles for deletion will have a large number of such edits, because every time a prod, speedy, or AfD tag is placed on a page, that's an edit--when the page is deleted, it becomes a deleted edit. And as you mentioned there. if anyone places a problem tag on an article, & it does not get fixed & the page gets deleted, or if anyone tries to fix a page, and then realizes it's impossible & lists it for deletion, that generates deleted edits. DGG ( talk ) 15:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Advice

When someone other than the original ed. has removed a speedy tag, nobody may replace it for the same reason. The tag at abstract figurative was removed by an experienced editor, and as reviewing administrator, I agree with them about it. A quick check in google books shows adequate sources are available. You seem to have some knowledge in the subject area, so why not add them--the article does need some attention.

What is found by doing a "quick check" are not sources, but merely the distinct terms abstract and figurative used in the same book to discuss art, but not conjoined into a single term as the article proposes. e.g. Abstract vs. Figurative

There are worthwhile articles on the visual arts to which I have been applying my knowledge. I noticed this one in passing, which needs no more attention than tagging it for deletion. FigureArtist (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I was relying to some extent on the first item in this gbooks search, "their mature post-abstract figurative paintings preserved a sophisticated dialogue between abstraction and representation — the image oscillating between a recognizable subject and a boldly colored, abstract arrangement of thick slabs ..." but you are correct that I parsed it wrong, it probably means their post-abstract paintings that are more figurative. But how about the Henly book on that search "Figure 13: An abstract figurative piece by art therapist Michel..." or "He describes Smith as an "abstract-figurative expressionist" who uses abstract forms to create an oblique statement " from the Lerner book book, google.com/books?isbn=0802058566, or NY Magzine, " abstract figurative oils, and baked enamels by the Dutch artist" or "ridgewalkers is a collection of abstract figurative pieces that emulate the aesthetic and structural attitudes " from Entwhistle -- all in the first two pages of hits? DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Union Theological Seminary (Philippines)

Thanks for spending some time to review this article. I appreciate your comments and they are very constructive. I shall consider your suggestions and research for more information to improve this piece work. - Patnubaypatnugot (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jannik_Olander_(2nd_nomination)

I've made some comments and contributed sources that I believe are sufficiently reliable to the discussion that do not serve to simply promote the subject nor are routine coverage. Could you evaluate them and let me know if you find them to be sufficiently reliable? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I've commented at your AfD nomination

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jannik Olander (2nd nomination).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Article for Paul T. Entrekin Revised

Hi there! I've updated the references and citations for Paul T. Enterekin's article. Still, for some reason, I can't find a way to resubmit. Please look the article over. You can find it here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Paul_T._Entrekin Thanks! CleverOgre (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I will get there. Thanks for the reminder. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

McKinsey Healthcare

Hi DGG, I posted a draft on the McKinsey Talk page regarding a controversy about a healthcare survey McKinsey published. I would appreciate your feedback if you're up for it. I also pinged My2011, Keith and DES. Corporate 23:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't often respond but I did this time, because it was a specific point (and because the original before your rewrite was so truly awful). DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

DMWorks Systems

Please DGG, i want to add a text about DMWorks Systems company, will you delete again?? There are lots of similar companies from the Business Intelligence and nobody delete, I want to write about the company and their software, because it´s good and I use. Do all companies need to be like IBM to be cool enough (for you to think that they are important or not to the other people) how can you judge ? Do you know everything?

So please do not destroy, or if so, destroy all others that look the same, i can send you a list. If you have any problems or questions rapq77@gmail.com, feel free to write before. ArrudaPenteado (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC) |}

the article you submitted gave no information from which anyone might reasonably conclude the company was important. You need some sourced information from references providing substantial coverage from independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. The usual references for a company like this are 3rd party reviews of their products, or newspaper or technical magazine articles about them. If you have such sources, then rewrite the article. If you do not yet have them, please wait until you do, for otherwise you will be wasting your efforts--the article will surely end up being deleted. If you have in mind any similar companies with articles here giving no specific particulars indicating notability and having no sources, please let me know, because unless I can find sources, i will propose them for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

--- Put in details, otherwise for me to not hear later (oh it´s not substantial enough, or this source is not reliable enough !!) To me as you put looks like a dark cloud who protects some and kill others.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArrudaPenteado (talk • contribs) 04:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You are right that the goal is to write something not only good enough to pass AfD , but so good it won't even be challenged. What is needed for that is (A) two or more signed feature articles in major general or trade magazines that are more than just interviews where the company says what it wants to-- "feature" in this context is most safely interpreted as longer than one page. It is better that they be about some aspect of the firm other than it having received venture capital. Also, (B) two or more feature length signed reviews by well known reviewers in major trade publications that analyze a major product or product line, not just saying it exists and listing the claimed features. And, (C), something reliable to document the size of the company, both in terms of revenue and in terms of number of customers (for private companies, this can be difficult). In addition to sourcing, it will also help if you write the article to avoid vague terms like "newly-emerged technologies", jargon like "solutions, and adjectives of praise or importance except in exact quotations from reviews, properly attributed and in context. If the nature of the product lends itself to a screen shot, that's good content also, but be sure to release it according to all the picky details at WP:DCM. Good luck with it. You may have noticed that many articles on firms like this have much less sourcing than I suggest. In some sense we are consistent--the worst articles get deleted and the best kept. But in between, anything can happen: it's essentially a random process, biased a little by people who are fans of a particular subject. There are ongoing attempts to improve the standards for such articles, and they are beginning to take hold. The mean of the distribution has shifted significantly, but it's still a very wide distribution. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Deleted page

Dear DGG,

My contribution about Mobile Vikings was deleted but I don't really understand why. Could you perhaps tell me which part is wrong (and what the mistake is) so I can modify it? All I did was a translation from another language..

Kind regards,

Alexander (Happybuildingblock),

Happybuildingblock (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Deleted page: Mobile Vikings

So if I would keep the intro and operation and take some of the info out of the timeline (without the referrals) and make an historical text about it explaining that by doing certain actions (free data, calls etc..), Mobile Vikings was able to break open the monopoly of the 3 big players in Belgium which resulted in a general decrease in telecom prices for customers? That would be something to put on wiki yes? At least that is what I and my fellow students always use wiki for when making projects and searching for info. (note: I am a student and I am not getting paid to do this in anyway. I am just someone of the Viking community who is greatfull for what Mobile Vikings has done for our young generation of mobile users and who's now able to get affordable prices and I just wanted to give them something back.)

I also looked at other operators to see what the differences where: and I am a bit confused while I can't really see a difference..

for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telenet (Belgium)

They explain all their products, link them to other Wiki pages with more info about them and then split them back up again.. The only reference is the annual report of the Telenet group and external their home page. All the info used always comes from the enterprise itself.. (which for me actually is logical aswell while I always go searching for offical information when writing about topics because they can give all the right info).

Kind regards,

Alexander

Happybuildingblock (talk) 11:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that what I deleted was a mainspace copy of an article intended for AfC--the AfC submission is at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mobile Vikings. The history is slightly confused, but I suggest the best course would be to continue to work on it at afc, so consider my suggestions as related to that version. When you think you are finished, someone else will review it. In response to your questions:

1. You have translated it from the French WP. You need to say so somewhere. For now, do a footnote, indicating the exact revision of the article you used as the base. After place a tag at the bottom of it saying {{fr:Mobile Vikings}} . On its talk p., add the template described at Template:Translated page
2. I think it can be an appropriate article. I agree the subject is notable.
3. What I would suggest with the chronological list, is either shorten it to main events by year-- or to rewrite the key portions of it as paragraphs.
4. Please do not refer to the users as "Vikings". You can put in a sentence that the company refers to its users as "Vikings"
5. As for Telnet (Belgium) I consider it an very low quality article, which needs some major improvements. There are a great many such articles in Wikipedia; it may be many years till we improve them, but we can at least try not to add to them. (On the other hand, nobody expects a new article from afc by a new contributor to be a very good article initially)
6. I do need to point out that the intrinsic social merit of the subject does not affect our articles.

Good luck with the article. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

AFT5 newsletter

Hey all :). A couple of quick updates (one small, one large)

First, we're continuing to work on some ways to increase the quality of feedback and make it easier to eliminate and deal with non-useful feedback: hopefully I'll have more news for you on this soon :).

Second, we're looking at ways to increase the actual number of users patrolling and take off some of the workload from you lot. Part of this is increasing the prominence of the feedback page, which we're going to try to do with a link at the top of each article to the relevant page. This should be deployed on Tuesday (touch wood!) and we'll be closely monitoring what happens. Let me know if you have any questions or issues :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Help! I don't understand why my article is being rejected.

Hi DGG,

My article Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/ServiceSource keeps getting denied (four times now). The comments are that it is "promotional" without "reliable resources". Please give a specific case where you believe I am promoting the company, as I have looked at many other company pages and do not believe that this should be considered to be an advertisement or promotion. Also, my resources are legitimate - they're independant third party sources (ex: analyst firm, online technology journals, etc) whereas Cisco sites their own website as a source...

The live chat helpers do not understand why it is being rejected and have suggested that I write on your talk page to get an answer. Please provide very specific details of where and how the article seems promotional and which sources are "unreliable". Thanks!

Sally Ekman (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC) Sally Ekman

(talk page stalker) Language like "focused on developing and managing recurring revenue streams on behalf of its customers" 1) is bullsh*t: the company is focused on making money for its shareholders, as expected in a capitalist society; and 2) has no substantive meaning. It appears to have been ganked from a marketing pamphlet or website.

We are looking for solid, substantive, impartial, well-sourced verifiable information that does not reek of the press release or tradeshow PowerPoint presentation. Tragically, some otherwise-intelligent people working in public relations seem to have suffered permanent damage to the part of the brain that separates ad-speak from ordinary human speech.

"Other crap exists" is not a viable argument for adding additional crap to Wikipedia. DGG, myself, or other editors may have a look to see how the article on Cisco can be improved; but that won't help you get this stuff in here. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not just the PR people themselves, who write this way, but the disease seems to be infecting the general public, who have started using this sort of pseudo-langugage in writing about such subjects. Even the most genuine intent to communicate does not necessarily lead to the actual expression of meaning. I noticed some additional characteristic points: A full list of the names and affiliations of each member of the Board of directors, and the names and positions of all the officers of the company, is not encyclopedic--it is of no interest except to those closely associated with the company, and belongs on the company website. A sentence like "An estimated $30 billion is lost annually as companies struggle with tools and processes that weren’t designed for this part of their business" stating the importance of the general subject, is characteristic of advertisements. It's motivation to buy, not information about the company. This is not to say that an article could not be written: it seems from a careful reading the techtarget article that the company may in fact have a unique niche, and the article there appears to be reliable reporting, including several analysts explaining that while it may be a unique niche, it's nowhere near as big a niche as the company claims it is. It is possible to do good writing about business, but as that article shows, it's much more likely to be done by someone without a conflict of interest. The Cisco article is pretty good; it cites the company website for routine data, as is appropriate, but most of the references are to reliable independent publications-- including 7 full books about the company. When people start writing books about a company, then it's truly notable. A small company comparing itself to one of the most famous companies in the world is so characteristic of promotional intent that I find myself smiling every time I see it. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Riley Huntley's talk page.
Message added 00:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

List of former and current First Lady of Puerto Rico

Regarding your declining of the speedy deletion of List of former and current First Lady of Puerto Rico, you are correct, a merge would be more appropriate, however this version had the list in it, until it was split. The creator has done the same sort of split with List of secretaries of State of Puerto Rico (originally with the same "former and current" awkward naming). I had raised the point on the First Lady talk page, and noted it at at WP:PUERTORICO, but neglected to remove the speedy tag while the discussion was ongoing, thanks for catching that.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

yes, I realized that it was an attempted split. If necessary, use WP:RM, which can keep these problems out of the deletion process. DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alistair McAlpine, Baron McAlpine of West Green

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alistair McAlpine, Baron McAlpine of West Green. 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, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

commented. A classic case of where do no harm is not a reason for omission. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Kenny Klein Snafu

FYI, you accidentally put your "Keep" comment for Donald Michael Kraig, author of Modern Magick, on the nomination for deletion page of the Kenny Klein article. I know it's hard to keep track of all of Qworty's absurd nominations.Rosencomet (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

re: Leonid Raikhman

Not sure, but I looked over the art on pl wiki, and I am not 100% convinced of notability. Certainly should get a proper AfD, however, at the very least. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

If you translate, I can use the refs to show notability. Lt Gen in any army is notable, and the corresponding ranks in the NKVD also. He engaged in various actions political oppression as a tool of the party till the WWII, and the took a leaning role in Katyn, about which there has been the usual argument over just how leading a role--one of the books seems to refer to his organizing -- which apparently made his name in the NKVD, for he went on to the destruction of other ethnic minorities before & after the was. I gather from a Google "translation" of the Polish he was a Jew, and one of those arrested at the time of the Doctor's Plot, which was of course aborted by the death of Stalin; freed soon afterwards, but soon rearrested possibly as being implicated in Beria's methods. See also the part about his wife--this was a famous NKVD success. DGG ( talk ) 12:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I did some c/e and now I agree he is notable, which the stub implies (general, recipient of awards). In the future, please share such requests for assistance to WT:POLAND, which may generate more attention than on my talk page (our project is actually active :) ). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You have a point, but when I know some individual who could do something well, I tend to ask them. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll probably end up doing it from WT:POLAND anyway, but your post would help to make the page look more alive. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Imamah (Mustali Ismaili doctrine)

FYI... Salim e-a ebrahim left you a message at Talk:Imamah (Mustali Ismaili doctrine) regarding the deleted article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I responded there--it does not seem quite as simple as he indicates. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Margaret E Lyttle

You recently moved Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Margaret E Lyttle to the mainspace. However, it was a straight copyright violation from here. Please check AfC submissions for copyright problems before moving them to the main namespace. Fram (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The same applies to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/KGiSL Institute of Technology, which you also recently moved but also was a copyright violation, this time from [2]. Fram (talk) 09:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

And also Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul B. Wiegmann, a copy from here. Fram (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Lyttle was indeed very careless of me--it should have been obvious to me from the nature of the content that it must have been copied from somewhere, & the place was pretty obvious also. I must have been working too rapidly last night trying to clean AfC. I exemplified the very problem I have often complained of, people working there too quickly to do things properly.
• Wiegmann I should have look more carefully--all of it except the awards list is indeed copyvio. G11 was correct.

KIGSL I looked for copyvio, as it is common on such articles, but I apparently missed that subpage. But not all the article was copyvio from that source, as I know because I rewrote some of it myself. So the section could have been removed, and I think G11 is therefore not really correct. But I probably shouldn't have accepted it in any case, for it needed more work than it was worth

I agree with you that copyvio is a really major problem there; I've deleted a few dozen such myself. We sometimes take somewhat different approaches to dealing with it, but I care about it as much as you. Perhaps a way can be found to do automated checks at the time the article is listed--an edit filter type of approach would be desirable. BTW, did you find these by looking at the recently accepted articles ? I've just started doing that myself. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I only looked at the recently accepted ones. Perhaps I shoukld go through some older ones as well and do more spotchecks. Copyvio is a pain in the ass, and not always easy to find, but it seems that recently too many of them have slipped through the AfC. Perhaps it's just the luck of the draw, perhaps it's more systematical, I don't know... 07:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) CorenSearchBot is very good at picking up and tagging copyvio, but at the moment it only scans newly created articles in main space. It might be worth inquiring if the AFC pages could be added to the search. Voceditenore (talk) 09:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello DGG. Some discussions regarding these types of matters are occurring at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation:

• Updating the Reviewer instructions with links to copyvio detectors
• Copyright violations

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for observation

Would you be so kind as to keep an eye on Great Commission church movement for page blanking and if possible facilitate a conversation that would help engage editors in the consensus process? Also, if you have any ideas on how I might look at this situation differently or engage other editors in a different process, I am open to suggestions. It would be greatly appreciated. :) ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I apologize, but I am only able to make a general comment, and I just did that DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing section-blanking at Great Commission church movement

Another attempt. I very much appreciate the time you took on looking in the first time. Care to follow up?

I took your suggestion about the page edit, discussed this on the talk page. User:Photobookpro85 blanked the information again. I reverted, but implemented the edit. That edit was also reverted summarily - all 22,024 characters of information, down from 23,000 before the quote trim. Photobookpro85 does leave edit summaries, which point towards a POV dispute, although no clear reference to WP:POV exists to point out how this is so. My inclination based on statements made and previous traffic to the article is to believe that this is a loyal member of that organization, and this page is his/her only focus. There are no other pages which the user edits. Is it useful to distinguish between vandalism/edit warring? What should be my next step? ClaudeReigns (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Joint Services Parachute Centre

Hi, I am the original author of Joint Services Parachute Centre, thanks for putting the warning on my talk-page. I support the deletion request.
I have made a temporary copy of the page contents (Rehnn83:Temp/JSPC), in the long term I will be merging some of the content into an appropriate sub section within British Parachute Association#BPA Drop Zones.
Rehnn83 ^Talk 09:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If nobody else has edited it, you could simplify things by adding at the top a line reading : {{db-author}}, and it will be quickly deleted. (Or, even better, you could make the page into a redirect to the article you mention, which preserves the content behind the redirect) You might consider the other similar pages if they are equally sparse--I was planning to use this as a test, since I don't like to delete en masse without testing the water. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Charles D. Ferguson copyvio

There is no question that Charles D. Feguston is notable since he is president of FAS. However, you cannot make an article on him by copying the FAS webpage on him, even if you rearrange the text and modify the wording a little. WP take copyright very seriously indeed. As reviewing admin, i had no choice but to delete the article. You need to write it from scratch, using the information. Use also his university CV and other information, The FAS page was very vague about his publications. Find them, and list any books, and the most cited journal articles. DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear DGG, I had invested so much work to rewrite the article and to find adequate sources, also I did not get additional information from FAS or the person himself (year of birth etc.), so I won't write about him again. I would suggest that you or somebody else takes the time to compile a new article avoiding danger of deletion. Good luck! --Stonepillar (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse

Hey, DGG! Thanks for keeping me straight on the Teahouse; I didn't think of OTRS. Anyway, just a suggestion: we've found that a lot of people who come to the Teahouse don't know about watchlists, or to keep an eye on the questions page, so they lose track and don't see that their question has been answered. So, the nebulous "we" like to push using talkbacks when we answer questions on the Teahouse; we even have our own template for the purpose at WP:Teahouse/Teahouse_talkback, if you prefer that over the normal one. Not always necessary, depending on who's doing the asking; it's probably fine to assume that Knight of Truth, who looks to have been around a while, knows enough to not need it. But for others, like Mrnit, it might help. Thanks again! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

and thanks for the hint--I will probably do a few more in the future, so I'll use it, because I did wonder about that problem, but, just as you did, I guessed KofT would look again. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

LeafChat and other IRC clients

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Tothwolf#LeafChat. Tothwolf (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Algerian genocide

You will remember the complicated history of this article and its undeletion. Though I have not succeeded in making the nomination as short as I had hoped, I have at last got round to filing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algerian genocide. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

commented. /title change, perhaps, after removal of the POV? DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If it is kept, it will certainly need a new title. "Genocide" in quotes, and/or "Turkish accusations of... " (I quite like "Genocide tit-for-tat" which sums it up well). JohnCD (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

in praise of hard industries

Hello,

My proposed article on "In praise of hard industries" was rejected. I have looked over the guidelines again, and I think my proposed article was too in-depth. I would like to try again, as I think this book was important for many policymakers and other thinkers at the time. (Looking inside the cover, it was recommended by the New York Times, J.K. Galbraith, Clyde Prestowitz, and Ralph Nader, among others. I checked before submitting, and the book's author, Eamonn Fingleton, has a wikipedia page). Anyway, I will pare down my description of the book and try again. If it is still not acceptable, more feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubbert545 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

After I looked at your article, I followed up last night by working on the article for Eamonn Fingleton (the author), and made some changes to improve the presentation. I reorganized it a little to provide easy places for writing a separate section of that article on each of his three books; I was going to suggest this to you today, but you got here first.:) That's the simplest way to start, and a redirect can be made from the book title. (They could probably also be made into separate articles,, depending on the reviews--the actual criterion for articles on books WP:NBOOK is not hard to meet if there are substantial reviews--you can try that if you like, but a section is easier & can be expanded into an article later). You are quite right that the problem--both in the article on the author and in the one on the book--is excessive detail about the author's ideas. The articles must say what they are, which usually takes about one paragraph. Some complicated books need more, but when a book is devoted to the explanation of a particular proposition, one is usually enough--the article is about the book, not about the subject on which the book was written.

List all substantial published reviews, giving full bibliographic details. The easiest way to handle them is by footnotes. It's OK to quote a few words from the review as part of the footnote--the shorter, the more impact it has. If the book was on any major best seller list, give an exact reference., including the number of weeks it was on the list. If the book won a major award, mention that also. But blurbs on the book jacket or on amazon are not reviews. People write them for their friends, & always try to say something nice--therefore they're not considered reliable publications. If the books were the subject of a substantial critical essay by a notable expert in an important magazine, that's of course something worth mentioning. (If you ave trouble finding some of this, any librarian can help.) I'll be glad to help you further if you ask me. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

And I just want to mention that the fact that an author is notable does not mean all of their books are necessarily notable. This only applies to famous authors, like Dickens or Faulkner. We call that principle WP:NOT INHERITED.

WorldCat & AfD

DGG, I noticed you often cite WorldCat in AfDs. I was wondering how do you determine notability using WorldCat. Is there a guideline? For example you said Don Bendell "Write Westerns, none of which have more that 240 copies in libraries.[3]" Is 240 low, medium, high? (BTW it looks like he actually has 429 libraries for Strongheart). I have no idea how to judge WorldCat library holdings in relation to what is notable. To me even 240 libraries seems like a lot. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It depends on the date, the subject, and the nature of the work. Popular fiction would be expected to have very high figures. Recondite non-fiction, otherwise. Recent books in high demand would be expect to have more; older popular and children's fiction, less. There's also a strong anglocentric bias: for other countries, only their national and major university libraries are included. These's also a US bias: British libraries are considerably less comprehensively covered; even Canada and Australia, a little less than the US. Genre fiction has a particular problem: libraries tend to buy one, & if its popular, they buy all the others. The best way is to compare with similar authors from similar periods. I'll do a more exact analysis tonight, since it is borderline. I may have considerably affected by the low quality otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I withdrew the afd: the high productivity over time implies he was a successful novelist, and therefore notable.Thanks indeed for asking me to revisit the discussion--this was one of my errors, and I would much rather people told me about them than they go uncorrected. . DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

SPUR (magazine)

Hi DGG, I'd value your advice on the notability of this publication. I've twice tagged it for notability and better references, my rationale being that this doesn't meet the criteria of WP:PERIODICAL. I don't know if guidelines for student publications are less stringent, and I'd prefer not to edit war over templates. Your thoughts welcome. Thanks, 99.0.80.70 (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I've read the supporting references, and this is an interesting situation. The magazine is covered, though not in detail, but the publications that do so are student publications for the universities involved. Normally we have said that this does not constitute reliable sources for student life, because what they cover is of very local interest only to the members of their institutions at the time. This is not always true, and some of the best established student journalism has been considered reliable on a selective basis when the particular matter is of more general interest. That's how I understand the current consensus, and I fully agree with it in terms of giving reasonable results for the general expectations of notability at Wikipedia. Of course, if we wanted to extend our coverage of local events in a much broader manner, then we would consider such sources acceptable for those events. There are good arguments for doing this, and also for not doing it; I am prepared to argue in either direction. But I think the general feeling here is that we should not do this, because we have too many difficulties maintaining quality at even our present limited scope, and the best way to extend it is by independent local wikis. Though not directly applicable here, the mot pressing of these problems if we expanded local coverage would be the opportunities for promotionalism of local businesses. My earlier view on our need for broad coverage have changed somewhat because of the expanding use of Wikipedia for promotion, which I consider the major threat to the reliability, and consequently the usefulness, of the encyclopedia. You are very right in not wanting to edit war over templates; it doesn't get anywhere. Rather, if you think it likely to be non notable, take it to AfD and get a community decision. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Your thoughtful response is most appreciated, all the more so since you took the time to weigh this in a judicious manner. I'm dubious, not only for thinness of references, but for the newness of the publication as well. And yes, parenthetically, I think attempts to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes are so pervasive as to constitute--not to put too fine a point on this--a mortal threat to the encyclopedia's credibility. Anyway, I did restore the notability template, and anticipate the likelihood of its removal again, at which point I'll consider the AfD option. 99.0.80.70 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:People by nationality

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Category talk:People by nationality. 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) 16:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

In praise of hard industries II

Hello DDG,

Thank you for your earlier comments on my attempt to write a summary for "In Praise of Hard Industries." I am going to try to write one again, explaining why the book is important, and showing both positive and negative reviews of it. I hope this one can pass muster.

Thanks again for your help

Hubbert545 (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)hubbert545

please let me know when it's ready. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Ready and at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/In_Praise_of_Hard_Industries

Thanks again,

173.79.59.187 (talk) 13:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)hubbert454

Deletion of ITE Tech. Inc.

You deleted the article before I even had a chance to respond to the deletion request. That is inappropriate. Besides this request should have been a regular one at it doesn't meet the "obviousness" criteria. Please restore the article for the time being and avoid being so trigger-happy in the future. Bomazi (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I have tried never to delete by a7 articles too rapidly after they were written unless they are on their face utterly impossible, (most of us interpret too quickly as less than about a half-hour, but I prefer an hour). However, the speedy tag was placed 10 hours after the only edit. There is nothing stopping you from trying again, but I would strongly advise you to make sure from the first edit not just that there's some clear claim to importance by market share, or size, or something, and it would also help if there's at least one good 3rd party source that verifies it. DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of European Associaton of Nuclear Medicine article

Dear DGG,

I contacted Panyd, who had deleted the European Associaton of Nuclear Medicine article because of copyright infringement and wrote on 25 October that the article is reinstated (after the copyrights issue was resolved). However, I cannot see the reinstated article on the latest version of the article page. As I haven't received a new reply from Panyd yet (see below for the last exchanges wiht Panyd), could you please reinstate the article, so I can improve on the latest version?

"Dear Panyd,

Many thanks for your reply on my talk page. The board of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine has now licensed the text of its website under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (see http://www.eanm.org/imprint.php?navId=17&PHPSESSID=brn1g4a3s90mppkahj8a87hco2). Therefore, I kindly ask you to reinstate the European Association of Nuclear Medicine article, which was deleted for copyright reasons.

Kind regards Bleix7 (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

   No problem whatsoever. You can find the entry here. Good luck with the article! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Panyd,

Thanks for your reply, but I still cannot see the reinstated article in the latest version of the page. Could you please help me out here? Many thanks in advance Bleix7 (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)"

Bleix7 (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

done--actually, it was there, in the edit history, but I moved it to to be the current page and updated my comment. It's at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/European Association of Nuclear Medicine I explained there what needs to still be done. DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Frank Forte and how to keep the article

Ashbeckjonathan 23:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)I just received a notification about possibly deleting Frank Forte and I just made a couple corrections. I want to prevent the article from being deleted. What should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashbeckjonathan (talk • contribs)

We unfortunately have very great difficulty in establishing notability for broadcast people--there tends to be very little written about them. So unless there is more information available, it will inevitably be deleted. There might be: since he reported mainly on the Marlins, publications such as sports magazines that cover them in detail might very possibly discuss him. They need to do more than mention him: they need to provide substantial coverage. If you can find it, add it immediately, and say so at the AfD--and let me know also. DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent Software Solutions

Hello, would you mind commenting at this debate? As you'll see there, I have very mixed feelings because the company seems to have achieved several governments contracts (it seems that is nearly all of their work) but they haven't been very active recently with only 3 contracts for 2011 and nothing (from what I'm aware of) for 2012 aside from this minor mention as a resident software company for the government (the relevant mention is at the bottom of the entry) and this 2012 acquisition where it notes they intend to "generate $200 million in revenue" but the article doesn't clarify how. SwisterTwister talk 22:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I commented. They're notable, and it is probably possible to show it, but the article is hopelessly promotional. Whether they are active currently or not has however nothing to do with notability , which is permanent. DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Review

Hi DGG,

On 12 Nov you reviewed and declined an article. You also provided some helpful and constructive feedback for this first time submiter. I have taken your suggestions, reworked the article and provided references and third party notation. If you have a few minutes I would ask that you take a look at the changes and let me know if the article is ready to be re-submitted. The article is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mejbp/sandbox Thank you for your input. Mejbp (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I will look tomorrow. But first, try to remove any sentences or words that aren't needed, and anything that sounds bureaucratic, such as "furtherance" or "entities". I've looked at the fundamental documents the article is based on, and they say every things at least twice; Don't imitate them. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you get a chance to take a look? Thanks Mejbp (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

the problems are the same: the specific phrases I highlighted were just examples--there are many similar; the article has only sources about the subject, not about the group; it praises the group more than it provides information. As I said before, you need to rethink your approach & start over from scratch DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Heritage Istook Live! edits

Hi DGG, thanks for taking a look at my requests for Heritage to add details of Ernest Istook's radio show. I've replied on each talk page and was wondering if you'd mind looking again? Another editor has made the edit to the Heritage article, but there are still some problems with the other two articles. On the Heritage Action for America talk page, I've given a couple of helpful sources and ask for one change to the sentence you suggested. Thanks for adding in the name of the show to Ernest Istook's article, I have just a few remaining requests to fix some issues with sourcing and formatting. Lastly, I also would like to replace the photo used in the article for a more recent one. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think someone else alread did this--if not, let me know. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Fraternal Benefit Society page

Hello DGG. Thanks so much for posting my Fraternal Benefit Society page. I noticed that it still has a redirect from my Sandbox page--does that mean it's not officially up an available on Internet searches for Wiki users? I noticed that the page does not come up on Google when doing a search with that specific page name. Please let me know what more I need to do to ensure it's publication and availability on Internet searches.

Best,

Nina Ninalill (talk) 02:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it didn't show up, but reading it more carefully I detected two copyvio sections, which I removed, and this has made me a little doubtful about how to proceed--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fraternal benefit society, where I ask advice. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfc hoaxes

In response to your question about how I able to identity those hoaxes so quickly: most of those articles I submitted for Quick Deletion I had previously declined in Afc. Thank you for the feedback. Rushbugled13 (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Fraternal Benefit Society page

Good morning DGG! I see that you've sent my article on Fraternal Benefit Society to the consideration of deletion section. How long does it have to be there (how many days?) How many people have to weigh in on the discussion? In other words what is the nuts and bolts here of moving it from "consideration for deletion" to posting? Do you ahve to have a certain number of comments? A certain number of days? I was very encouraged when you posted my article because we've been working for weeks now with reviewers to get it approved.

Thanks so much for your help on this!

Best, Nina Ninalill (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi DGG,

Sorry--just saw your note about "detecting two copyvio sections." I'm assumign this means copyright violations. Which sentences/sections specifically is there concern about? Thanks!

Nina Ninalill (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

1. Discussions normally run 7 days, unless there is some special reason to stop them earlier, such as the entire article being found copyvio, or the discussion makes it obvious that a keep or delete is the only possible conclusion, or the author withdraws the article, or the person placing the article withdraws the motion to delete, and no one has objected,. They can be extended , and they are about 1/5 of the time, if there are insufficient comments or there is not yet a clear consensus. Decisions are made by consensus, as judged by another administrator. There is no fixed number of comments--it is a matter of judgment. And it is not a vote--the comments are valued based on their quality and their conformity to policy and guidelines. Irrelevant comments are simply ignored, and conversely, one significantly strong and soundly-based comment can be enough. If no consensus is reached, the article is kept, but it can still be merged. DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
2. what I'm trying to do is provoke somebody else into rescuing this in combination with the other two articles with overlapping content. A deletion discussion can and often does result in a merge. I am unfortunately too busy to give it a try myself.
3. the copyvio content is already removed; I removed it in the edits [4] and [5]. If there is other copyvio, and there may be, I did not find it.

other questions I responded to at the [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fraternal benefit society|AfD] page.

I notice You say "we" -- does that mean you are the representative of some organization (you are not required to answer this, but if it's the case, I would strongly advise you to say so.) DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Fraternal Benefit Society discussion

Thanks for the very thorough answer, DGG. If I'm interpreting you correctly, you are hoping that someone will merge my page with a page already on Wiki related to it. I would be happy to take a crack at it, if you believe that's where this is headed anyway. If a new page cannot be created, I do believe that the easiest solution is to edit the Benefit Society page with my information. If you give me the green light, I will edit the Benefit Society page. Thanks again.

Nina Ninalill (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure., I withdrew the deletion request. I suggest you merge your article into the other one, because it's been here longer. What you do , when you make each change, is give in the deletion summary what you're merging it from. First, though,before you move text, look at the organization & decide what sections will be needed. I'll keep track and help you. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I'll get started. NinaNinalill (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A question of wikilore

Wasn't there some user who was banned some years ago because he deemed that anything not copied word for word from a source was a WP:SYNTH violation? I can't remember his name, but I vaguely recall reading about the affair somewhere maybe a couple of years ago. Maybe you can remember some specifics? Anyway, we now have one, possibly two users doing something along those lines. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Curb Chain and ANI. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll look in, and I might recognize a name; otherwise I doubt I'll remember. DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I looked in, but didn't see anything I recognize. DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Benefit Society edits

Good morning DGG,

Thank you for withdrawing your deletion request. I will attempt to edit the Benefit Society page to include my information. Once I've made these edits, how do I then make sure the edited article gets to you? Do we work together as I've worked with MatthewVanitas?

Nina Ninalill (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Tell me when you think you're finished, or if you want a check. DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Robert Ebendorf

Hello, my favorite admin (I have recovered from your introductory bite!). I spiffed up an article, and noticed that you graced it with an edit years ago. I thought you might like to see the improvements.--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

yes and what particularly helps is your addition of free images when there are such good ones of pieces that are known to be of importance from being in major collections, not just selected by the article writer. Take a look back at the original version ,to see what we're up against when people submit really inadequate articles, though it could have been deduced from the existence of the Smithsonian interview that there probably would be notability. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised that since 2008, and with Afd discussion, it wasn't improved upon...he really is an idol within his niche. Speaking of improved articles, do you think Mimi So could get her {nn} and {news} removed?--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I did some copyediting to make the Mimi So article less choppy, and removed the tags. When strict chronological sequence causes choppiness the alternatives are bringing related things together or using a list. I think it's more encyclopedic not to use a list unless it won't be clear otherwise. The problem of systematically improving articles, especially those originally written with COI or by naïve beginners , is great that it discourage people from solving it. It's a very good idea to work as you are doing on a group of similar ones with similar problems. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Create protection of Ashley Bird

Hi there. I see you protected Ashley Bird from creation. The same user soon after created Ashley Marie Bird. Just a quick note to let you know, and I will let you decide whether it is worth blocking that new page as well or blocking the user. -- Patchy1 01:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Zap. Since a warning was just given in response to this I don't want to block--yet. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Cronin Economics

Hello DGG,

I am inquiring your help as an experienced administrator and as someone who already dealt with a related issue. The user Kcron24 appears to have created a new article for his recently deleted subject Cronin Economics. From his talk page is appears that you informed him about that the topic of this article is not suitable for Wikipedia under WP:NOT, but he has decided to make a new article on the subject anyway. How should I deal with this situation with this user? With kind regards, Rushbugled13 (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Cronin Economics, Chapter 3

Thanks for closing that AfD, though I realize my "speedy" !vote was, in retrospect, hasty. Just so you know, Mr. Cronin has now re-created his diatribe once again; I've flagged it for G4 speedy deletion. If no one gets to it before you, would you mind salting it as well? It seems preferable to blocking him, which is clearly where this otherwise would have to go, if he keeps on re-creating it. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 02:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

We can protect against re-creation even after deletion; in fact, that's my usual sequence.But someone else already did it. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at ChrisGualtieri's talk page.
Message added 15:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Idea to update an AfC message

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2013 6#An idea to update a message.
Message added Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• Per our previous correspondence regarding the matter of copyright violation detection on Wikipedia in unison with AfC. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC this Saturday Dec 1

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC

You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!--Pharos (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

help find sources project

Hello DGG, last time I came here was for your comments on the description on the template primarysources. This time I seek for your comments on my drafted IEG grant proposal here m:Grants:IEG/find_sources_2.0. The basic idea is to enhance source-finding and thus citing practices for contributors old and new by providing lists of online and offline resources and some basic general description on the nature of the sources in these resources (per general research/librarian perspective and per WP policies WP:PSTS WP:V WP:RS.

Since you are the expert who are familiar with both perspectives, I hope that you will can provide comments to improve the grant proposal. Thanks. --_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 00:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll get to this tonight. Thanks. DGG ( talk ) 15:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)