User talk:DGG/Archive 71 Dec. 2012

H ARCHIVES

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

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

Brokeback Mountain

On BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN (opera) there has been much press already - both US and international. I was trying to add some basic info to wikipedia. Hstokar (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

commented on your talk p. `

Sakyadhita International Buddhist Women's Association

Hello DGG,

Thanks for the message :

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

Unfortuantely, I see nothing specific about why the article was not accepted. Either I can't understand the nomenclature, or ...? Can you be clearer about what should be done?

Thanks for your work, LauriebakLauriebak (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may have commented in the wrong section

You left a statement in the "Comments" section of your preferred portion of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ticker symbols in article leads, but due to its numbering it looks like a vote. Did you mean for it to go in the "Users who endorse this view" section instead? I noticed this because I left a vote in the Comments incorrectly, so when I moved my vote to the right place, I moved yours as well. If you wrote where you meant to, please revert me. Nyttend (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, & I added something. DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Erevelles

I left a comment here but instead of you chancing on the AfD I figured I'd bring it to your attention, since you were involved in the original one two years ago and I know you are very knowledgeable about these types of bios. I feel that maybe that article is just badly written and sourced, but I'm not sure. Thanks! §FreeRangeFrog 22:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your query at my talk page.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Comments

Just want to thank you for your comments and say that I DID indeed find them on the article after I wrote to you. I find that communicating on this Wiki editorial site is not very user friendly (maybe that's intentional), so that getting articles up and running is something of a mechanical chore, in addition to the literary job. That being said, I do appreciate your candor and help. Hopefully, I can figure out how to re-submit once the changes are made. Should I just cut out the old and re-write on my previous submission, or start all over again.

thanks, Laurie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauriebak (talk • contribs) 15:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

some people care about user friendly, some do not. I care very much but I'm dependent on those those who actually code the systems. I have requested many times that the template be placed also on the users talk page; the technical fix would be trivial. My request has been rejected as unnecessary. Thanks for your note, I'll use it next time I ask, as some additional evidence.(There are manual workarounds, but they increase the time spent and when I'm working fast, I don't always do them, You will understand we get hundreds of news articles a day, and only a few competent people working on them, and if the responses do not come quickly, people get justifiably angry. )

Just edit what you have written, making the necessary changes right there on the page. When ready, submit it again. Sometimes articles require starting over, but I think yours is fixable without needing to do that. DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NYU-Poly article and List of NYU Polytechnic Institute people

Thank you very much for intervening. I feel so relieved now. The user Marco Guzman, Jr has some personal issues with the creator of the article List of NYU Polytechnic Institute people and therefore requested a speedy delete, most probably because he wanted to retaliate for Calpolylolli(an alleged sock of Mangoeater1000) nominating Cal Poly Pomona Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering for deletion [1], which I think should be deleted. Marco Guzman, Jr has also been deleting many updated and sourced informations from the main NYU-Poly article. I would request you to kindly look at this page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polytechnic_Institute_of_New_York_University&oldid=524688095 and restore/rephrase any deleted information you think is appropriate and belong on the main article. I would also request you to add both Polytechnic Institute of New York University and List of NYU Polytechnic Institute people to your watchlist because I am pretty sure that Marco Guzman, Jr and his Wikipedia:Meat puppetry will try to vandalize both pages in the future. I apologize for all the promotional, excessively detailed material I added. I know that I am not capable of improving any article, but if there's anything you need, don't hesitate to ask. Thank you and regards.--Pablo.morales.la.bomba (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also created another article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NYU-Poly_research_centers ..... I am not sure whether or not this should be merged to the main article. Best, --Pablo.morales.la.bomba (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to watch the Poly articles, and i will also check Pomona if I have a chance. (I agree that dept article should be deleted, and have said so). However, I do not think Guzman's editing of the nyu pages is revenge. In fact, I consider him a generally reliable editor, at least ad far as nyu is concerned, and I fully support most of his edits.

But it seems I need to tell you once more, in more detail, as I have already told you briefly on your talk page, that the material you have been adding to the list of poly nyu people is not appropriate. It is excessive detail for a list of the sort, The appearance it gives is that you are doing promotional editing for them--promotional editing applies not just to paid editing or editing by a staff member, but editing by a student, alumnus, fan, or anyone who just likes the school, or even just interested in it, if they add material which praises them without providing information, or duplicates material already present in other articles, or adds excessive links, or pictures which serve just for decoration--most of which you have been doing. Most of what you have been adding to that list article I intend to remove as soon as we can decide whether the split is appropriate. If it is, I will of course remove the corresponding material from the main article--when we have a split of notable people from a university article, we only mention in the main article the very few most famous. Famous and relevant is also the criterion for adding photos; a few of the people whose photos you have been adding are famous because of their connection with the university, but most aren't.

As for what you have been adding to the main article: in the edit you mention above, I support Guzman's removal of almost all the material you restored. And I am very likely to remove some additional material as well; I don't thing Guzman went far enough. To summarize, I very strongly advise you not to edit any material on nyu-poly. I shall add an appropriate warning to your talk page,m and if you continue as you have been doing, I shall block you myself as a promotional editor. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir. I assure you that I will not continue as I have been doing. I will not rephase anything on the NYU-Poly or related articles and if I find any new information about NYU-Poly, I will post it on your talk page. I added the rankings section on the List of NYU Polytechnic Institute people because new and updated rankings have been deleted from the main article. All the updated and new rankings are available here [2]. The dept article was created by Guzman's legal sock User: Dabackgammonator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablo.morales.la.bomba (talk • contribs) 02:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the better place to suggest edits is on the article's talk page. If there's any other alumni who have articles here, they should certainly be added, & that's the place to list them. I'll look into the rankings. My feeling was that there were perhaps an undue number of them, not at all unusual in university articles on Wikipedia, and in the editing more may have been removed than should have--that's a frequent error. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Pablo.morales.la.bomba

Passing on a request from him to sort something out as someone's blocked him. Peridon (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of user conduct discussion

You may wish to comment on a user conduct discussion regarding Paul Bedson, which can be found here. If you comment there you may wish to review the rules for user conduct comments first. You are receiving this notification because you commented at one of the articles or AfDs that are cited in the discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FinancialAccess@Birth

Please restore FinancialAccess@Birth. I had no time to contest the deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I restored your good version. It had since been totally wrecked by some other editors. If it need semi protection, let me know. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re-submission

Hi,

I've done extensive revision of my article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lauriebak/sandbox Wonder if it needs to go in the queue as before; or should it be reviewed as a previously "rejected" article... maybe a little sooner?

Also, wonder if it's acceptable to list publications by only one author. She's the past/founding president of the organization, and has only given me her own work to list. I'm not sure that's helpful.

thanks so much for your help... LauriebakLauriebak (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting there. The next step is to provide what we call in-line references for the material--to specifically say which of the references you list at the end of the article support which parts of the article. The normal way is by using footnotes--see {{WP::Referencing for beginners|our beginner's guide to referencing}}

After that, there are some things to fix about the style. (1) normalize the headings, according to our format--see our beginner's guide to formatting. (2), add links from appropriate places in the text to WP articles about those people or subjects. (3) Remove the remaining advocacy for the purposes of the organization: just describe it.

As for the publications, yes, you do see the problem. It would probably be better to try to write an article about her, for she seems to clearly meet the notability requirements for authors, WP:CREATIVE, (her books are in many libraries [3] --although I notice she is for most of them the editor,not the author--and then you can list all of her publications. Beware of WP:Conflict of interest--do not base your article on what the leader of the organization says, but on what has been written about it by other people. In the publication section here try to list representative publications of the Center. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will update the Mermaid Lounge page when I have some additional time

Thanks for your pointers. I'll go ahead and acquire the requisite information then re-create the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crowleigh (talk • contribs) 03:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Article Mike Baer

You said "As reviewing administrator, I deleted the page, not because it fails to indicate some reasonable possibility of importance, but because it was mostly copied from his web page at the Louisiana Senate, and is furthermore fhighly promotional." I did copy the freely available material from the Lousiana State Senate archives. If I did not reference correctly, please let me know how to fix it. I will rewrite as time permits.

In addition, I am not sure of the "highly promotional" aspect. The quoted material basically gave a brief description of his career path.

As for your question on notablitity, I was adding it to fill in links from "Mike Baer" on the "Sixty Raburn" listing and I was also going to try to fix the link on the "Edwin Edwards" page. I am willing to make whatever changes are necessary, but I am very suprised that a person mentioned on two different Wikipedia pages who was in political office for 25 years is not noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baerms (talk • contribs) 05:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Freely available" is not free. Wikipedia is free content is the sense explained at WP:COPYRIGHT : our content is available for all the world to reuse and modify and distribute as the please, for any purpose whatsoever, provided they give attribution and the material they reuse or modify is also available under the same license, a license known as CC-BY-SA. Anything more restrictive than this we do not consider a free license. Almost all web pages, including almost all state governments, are not free in this sense. They are available to read, and many are permitted to be reused for any non-commercial purpose, but this is more restrictive than our license, and we cannot reuse it, except for brief quotations. Almost all states do not distribute their material under a free license. The US Government does, but it is almost unique among countries.

In addition to copying, you must avoid Close paraphrase. The entire material needs to be rewritten from scratch, citing sources. Additionally, references are needed providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. If Baer's career is as important as you describe, there will be such references. Resolutions passed by the legislature, and similar sources, are not considered either independent or reliable for the purpose of showing notability.

What Wikipedia considers notability does not necessarily correspond to importance. It is defined under WP:N, and for politicians more particularly under WP:POLITICIAN. I did not make these guidelines, but I can definitely say that they have very wide community support. At WP, it is the community who decides. I can advise you, that they are not likely to accept this merely on the basis of the position unless you have very good references from reliable outside sources. I do not decide this. All I can do on my own is delete such obvious things as copyright violation.

I see you have re-entered the material as Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mike Baer.I see it has the same copyvio. I advise you to rewrite it immediately, for at the very least it will not be accepted, and will quite possibly be speedy deleted as copyvio. I think it does qualify as promotional. The second paragraph on his career has no sources. Saying he introduced various innovations,without any sources whatsoever, and ending with a sentence "Implementation of these new technologies set the Louisiana Senate as the high benchmark by which others were measured, far ahead of many states and nations, who sent their emissaries to observe the mechanics of a legislative day in the chamber." would strike most people as intended to praise him, not provide neutral information about him. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored for DRV

But then this longcomment? thing was added?[4] Is that normal? Now nobody ca nsee the article, and the longcomment does not link to the DRV, I do not know how to add the link either. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is normal. The way you see the older versions, including the new one being discusssed & the one originally deleted, is to look in the page history. The latest versions are in the history under the present title. The earlier ones, in the history at Inter-Services Intelligence support for terrorism DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK thank you, seems a bit off making people root through the history rather than just seeing the article, but if that is how it is done :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such is the accepted procedure. see section 2.3, "Temporary undeletion," of WP:Deletion Review. And it makes sense to me that we do not fully restore until there is consensus to do so. DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NYU-Poly article and List of NYU Polytechnic Institute people

User Marco Guzman, Jr is vandalising both articles.--MUMMYMAN (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/U.R._Bronco

I commented at that afd. DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best Regards,--MUMMYMAN (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not vandalizing anything. I'm reverting your edits as you have been, time and again, banned by the community (see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mangoeater1000/Archive). Your latest two socks (User:Pablo.morales.la.bomba and User:Calpolylolli) have been banned and now resort to an account that has also been mentioned to be suspect. Please tell us: when does it end?-- Marco Guzman, Jr Talk 04:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Guzman, Jr, When you and your meat puppets will stop vandalising both articles--MUMMYMAN (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I ADDED A LOT OF NEW UPDATED INFORMATIONS--MUMMYMAN (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well, this particular disruption will end, because the above account has been banned by Rschen7754

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya 1100 series IP phones.
Message added 09:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

VQuakr (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boundary 2

I'd appreciate if you could have a look at the last few edits made to this article. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rumi's Kimia

Hello DGG, I removed your prod from the above article as it has previously been listed at articles for deletion. Thank you. Rotten regard Softnow 19:56,

Tomorrow's Company→User:Sladen/Tomorrow's Company

Hello DGG, could you undelete Tomorrow's Company to my userspace so that I can have a look over it. I just spent a couple of months working with a photographer to release File:Richard-Brown-Eurostar-and-Mark-Goyder-Tomorrows-Company.jpg under a suitable licence; the left-hand half of which I've used as File:Richard-Brown-Eurostar.jpg for the Richard Brown (transport) article; I had a mental note to also add the right-hand half to the Tomorrow's Company article (now deleted in the interim). —Sladen (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

moved. Check also earlier versions--I undeleted the entire history. I'll mention that a key problem with the article is the unsourced claims of being exceptionally important. The sources in the article, as said at the AfD are either self published or the speeches of their founder or mere mentions. Their web page calls them a "global think tank"; such sources as I can find call them a consultancy. I suspect they might perhaps be best characterized as an advocacy organization. Their claimed connection with the RSA seems to be that they were originally inspired by a talk there by a distinguished person. The section of "membership" is link spam. See also the article on Corporate Responsibility Group which I am thinking of sending to AfD. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

nod*. Concur; I'll have a dig around at a future point, and if I can't fix it I'll probably come back you to unmove and redelete it. Ta! Sladen (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)—[reply]

Conflict of Interest?!?

You wrote:

BTW, I notice that you have written a series of articles on various Canadian and other technological companies of marginal notability , some of which have been deleted. I therefore must remind you of our provisions on WP:Conflict of Interest. DGG ( talk ) 09:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am well aware of WP:Conflict of Interest, but what has that to go with anything? Regarding any deleted articles, could you please be more specific? I am unsure what you refer to. TIA. Enquire (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest?!?

You wrote:

BTW, I notice that you have written a series of articles on various Canadian and other technological companies of marginal notability , some of which have been deleted. I therefore must remind you of our provisions on WP:Conflict of Interest. DGG ( talk ) 09:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am well aware of WP:Conflict of Interest, but what has that to go with anything? Regarding any deleted articles, could you please be more specific? I am unsure what you refer to. TIA. Enquire (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on company name titles

Would you point me towards something that addresses proper company name formatting for Wikipedia article? For example, if the company is called xyz, LLC, or ABC Corporation, what is the proper way to name them for the article title? Why is "Sony Corporation" titled "Sony" but "Apple Inc." is titled "Apple Inc." ?? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies). In short, we use the name without the Inc, (etc) unless needed to distinguish it from some other title or to clarify that the subject is a company. Sony is an invented name with almost no other meaning except the company and its derivative. (see Sony (disambiguation)). Apple, however, has another meaning, on e which was originally at least even more important:Apple, the fruit. If a choice is still needed, we pick whatever name is the most common in general use, if the name is in general use. We make a redirect from all likely alternates. Not that we are actually consistent: I consider Cisco Systems and Polaroid Corporation to be errors. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A request for help

Hi DGG. I need some help here. I'm currently involved in what's a rather nasty dispute over a bunch of pages. The basic story is that I first got involved by editing an article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleanor Leonne Bennett. The user (User:AndreaUKA) got upset that I removed all of the unsourced data and reduced it to a basic stub, leaving just the awards that she had won. From there it turned into a back and forth where several of us tried to explain the current standards of notability and that we shouldn't list things that can't be backed up with reliable sourcing. Some of the information in the article isn't even available on the internet, and considering that the person in question is a minor, we shouldn't be adding personal information that is unsourced and not on the internet. If it's not on there or sourced, then it's not out there for a reason. I did a quick search of her edits and found a page for The UKA Press that was poorly sourced and appeared non-notable. I put it up for AfD, only for Andrea to come on there and attack me as well. I had already posted a thread on the admin board (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ongoing_uncivil_comments_by_an_editor), but so far nobody has done anything. No admins have stepped in and Andrea continues to make rude, condescending, and uncivil remarks towards me. Can you please step in and mediate things? I'm not going to ask you to ban her, although I've seen people banned for 1-3 days for worse behavior, but I would like an admin to step in here. I've been defended by multiple editors so far and she just blows them off. What makes it so much worse is that she's trying to make it seem like she was just having a "spirited debate" and didn't mean to be rude, but so far she's called me arrogant and accused me of bullying her, among other things. It's pretty much the epitome of personal attacks and uncivil, especially since she's gone onto my own personal userspace pages and edited under the guise of "helping". I told her that editing my mainspace pages would be fine, but that anything on my userspace should not be edited without my permission because they're in my userspace and not under the same rules as things that are on the mainspace. I'm honestly getting frustrated. More than once she's thrown around that she donates money, has created a few pages and made a bunch of edits, but I've created 71 pages and have over 12,000 edits, so it's not like I'm a novice here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)While its true that she has been spouting off quite unacceptably in the AfDs for The UKA Press and Eleanor Leonne Bennett, more than one editor (including me) has called her on it and no one takes her accusations seriously. Unfortunately, it often goes with the territory when COI editors find their articles up for deletion. I've been on the receiving end more than once e.g. [5], [6]. Sometimes it's best just to give a brief rebuttal, reiterate that personal attacks are not acceptable and leave it at that. Lengthy responses tend to encourage yet more vitriol from them. Her stalking and editing of your user drafts is also unacceptable, especially since she then uses it to take swipes at you in the AfD discussion [7]. If she continues now that you've asked her to stop, I'll also have a word with her about it. I'm not an admin, but it might help. Voceditenore (talk) 08:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've learned not to attempt to mediate, but I'll comment at the AfD, and possibly at AN/I, as I see fit. Sometimes that means disagreeing with the person who asked me, however great a wikifriend I may generally be. I think it better in all instances, not just with respect to myself, that when anyone asks someone else for an opinion, or for help, they not argue the case, but just ask the other person to take a look, without any predisposition. I often give opinions, whether asked or unasked, and it's the only fair way to do it.

My almost invariable advice about people who attack oneself, is to ignore the attack and try to answer the argument. Having answered it, leave subsequent repetitions alone, unless new important points were raised. COI editors writing merely for money stop when they realize going on is unproductive; but some of those deeply involved in a company or product or cause whether professionally or as a a fan never stop. All we can do here is let them have a fair chance to have their say; if they convince people, they will succeed; if not, they won't. They rarely do, for all of us here are equally annoyed by the use of WP for promotion,and everyone here discounts personal attacks. This is the same as what Voceditenore said just above. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya 1100 series IP phones.
Message added 09:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

VQuakr (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation: Stephen Waley-Cohen

Hi DGG,

You recently declined my submitted article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stephen Waley-Cohen with the comment, 'Rewrite, omitting adjectives of praise. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for press releases.' On reviewing the article, I could only find one possible word which I thought might be considered an 'adjective of praise', which was "accomplished", in the lead, where I have written that Waley-Cohen is "an accomplished business leader". Given that he has been chairman, chief executive and president of various business organisations over many years - which I thought could reasonably be called accomplishments - I thought this was a reasonable description. Can you suggest a better way to describe his activities in business?

I would also be grateful if you could identify any other 'adjectives of praise', as I am having difficulty seeing any.

Thanks

NoMatterTryAgain (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

supports novel projects ; "major" part. Neither ref 3 nor ref 18 are acceptable sources for playing a major part--he can say in them whatever he pleases. Perhaps I am over-sensitive to a few words, but as you say, his accomplishments speak for themselves. We let them do it. and the reader draws the conclusions. I'm going to accept the article and do the necessary copyediting. I should probably have simply done so yesterday. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing the article up to the required standard. NoMatterTryAgain (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input

Hi DGG, could you please take a look at Talk:Natalie Khawam#Edit request on 10 December 2012. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that anything is really needed to be done. In any case I expressed a view on the matter that differed from the consensus, so I shouldn't do anything there. DGG ( talk ) 10:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion sought

Good evening. Would you kindly take a look at Puckett_Observatory#World_Supernova_Search. The second paragraph in the secton includes a dense list of apparently non-notable contributors to the project. User:Cometwatch (talk - contributions), who essentialy works only on this article, has twice reverted my rewording of the paragraph to keep the facts but eliminate the list (diff). Our conversation is at User talk:Cometwatch#List of non-notable people. As I don't do edit wars, may I leave this in your capable hands? -Arb. (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can deal with this. Many school clubs & the like have tried similar, so I have some experience. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted some links on User talk:Cometwatch to WP policy pages regarding notability and BLP. I'm not part of any dispute about content but have been trying a little bit along to give that editor information which might help him/her to write a better article. You'll see a lot of the previous comments on that page are mine and of the same general sort. Tell me if I'm overstepping any boundaries into things normally done by admins. Trilobitealive (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can help on something like this, until it comes time to do an actual block or revision delete. Everything you said was in my opinion highly appropriate. BLP is indeed an issue,; I had initially included it in my posting, but thought I'd wait & see if it was needed, but what you've said will help reinforce the overall message, and make it easier for me to invoke BLP later on if necessary. It's often very useful if several people comment--it keeps it from getting to be a one-on-one. thanks. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Double check

Please double check this edit. cheers Stuartyeates (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I've boldly redirected it to L'esprit de l'escalier. We already have an article on this expression, as you can see. Plus, the article title Spirit of the Stairway is a mistranslation. In this context esprit means wit not spirit. It's what happens when people try to base an article on the Urban Dictionary. - Voceditenore (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good redirect. I missed it. DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ajsinclair copyvios

Hi DGG,

I see that you warned Ajsinclair (talk · contribs) here that further copyvios would result in a block. Just a note to let you know I identified what probably counts as a copyvio at Thomas Haining Gillespie added after the date you left your warning. (I tagged it as a paraphrase for now and I'm intending to fix it if I can). I'll let you decide how to proceed. Thanks! --Noiratsi (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say that it was definitely copyvio—virtually verbatim from this. I've rewritten and truncated it and put a "Copyright problem removed" notice/warning on the article's talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 11:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been originally added earlier. I've left a reminder. DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, sorry for the bother. I think I misread '2011' as '2012' in the article's edit history. My fault completely. --Noiratsi (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article For Creation: Christopher Matthew

Could you take a look at the new changes. Thanks

Istook Live! requests again

Hi again, DGG. I wasn't sure if you'd see this if I replied in my original message, as it's now in your archives, so I hope you don't mind I made a new section.

You mentioned that you thought all the edits I requested had been made: Polmandc made the edit on the Heritage article and fixed the issues with formatting on Ernest Istook's article that I mentioned, but the addition to Heritage Action for America hasn't yet been made. Also, for Ernest Istook's article I've requested the addition of a more recent photo and source to support the new radio show (the existing source in the article refers to other radio shows he hosted, before Istook Live!). If you can make these edits, that would be great. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this weekend, if nobody gets to it sooner. DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O. Sinanoğlu

The BLP needs formatting (and more info :-). Thanx for your possible help. --E4024 (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the article itself, I think there is an editor there who could use some admin assistance. --E4024 (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enough experienced people are now working on it. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Chili burger to Chili con carne

I am letting you know that I have proposed a merge of Chili burger to Chili con carne. Being that you participated in the AfD, I'd be interested in your thoughts. The discussion is at Talk:Chili con carne#Merger proposal. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was suggested that Hamburger might be a better target, and I was implored to allow that as a possibility. Therefore, I've moved the discussion to Talk:Chili burger#Merger proposal to allow for this. Please accept my apologies if it seemed that I was advocating for one solution over another. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin obtained agreement to postpone the discussion to Jan 11,2013 to allow further sourcing. My own opinion at that time will be just what it was at the AfD. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move mixup at Yen Bai Province

Hey DGG, the talkpage of the article Yen Bai Province didn't quite make the transition when you moved the article; it's still at Talk:Yên Bái province. The move was initiated by Kauffner, who tagged it for deletion as an "uncontroversial" move, though as the edit history suggests, moves involving Vietnamese diacritics certainly are controversial. I would prefer the article be put back at its old location, and Kauffner can start an RM if he wants, but at least the talk page needs to match the article. Cheers,--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will revert the move, since it's been challenged. DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DGG.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:52, 13 December 2012

Mangoeater1000 sockpuppet mentioned you

Hi DGG, FYI . . . In case you didn't already see it, User talk:JJRambo (sockpuppet of User:Mangoeater1000) is invoking your name in his latest unblock request here. 72Dino (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on his talk p. about the block. He has now several times indicated he thinks I am sympathetic to his spamming; perhaps it is because I have tried to take as quiet a tone as possible. (Such has happened before.) DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article question

Hi DGG: Could you please take a look and see if the Petraeus scandal article is anywhere near WP:FAC status yet. I have been trying to bring it up to speed. What sayest thou? Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have had very little to do with FAC. My informal reaction to this, is "too soon." In terms of the FAC, an article must comprehensively cover all aspects of the subject. This is not yet possible. There is no reason to think we're finished. Consider the unsourced statement " several members of Congress stated that they felt they should have been informed about the FBI investigation earlier." The partisan political implication aren't necessarily finished. Any legal actions are not even started. The New Yorker has an article in the current issue mentioning a possible relationship between the lack of success in Afghanistan and the degree that Petraeus might have had enough support to not resign. . And there are loose ends "FBI Deputy Director Sean M. Joyce" is listed as a significant figure, but it's a redlink. the counsel also don't have articles. Natalie Khawam is at this time peripheralThis applies all the more so to the listing of her husband as a significant figure. The discussion of Elizabeth Krowne, daughter of Dr. Clifford Krowne is very indirect--the implication is to shown that since Krowne had access to major secrets, so could her mother, and thus her mother's sister Natalie, and that this would add to the obvious situation that the mistress of the CIA director possibly had such access otherwise. I'm not sure of the relevance of the substantial section, except that it gives leads which may be of some interest to conspiracy theorists.Or possible even to something real , for all I know. As I said, too soon. DGG ( talk ) 16:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative treatment of ingrown toe nails

I tagged this for tone about a year ago, but thinking this is really a how-to. Was curious of your opinion. I've been patient waiting for changes, but think it may be ripe for AfD. By it's very nature, not sure how it could be reformed into an encyclopedia article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the problems are with tone, presentation, & the need for inline sourcing--most of the material could probably be rewritten in an acceptable way. But the place to ask is Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the good advice. I've dropped off a note at the project. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aligning talk and article pages

It sounds simple, doesn't it? But not in this case. Kauffner (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG

Simple enough: just undo Kauffner's db-G6 04 Nov 2011 and Hồng Lĩnh Township will be back where the Talk page still is.

However you might want to first confer with Malik Shabazz, Graeme Bartlett, Cuchullain, Edgar181, Texas Android, Amatulic, Salvio Giuliano, Gimmeetoo on this, as admins who've upheld Talk:Cần Thơ RMs against contrary db-G6 requests.

All the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess. Now several of the talk pages have histories, so they shouldn't just be deleted outright. I recommend archiving the discussions before moving, and briskly trouting the perpetrators.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for contributing to the build up of text on those secondary talk pages, but there is still only 1 actual article Talk page, with the project banner, unmoved. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never moved either Can Tho or Hong Linh (I omit diacritics for simplicity, not as a judgment) or their talk pages. The only Vietnamese page I moved recently was Yên Bái province to Yen Bai Province on Nov 30; it was challenged on my talk p. at [8] & I reverted it on Dec 14, 2012. The move of the main page in question was done by Efe on November 4, 2011, but I see that admin is not currently active. As I have no way of verifying anything in this area, and no understanding of the question at issue, I do not see how I can usefully do anything positive; the only thing I can do is to avoid making errors, and the only way I can do that is to not move Vietnamese names again. If any admin who understands what is in dispute is sure what to do, I ask them to do it. DGG ( talk ) 14:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I am not requesting you do anything. Best wishes. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand you were asking me to just refrain from making it worse. I'm glad you did, for I might not have realized. DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Critique of Michael Pollack

DGG,

I discussed the matter of the article with the closing administrator at User_talk:Spartaz#DGG and he recommended that I ask you if you are interested in doing an in-depth critique of the article User:WhisperToMe/Michael Pollack. What I need is a critique of the "weight" aspects of the article based on the number of sources that discuss each aspect. In User:WhisperToMe/Talk:Michael Pollack I made an attempt to chronicle the weight of each section based upon the sources that discuss each section (if you prefer I'll post the material directly here). After doing this work, I did chop some things from two of the sections (early life and hobbies) that seemed to have fewer sources than the others.

One user did suggest that I look for criticism of Pollack; I would be happy to add that to the article, but I had not been able to find criticism of him. Perhaps the main "negative" aspect was how Colonial House turned out, and how there were lies in the 1980s about where Pollack lived. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that I may have already reached the point of over-involvment. I know that this can happen when someone tries to maintain a position, and I am not immune. Therefore, I had intended not to comment again no matter what you might have done further--I was expecting a non-consensus. But I realize that given what Spartaz said, this sort of leaves you in limbo. So I will look at it further, but give me a few days or a week--I need a break from it. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC) .[reply]

Thank you very much :) I'll be happy to work on other articles for a few days. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prof criteria

Hi DGG. If you have time, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Salmons. I think I'm interpreting the criteria at WP:PROF correctly, but wanted to make sure. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes, you have it right--I commented there. There seems to be a definite increase of attacks on WP:PROF (see note below also). Just like there have been on the schools compromise. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Nolelover's talk page.
Message added 18:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 18:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

on MMVA

Hi DGG, I saw that you deleted the article I wrote about "Metro Manila Vendors' Alliance", I'm sorry if I am not able to put the social relevance of the group. As I write articles in between jobs, I usually research on the subject and add paragraphs one or two at a time. I hope you could provide me with the previous text so I could re-submit a better article without necessarily researching on the topic again. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.131.137.90 ([[User talk: |talk]]) 02:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You will find it at User:Free14man/Metro Manila Vendors' Alliance But remember that you will need several good references, and a fuller description, and that we do not use WP for promoting a cause. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on article

Hi DGG, I saw you added some comments to an article that I created - Ali Malkawi - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Malkawi. I tried to make edits to remedy the issues you pointed out and I added some text to the page's talk section. Since I didn't hear anything back, I thought I would try talking to you directly here. Do you have any pointers or suggestions for edits, or are the edits I have made sufficient to address the issues? Thank you. Energy22 (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Request - Please read

Status and Advice I am unsure why you asked to delete this article. The above tag that dates from over a year ago was never valid--as a member of a national (or provincial) legislature, he is notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. We try to be as complete as possible here, so , as reviewing administrator, I declined to do the deletion . If you have questions, please ask me on my user talk page. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi In regards to the request, you have denied the deletion.

the deletion is requested because there is another page simillar to the one i requested to delete

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K.C.Veeramani. please delete this.

can see the below exist already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._C._Veeramani — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proshob (talk • contribs) 19:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J. Evetts Haley

Saw your comments in WP:RSN and your tag on J. Evetts Haley. Not sure how to address the "best-seller" claim per Talk:J. Evetts Haley. Location (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

replied on the talk p. There's a workaround I've used before. DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/RfC

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/RfC. 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) 00:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Patt

I would like help with locating the Ph.D. university, advisor, and title of Ralph Oliver Patt's dissertation. Ralph Patt returned to university (after 20 years!) to earn a Ph.D. in geology beginning in 1975. He had been employed as a Broadway/broadcast/studio guitarist in New York City from 1960-1975, so that CUNY or SUNY might have been likely universities.

He was later working at a Western research institute and wrote about Las Vegas's hydrology, in a frequently cited report:

Patt, Ralph O. (1978). Las Vegas Valley water budget: Relationship of distribution, consumptive use, and recharge of shallow water. Vol. 1. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory. pp. 1–61. Retrieved 27 November 2012. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Another query: He apparently helped to edit this book:

Russell, George (1959). The Lydian chromatic concept of tonal organization for improvisation. Concept Publishing Co. pp. 1–50. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

I'd like to find a page number and the acknowledgement. Now, that fact relies on weak sources.

Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pagestalkers, especially librarians, are welcome to help. :) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find the PhD thesis in the Proquest Dissertations ; nor is his thesis listed in WorldCat, from which i conclude that it may not have actually been a phd. What is the evidence that it was?. Geologists working on field or environmental work do not necessarily have advanced academic training at that level. you any evidence that it was?

Here's the link to the bibliography of his works on WorldCat: this will include separately published reports, but not journal articles. [9] ;

fwiw, here's the list of what WorldCat has for what he published as a musician [10]. Russell's Lydian chromatic... is at NYPL=--I will be there monday and look for it and tell you if there's a mention of him. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article by Petersen has a statement that Patt enrolled in graduate school in 1975 to earn a Ph.D., but it does not state that he completed it. He seems to have evolved from rather descriptive work c. 1976 to mathematical and statistical modelling of hydrological phenomena. Perhaps he had enough work that was interesting that he did not want the Ph.D.... I could not find anything at the U-Nevada libraries.

Ah, DGG, your sentence about Russell's book brought a tear of profound & simple happiness to my left eye. :.D The page number would be great! :)

Patt was active in jazz-guitarist newsgroups until 2007, when he stated that he need not be around when somebody completed a large project, but wished him well. One of these has a discussion of Russell, which Patt modestly acknowledges. One of them (after his death) has a grateful description of Patt at the Research Institute, as a good guy to the grad & other students.

Writing about Patt, I feel like the cowboy narrator of The Big Lewbowski commenting on The Dude—taking comfort that he's out there, and maybe just maybe The Dude's example gives hope to all of us sinners. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently Wikipedian in Residence at New York Public Library of the Performing Arts; I'll see what I can find there about him. The book is still in copyright so I cannot copy it; check the worldcat listing to see if its in a library to which you have access. DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great!

FYI

Slater, Neil; LaRocco, Dave; Negri, Joe; Patt, Ralph; Ryan, Rodger (1989). "Streaming audio index: Audio clips". Like Someone in Love. Ralph Patt's Jazz Web Page, Ralphpatt.com. Retrieved 16 December 2012. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); External link in |work= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Patt, Ralph (2002). "Streaming audio index: Audio clips". For George Russell. Ralph Patt's Jazz Web Page, Ralphpatt.com. Retrieved 16 December 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); External link in |work= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Sage Journal a reliable source?

Hello, I am just sending you this message to check to see if sage Journal-http://online.sagepub.com/ is a reliable source?

From what I have read it seems to be a publisher of scholarly reviewed journals therefore I am assuming it is a credible source of information. I would also like to know if ‎Current Dermatology Reports published by Springer Links is a credible source?

I have posted this question (with regard to springer links) a few days ago on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard but have had no response (with regard to springer links).

If this is not the right place to be asking this question I would be grateful if you could direct me to somewhere I could find the answer to my question. Thanks in advance

Sage Journal - http://online.sagepub.com/

Current Dermatology Reports-

http://www.springer.com/medicine/dermatology/journal/13671 --CR.ROWAN (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at RS Noticeboard. A general judgement is not helpful without knowing the specific journal, the specific article, and the purpose for which it is being used. DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply again at WP:RSN#Are "poetic journals" a reliable source for encyclopedia articles?? Another editor has put my point in a different and better way. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Placement of comment

I'm confused by your edit to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 October 18. By the placement, it sounds like you are saying that Khan’s E-Learning Framework is OK, but that article has been deleted, and had no .mil sources. Does it belong under Herbert J. Carlisle, which does have some .mil sources?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is an error. It belongs with Carlisle, which is one of the many military bios copied directly from usgov sources. I'll move by comment there. Kahn was deleted as an A7 by another editor. I don't see how it fits that, as it is a concept for web design, not web content. But it looks like it was probably in considerable part copied from Khan's book, and is in any case basically jargon. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 01:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

SarahStierch (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of possible interest

Hi DGG. I thought this Request Edit regarding analytics software may be of particular interest to you. We plan to bring it up to GA and I notice we probably need a few small trims (in the lead for example), perhaps a small addition regarding user groups and other tweeks before it's ready, but it's a solid first draft that's actually much less promotional than the current. CorporateM (Talk) 14:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made a number of suggestions. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Koch brothers

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Koch brothers. 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) 04:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Maple Elementary School (Seattle)

I am aware of Wikipedia's procedure of merging non-notable schools into their school district's article. However, if you take a look at Seattle Public Schools#Schools under Elementary Schools, you will see that Maple Elementary is already included in the table. Since the standalone article adds absolutely no new information that could be added about Maple to the district's article, there is nothing to merge. What should be done in this case? Biglulu (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

in that case, you make a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied

Hey DGG I replied to your message on my talk page. Peace, Peace, delldot ∇. 01:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CSD

Hey DGG. I saw you deleted Management & Science University. I just wanted to let you know that a separate page, Management and science university, is still in existence. This page is the same as the one that was already CSD'd. Ish dar ian 05:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. I deleted it also. I am not sure if it was meant to evade deletion. I'm not salting, because I think there might be a stub version to restore. I will check on that tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]