User talk:DGG/Archive 76 May 2013

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

Total Phase

I'm not sure how they found me, but they asked about your deletion of Total Phase. See my reply. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

their comment

Dear DGG,

My name is Nadya, I have spoke earlier with Gogo Dogo regarding the Total Phase article that has been deleted some time ago and I was trying to get more information on the case and see what could be done in order to recreate the article. I am not very experienced with Wikipedia and frankly this is the first time dealing with an issue of this kind.

I wanted to reach out to you and find out if there is a chance of recreating the Total Phase page on Wikipedia and what should be done from my side to make it happen?

As far as understood from Gogo Dogo, the community suspected that the page contained information that might have looked/felt like advertisement which played the main role in having the page deleted. I will do my best to create a page that will contain objective information about the company and by no means sound like advertisement of any kind.

Could I ask you to advise me on the best solution in this situation?

Thank you, I greatly appreciate your help with the case!

Best,

Nadya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudkan (talk • contribs) 22:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

response

I'd help if I could, but I do not see how this can possibly make an encyclopedia article. There are two problems. First, there is no indication that the company or its products are notable, in the sense we use the word. A Wikipedia article needs to show notability with references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. All you have now is press releases. The best sources are independent product reviews published in well-known publications. If you have such sources, it may be possible to rewrite the article; otherwise, it will not. (If it wins a major national award, they may be sources--but not just being a finalist.)

Second, a Wikipedia article needs to be written like an encyclopedia article, not a press release--it has to me mor ethan a product listing. A detailed list of products is an advertisement. . DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cooksonia

I added Cooksonia to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 30, but cannot work out how to get the header above my comment. Anyway, if Cooksonia could be deleted, and Cooksonia (plant) be moved back Cooksonia again, that would be much appreciated. JMK (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC) zit seems OK now. I'll let the AfD decide what to do with it. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Republic of China administrative divisions

Hi. I noticed that you moved List of Taiwanese administrative divisions to List of Republic of China administrative divisions yesterday. I had declined the speedy deletion as a potentially controversial move, and I'm a little disappointed that you overruled my opinion. Over the past year, the article has been moved back and forth several times (including moves by the nominator), so it's pretty clear that there's disagreement about its title. I had hoped to see the subject discussed at WP:RM so that the community could reach consensus about the title, but I guess it's a moot point now. - Eureka Lott 23:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

seemed obvious to me, but since you want it discussed, I'll move it back. I suppose it is a sensitive issue. Please do start the discussion, but I'll let others decide. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and it was moved back before I had the chance to open a WP:RM discussion. Ugh. - Eureka Lott 00:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the obvious thing to do is to now hold the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Halbrook RS

Thanks for your comment. As we are using the source only to voice the POV he expresses, and attribute it as such, I think your qualified "RS" is sufficient. I saw your comment on the article talk, and your just posted comment on the RSN. You said you posted 2 places (other than RSN), what is the other place? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Gun Control". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 15:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GrowLab

"Raising funds for notable organizations is not the same thing as notability ." And yet, raising funds for non-notable organizations is notable, as evidenced by Kickstarter and others. GrowLab is essentially a venture capital firm, an "accelerator" for small or proposed businesses. I added the entry for reference sake, since it was referred to by other pages: one of its founders is notable and has a page, a crowdfunding service that partnered with it is notable and has a page, and it's referenced in the page for the Economy of Vancouver. With so many references to the organization, should there not be an entry that explains what the organization is?

BTW, since I'd contested the speedy deletion, should there have been a discusson on AfD? Morfusmax (talk) 05:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

since you're the author of the article it only means I'm obliged to take account of your objection, and reply to your questions about it. If you protest, and I think it reasonable, I take it to AfD. But the entire content of the article was "GrowLab is a startup accelerator located in Vancouver, Canada. Founded in 2011[ref to Techcrunch], GrowLab works with prospective and existing businesses, connecting them with funding, mentorship and office facilities. GrowLab's compensation for this is 5 to 9 percent of the client business' common shares." If I took this to AfD, it would be surely deleted. As I said on your talk page, the thing for you to do now is to write a more extensive article with multiple reliable sources, an article explaining the importance. DGG ( talk ) 15:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining copies of Civilization Jihad on Wikipedia

Hi again, we had previously discussed other copies of this page on Wikipedia. The result of the relevant discussion about this page was Delete, and there now remains at least one copy of this page on another user's sandbox. Note, this second user is currently suspected of being a sock of the first user. Can we safely delete the "CeceliaXIV" version of this page? Also, I suspect that the Civilization Jihad will come up again for discussion at DRV, like it has recently. Thanks in advance. Guy1890 (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bush

Thanks for your Keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Bush (businessman). This has been a painfully drawn out process and has seen some very odd responses that suggest that editors do little research before casting a "vote". The original call for deletion came within minutes of a confrontation I had with the editor who made the call and at best appeared to be vexatious. For that reason I was very surprised by the calls for Delete from so many. Where does this article go wrong or am I mistaken in finding the subject obviously notable in the Australan business and sporting worlds? Castlemate (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

pile-on !deletes or other !votes are common here. "Anyone can edit" has the unfortunate but unavoidable consequence that thinking is not required. I have found the the key to productive work at WP is not letting oneself become outraged about this. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deprod of Gellwe

What merge? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought to merge it into the company (an article I see has been deleted). I suggest we should have one or the other article--there seems to be the necessary importance. DGG ( talk ) 15:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hello. Since this is your area of expertise (one of them) I thought I'd ask for your input here: [1] Thanks!Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Three figures from Energetically Modified Cement

Dear DGG: Can you please explain your thinking regarding the above captioned subject:

The first photo is a photo of the volcanic Ash deposits that are discussed in the accompanying section. The purpose is to provide the reader an impression of what Natrual Pozzolans can look like in their natural state in Southern California, relevant to the accompanying entry

The first diagram embellishes the Bache Process (1983), and sets out important details about the method in terms of salinity, temperature and duration, that was used to determine the test results that are described in the article. This is a key test for "durability" in concrete. The diagram is establishing the scientific basis for the test.

The second photo you have removed is a photo to provide photographic verification of the statements made in the accompanying section. Further, it adds reader interest as it shows what the large volume application of EMC in field usage looks like.

Understanding your thinking will be important as to whether the modifications you have made will endure.

Kind regards Jono2013 (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gave my thinking at the AfD. None of the three are specific to this subject, though they all may be useful elsewhere. The road making machine looks exactly like it does when using other forms of concrete. The mineral looks like the mineral, however it is used. The reader wanting to know what Pozzolan looks like will find out in the article on Pozzolan, which is why I moved the photo there, and very glad to have it, WP is an electronic encyclopedia, and we do such things with hyperlinks and hyperlinked articles. where it is really needed. The Bache process shows that method of analysis regardless of what is being tested--we need is an article on it--why not write one, using the illustration? We normally do not verify an article with photographs, because they normally need interpretation--we use them to add to show concepts or aspects that are better shown in illustration. For example, if a a heap of the material looks different from that of other cements, a comparative photo would help, Certainly a comparative photograph showing the different resultant grain size would help. Photographs also add some visual interest, and we like a dramatic one at the top of an article. That's why I kept the test machine. It's less familiar than road-making machines, and will work better.

Do you want the article kept, or deleted? My many years of experience here trying to save challenged articles have taught me that relative modest challenged articles do better than expansive ones. ?n attitude of defense of every element of an article, will usually indicate a lack of objectivity, and this indicates promotionalism--which is one of the two most common reasons for removing articles. I have a good many more changes to make also along these lines; if you want a strong article you will like them--if you want a promotional article you will not. Sometimes when I try to save an article, the original author reverts; usually the article then gets deleted. Do you want to really help? Add the reference to the patent(s) and add a reference to some discussion of this is a standard textbook. We could also use a description from the patent of elsewhere of just how long and under what conditions it is activated. those are the sorts of information and references that add useful content to a WP article. DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting - I'd rather take the conversation here. I have however, before seeing this, posted responses to your comments on the deletion page.

The posting of the article straight to consideration for deletion was against Wiki deletion policy. I am not going to waste time debating it. You're entitled to your view, but the conduct of the poster speaks for itself. I see that user has made many deletion requests since joining April 26 2013. That may indicate over zealousness.
Forgive me if I misconstrue, but you seen to confuse objective scientific reporting with "consensus" (committee style) challenges by those who have no grounding. For example, I am not going to traduce or attempt to define/edit entries on advanced subjects of which I have no understanding. I am not.
I have no objection at all to balanced debate towards amending something - recall, this is month's work with leading academics - provided there is discussion first. I am not going to criticize you, but I also have to tell you the enormity of what you have done. Whence, the the same token I am telling you straight, your amendments have already displayed a lack of sufficient grounding and it is not time efficient for me to sit here waiting to see what else you have wrongly changed, simply because you have taken it upon yourself to perceive that the subject is capable of an "armchair lawyer's" critique. If you were a (say) professor in material sciences, who understood even the basic distinction between "cemntentious materials" and "cements", I would of course view wholesale changes without discussion first (as you have done,) in a different manner.

You have no right at all to substitute your perceived general knowledge for specific expert knowledge. And definitely not to keep some sort of "consensus ideal" going where it has no place. Consensus between experts fine, consensus with an expert and someone who seems to have little knowledge - fine too. Provided that "generalist" is prepare to listen. But, as a non expert, to make wholesale changes, without discussing with an expert, very wrong.
You have admitted that the subject is of merit. So why do you allow non-experts to undermine its objectivity.
To surmise, if you want to challenge I have no issue. But the article was entirely objective about the subject matter.

The reason why it WAS referred-to as "EMC Cement" (in the article) is because it is using the accepted parlance of academics and users alike. No one speaks of "EMC". That is an abbreviation for journals. Everyone reporting to me is stating that in the academic world, the "spoken word" term is "EMC Cement". It may not make much sense to you - but it is what it is. The company was named AFTERWARDS to reflect that (already existing) "spoken word" terms of art.
Generally, academic articles will refer to "EMC". The problem is, there is more than one EMC. I have made this clear before. So we have to sort out that conundrum for the purposes of wiki. Secondly, to use "EMC cements" correctly reflects there is more than one type. Simply referring to "EMC" on the understanding that the reader MAY understand that Wiki has a "pluralization policy" which bans the "s" after an acronym, is a problem. Yet, although using the term "EMC cements" reflects the common parlance (as above) and the need to ensure it is understood there is more than one type, the problem is that "EMC Cements" are NOT cements - and to claim so in Wiki undermines its credibility for a proposition that no one in the academic or "cement/concrete" world will accept. "EMC cements" are always ONLY "cementitious materials". This is why I was so careful to include a "classification" section.
Whence, the only way around the various competing considerations, is to use a term of art reserved for that page only, namely "EMC Cements"

BUT instead of seeking an explanation as to why the term "EMC Cement" was used, instead, there has been a "rush to judgment" on what is in EXPERT TERMS a VERY delicate classification conundrum. Instead, there has been a rush to "prejudge" the usage of "EMC Cement" as engaging in "promotional activities", simply because, after the event, a company was named to carry the same name - in respect of which, the person who is part of that company just happens to be the inventor of the process and the ENTIRE TERM anyhow. And even when I have spent my time giving an explanation it has been a case of "in one ear out the other". This is deeply distressing to those who truly understand the subject and the conundrum of classification in the "cement/concrete" world.

As for your removal of the pictures, I'll let that ride for now, but so far, your deletions only show an "armchair lawyer's" posture and understanding. And unless you can specifically negate that which I have set out in the deletion board, then, they will have to be reinstated. To sequestrate a picture of Southern Californian pozzolans for other articles is one thing. To do that, yet completely remove it form the originating article for spurious reasons, is just unacceptable. You are substituting your "taste" over (justifiable) "substance" without discussion first.

What has taken a month to compile, you have deleted in 20 minutes, albeit having no expertise, and not discussing first. And yet causing me to lose an awful amount of my time. When you could have discussed first. In all my 58 years, I have never known anything like it.

I hope this explains matters. Yours Jono2013 (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It explains that you don't understand WP. The principle is that anyone can edit. The way a true expert can be shown, is that what they write is so convincing and well supported that everyone agrees with it. We very deliberately go by consensus here, not by expertise, and those who wish to work otherwise must work elsewhere. We also go by the reliable sources, not by what someone says the sources are, and I use the terms I find in the scientific literature, not in the press releases. I worked on a project once (Citizendium) that gave priority to certified experts, of whom I was one in my own subjects: it was a disaster because, among other things, it was impossible to make necessary changes in articles. I conclude that you are making promotional edits for this class of products, and I shall try to convince the consensus to stop you, even if it means deleting the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not debate what I do or do not understand. It is not constructive to resolution. To be honest, I value your candor and you have a way with your words, which seems conducive. I am going to tell you this: it is NOT true that ANYONE can edit wiki. Rather, ANYONE who can make objectively justifiable entries, without pea-cocking etc, can edit wiki - and there is an Ocean's difference. Whence, this is, i suspect, the major issue: the "blind adherence" to, what is, a misconstruction of a principle that was stated simply ONLY for the sake of parsimony. So it gets bent out of shape. We both know this. So let's take the situation with the EMC page. Behind the scenes, several leading academics and I have been writing by email, privately, tweaking the content. We cover important issues, produce a RAFT of papers (some of which are carefully collected to stored on a server for the readers benefit). We debate among ourselves, important issues regarding (for example) classification. We debate what is "durability". We debate whether or not the "brache" method can be objectively justified as an accepted measure of measuring "durability" for the purposes of wiki. We spend hours, day and weeks carefully traversing the issues. You're not aware of this. And then you parachute in.

If like me, you pay deference to expertise, you listen. You reach a consensus of expertise and you "trust". You allow the other person, of whom you perceive as knowing more than you, to develop their point. You may take your time, or it may come to you in a "flash". Eventually, having discussed with the expert, you know a lot more than you did than when you started. For example, you learn that what may be termed "strength" may not, from a strict construct, be "durability". BUT the key thing is, NOT once is a change made until it is understood.

If you had come to me and said on my page "Can we discuss this", or on the Article page, you would have received a "fabulous - let's do that. Tell me what your concerns are and lets work them through"

I can assure the page is NOT promotional nor was it ever intended to be. This said, there is an important classification issue, which via the consensus of experts I work with, the overall opinion is that the most efficient way of dealing with it is to reserve "EMC Cement" a term in the article. Just as a lawyer defines terms in an agreement. Believe me, after a lot of debate, this was considered the most equitable and faithful solution --- and most parsimonious ---- using a term which is, after all, used by academics the world over in "parlance". Put simply, in parlance, nobody refers to "EMC", rather "EMC Cement".

There has also been debate whether the term "EMC" should be amended (not here, but in future formal academic literature) to EMM (Energetically Modified Material) or EMCM (Energetically Modified Cementitious Materials). The latter presents problems because the EMC process can be used also to activate Portland cement, but Portland cement is NOT a "cementitious material". Hence, EMCM is just as "incomplete" as "EMC". So the decision was taken, by academics, not to depart for the "EMC" term , which after all, has been now embedded for TWENTY years.

You have to understand that the common usage of term "cementitious material" POST DATES "EMC". Some of the academics have expressed the view that this is only because EMC Activation suddenly placed those materials now termed "cementitious materials" onto the "map". You must understand what an enormous discovery EMC was in the advanced material sciences world 20 years ago. And of course, 20 years later we take a lot for granted. Using fly ash is now much more accepted. But, back then, aside from the US Superstructures, which have a history of using calcined Monterey shale (i.e. a heat-treated natural pozzolan), alternatives to Portland Cement had died a death with the death of the need to build the superstructures in the US (the last time a natural pozzolan was used in a major US Superstructure was the LA Aqueduct in the 1970s).

So between, the LA Aqueduct and the invention of the EMC process, largely nothing. And that is how it ended up being termed "EMC". Only in the past 15 years or so did we begin-to commonly use the term "Cememtitious material" and, relatively more recently too, "Supplemental Cementitious Material". To give you an idea just how much things are changing have in mind that the new term "Alternative Cemetitious Material" has only been around for about a year largely by US Concrete - and this is because U.S Concrete knows that EMC Activation is allowing replacements more than 50%.

But all said and done, the general consensus is, that the term "Cementitous Material" only regained traction AFTER it was understood what EMC Activation could do. And for a "Material Science" to gain the Gold EUREKA award in 1997 - it was simply unparalleled, and has never been achieved since. And that is despite the Portland cement industry since committing and spending billions on R&D to convince the non-expert that Portland cement is now "environmentally friendly".

I hope this assists. Jono2013 (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question of the content of the article should be discussed on its talk p or the AfD, not between the two of us. If you wish to explain the relationships you are discussing here, probably the talk p. of the article on Cement or Portland Cement might be the best place for it, and at that point I will go by what the sources you can bring forward indicate--that's very specifically why I suggested that this article would benefit by a textbook reference, to show the common understanding of the term, if you wish to make use of the implications in the present article. As I said above, if you are an expert, the sources you will be able to show will convince me, and I will be glad to have learned more about the topic. Edits are justified not by one's knowledge, but by the sources. Nobody has the right here to assert a particular challenged meaning on the basis of their own knowledge unless they can prove it. A teacher can do it in a classroom, a peer-reviewer can do it--we are a different environment.

Unlike you, I do not defer at WP to expertise; I listen to what anyone has to say--and i go by the evidence they present, not the arguments they make. I think you will find others here do the same for, after all, we have no way of judging expertise. We are however able to recognize reliable published sources, and we follow what they say. I have however learned a great deal about may subjects here, and, as I said, I hope to learn more about this one. But there is no reason why I should take your word for it, nor can you expect anyone here to do so. Going by what I've seen of the sources in the article, as others have pointed out they represent the view on one particular group of researchers, and even so they do not use your terminology in their articles, just in the press releases from the company that produces the product.

What I do already know is what makes an article look promotional. That's a question within WP, and I am trying to explain what I think the community will decide. Whether I am right will be shown by the results--and by the changes you make. I do not make the decision. I think it clear to me that your intent is to explain the befits of a technique you understand--I think it clear because of the emphasis the article repeatedly put on the benefits. Such intent can often lead to promotional writing, and if it does we will remove it. But it is not your intent that matters, except insofar as it affects your writing: We go by the result more than the intentions.

There is no point in further discussion here--it should be continued elsewhere. You should continue explaining, certainly, but where everyone interested will see it, and this is not the place. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have labored my points in the hope you will understand. I have taken calls this evening from academics trying to solve the conundrum. Meanwhile, I am not going to listen any more about "proof". This is 20 years' well-documented proof. If you want a book to read, I suggest you start with "The Concrete Manual", the first edition of which was a direct product of the Hoover Dam's construction. This must be read in the context of the St Francis Dam disaster which occurred just a few months before the construction of the Hoover Dam was approved by the US Senate. Books are written about "concrete", not "cement". "Books" dealing with "Cement" tend to be non-academic/undergraduate level or academic compendia of selected papers. Books dealing with "Cementitious Materials", I can only think of one compendium. So, viz. EMC technology, you are asking for the (relative) impossible. Again, you are applying generalist observations to a very very specialist subject. If you were to ask any leading academic in advanced material sciences dealing with "Cementitious materials", it is likely they would not see a "book" as being their "objective" or their zone of chosen reading material. Finally, what I shared with you above was an insider's track, not particularly for public consumption. As such, even then, you'll understand the constraints of a full discussion - as there is no veil of confidentiality here.

I ask you not to remove content from the entry without discussing first. I have given you an enormous amount of my time, because you were kind enough to grant me the same. And I can assure you, but for your efforts, I would ask for the page to be removed. You have been willing to listen. This has promulgated a practical solution which is acceptable to leading academics, in highly a specialized field, which unfortunately has an "apparent" simplicity about it which attracts those bearing "arm chair lawyer" postures who focus on everything but the truth: namely, this is highly highly specialized.

Regards Jono2013 (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, it is not covered in current books. The ones you mention are long before the invention of this process. I've realized the best place to look as a general source , and I will, though it may be a few days before I have the chance--Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology , which covers technology very well. Specialized encyclopedias like that are ideal tertiary sources. I'm surprised I didn't think of it earlier, because that's what I recommend to students. I see we do not have an article on it, so I will write one, which will be one (additional) good result of this discussion.

I never insist that my version of an article be the definitive one--even where I am in fact an expert; first, that;s not how I think WP should be written, and second, it's a frustrating waste of time. If I can WP:BOLDly bring about an improvement in an article, I've done my share--thats the primary thing I try to do here. I'll take one further look at the discussion and the article tomorrow. & only go back to either add Kirk-OIthmer as a ref, if I find it included, or to report that I don't. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is fabulous. Your collaboration has been invaluable and to be honest, please have in mind that the academics to whom I refer, do not necessarily carry English as their primary language. It has been very difficult for me to "translate" your concerns into something that "held sway". But after a lot of discussion, they could see your concerns were perhaps "grounded" so we worked hard to make the changes we did to catch the nuances of the classification issue in a "non-obvious" way which will not be contentious to those operating in the field. I am a retired life sciences academic, who developed a love for this subject about 10 years ago. I "stuck my neck out" to get academics to help me, and I can tell you, the adding of the "removal" referral caused me acute embarrassment, because I had really gone out on a limb to convince them of the merits of doing something on here and devote their time in assisting me, when most of them were very concerned that the integrity of the various competing nuances within the field would get "trumped" for wiki policy. But, with your perseverance, I was able to fashion a re-work which makes sense. If you think abut it, if this article remains, Wiki will have provided a useful focus point for what is an increasingly important field - namely the emergence of Cementitous Materials as being the focus of where the "smart" material science research "is going". You only have to look at the increase of articles published on "Supplemental Cementitious Materials" in the past 10 years to realize the momentum-shift. These are exciting times and wiki should reflect this. And if this page remains, then not only will it contain an important contribution about "Supplemental Cementitous Materials", but moreover, an article about a "phenomenon" which is considered by many to be be one of the most -if not the most- important scientific-breakthroughs in that "rare" domain, namely EMC. And for that, we should all be happy, because that was my aim - but what's more your perseverance convinced me to labor it. So you should be pleased too. It was worth losing a Saturday over. For which I thank you.

Kind regards Jono2013 (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OBOD

It's a bit like having a government made up of time share salesmen, to my mind. Oliver is starting to remind me of a character in an as yet unfinished set of stories of mine - oddly enough called Oliver - who talks in enthusiastically motivational 'that's what we're here for, isn't it, team?' style. I'm sure the WP one isn't a green rabbit fluffy toy, though..... Peridon (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I was typing that, Fabrice was posting at Notifications. I think they've got OUR cards marked.... Peridon (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver gets things involving the interface more often right than almost anyone else involved. In this case, he's not the problem. I've made a comment from personal experience. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am not surprised to read here that he told the "Editor Engagement" team six months ago that they needed a better way to notify of talk page messages. His role in this has been the unpleasant one of official spokesman whose duty is to defend the indefensible. JohnCD (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question?

I've got a question for you: I'm participating in an AfD where the other editor is a little overly generous with their typing, to where their arguments take up multiple, multiple paragraphs. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Vishwanath (author)) Is it, in these cases, permissable to apply a collapse shell to the comments as long as we note in the AfD that the comments were collapsed and that they were further arguments? I'm worried about the AfD looking so long that it deters other editors from contributing. Since I'm involved, as is the other person I asked about this, I thought I'd get the opinion from an uninvolved editor and if it's something that can or should be done, ask if you could do it. I don't want to do it and then have someone say that I'm trying to deliberately hide arguments to sway things to my side. I'm just thinking more about brevity's sake and not scaring off other editors. I'm kind of thinking that it wouldn't really be something doable, but I thought I'd ask just in case. The collapse shell template has become my new best friend, so I'm trying to figure out when and where it's acceptable to use them when it comes to other users. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer not to do it; the person to whom it is done often perceives it as insulting. What can sometimes be helpful is a comment like, "'''Summary'' So, as I understand it, you are saying that .... " DGG ( talk ) 13:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An Invitation

Please participate in the discussion of Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#Inclusion of Pulitzer Prize for History. Solomon7968 (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Curtis

Just came across the Alan Curtis (criminologist) article, which it looks likes you have had some dealing with in the past. I AFDed it. I may do so as well for the Eisenhower Foundation article after I do some WP:BEFORE Gaijin42 (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tags on Sharon A. Hill article

I have a questions about the wp:advert and wp:peacock flags that you recently added to the Sharon A. Hill article. It is a new article that has a pending DYK so I want to help correct the language if I can. You did not leave a note on the Talk page about what part of the text you do not think is neutral enough. Can you point me in the right direction? Allecher (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it is images, not words. What is the point of the third photo? For that matter, what's the point of the second, except to show her in a t-shirt proclaiming her cause-- and the first is not in the objective style we usually prefer. I rather doubt its licensing, because it looks like a professionally posed photo in a style designed to make her look glamorous.
It refers too much to her own opinions, and she's not that famous that there is any point in it except as a press release.
She's a blogger and science writer, not a geologist or a "public policy expert". There's no information on her degrees or education.
What's the evidence that "Media Guide to Skepticism" is of any importance? Who has referred it it as being an expert guide in a reliable source? The Token Skeptic Podcast ias not a RS.
Why should anyone care that " most of her first books as a child "were about monsters and ghosts."?
Her accomplishments are minor , and the article makes too much of them. Being a panelist is not notability.

I almost marked it for deletion as G11.'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: April 2013

This Month in GLAM – Volume III, Issue IV, April 2013
Headlines
From the team: Some personal thoughts on GLAM Australia and New Zealand report: Wikipedia in academia and libraries in Australia Denmark report: Upcoming Edit-a-thon 1864 Finland report: WLPA; GLAM Sessions; Funding France report: Brest Germany report: Hamburg Museum; Museum August Kestner Hungary report: Article writing contest about statistics and related sciences Italy report: Wikipedia workshop; Editathon on women's biographies Mexico report: Fotofestín activities; DIY scanner project progress and Winners of the Holy Week in Mexico photo contest at ITESM Campus Ciudad de Mexico Netherlands report: GLAM WIKI UK; Wiki loves Sound; Wikipedian in Residence; Wiki loves Libraries; Wikipedia Training National Museum of Ethnology Spain report: Longest edit-a-thon ever at Fundació Joan Miró in Barcelona Sweden report: GLAM handbook version 3; conferences; hackathons and Wiki Loves Public Art Switzerland report: Swiss Federal Archives looking for a Wikipedian in Residence Taiwan report: Taiwan Government Data Portal Launched UK report: GLAM-Wiki; new and departing Wikipedians in Residence USA report: First GLAM Boot Camp; Consortium meeting; GLAMout; plus workshops and editathon Special story: Intersections between GLAM and Wikinews Open Access report: Featured content; Wikimania sessions Calendar: May's GLAM events
Read this edition in full • Single-page
To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 21:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Falsification of history

Hi DGG.

I am the main author of the article “Falsification of history in Azerbaijan” in Russian Wikipedia. The article has many times been reviewed by a special group of mediators which were appointed by the decision of the Arbitrage committee. The mediators confirmed that this article had the right to exist and also that its title was correct. The article was recently translated into English Wikipedia, however administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise deleted it giving the following reason for his deletion: WP:CSD#G10: attack page (talk). On page I collected all the neutral sources based on which the article was written. As you are dealing with history yourself, I need your advice – what to do with the sources which explicitly say that there is a state program of falsification of history in Azerbaijan? In what article can they be used and is it permissible to have a separate article describing this phenomenon? Divot (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now read the article here, and compared it with the Russian article, and also read the Russian talk page (relying mostly on the Google translation). I do not know the history of the region, either ancient or modern. I do know that a nationalistic interpretation of history continues in most of the Soviet successor nations, and I know that it is a sensitive issue, because of the utterly absurd practice of nationalist politicians of justifying current territorial claims by ancient boundaries, and also the difficulty in determining both the location of such boundaries and the actual people there at a particular time, thus inevitably producing at least two countries claiming any particular region.

I will give you my opinion of what to do. It is only my opinion of what will work best here, based on my experience. There's no point trying to convince me of the rightness of your position: I will not be judging the issues.

The processes at each WP are different, and no WP accepts work from another without question. There are several problems with the Russian article--and, correspondingly, with the translation you have made. The first is that title--I saw the Russian discussion, but we avoid making judgments in titles even when they are justified. Given the world-world readership of WP, more diverse than any other, we make even more strenuous efforts to what everyone would perceive as a NPOV. We would not accept the word falsification, and you will get nowhere arguing that we ought to.

Second. the question is whether we will support a separate article on the subject at all, and that is unpredictable. My guess is that we will not, for people here normally do not accept separate articles on controversies of any sort, as distinguished from the subject the controversy is about; and people here also are very reluctant to accept splits or special aspect articles on subjects involving ethnic conflict. But there is no reason not to try.

Third, the likelihood of success on it will be improved by being a modest article fully in accord with out usual conventions--if it seems exceptional in any way, this will be considered a danger signal. Normally, we discourage long footnotes. We do accept them for quotations of non-English text & their translations; we do not accept them to discuss the qualifications of backgrounds of the people making the quotation. You don't have to say the obvious--people will judge a book by its publisher. Avoid any negative comment about living individuals: if they're doing something wrong, the facts will show it. An article must not give a conclusion or judgment--certainly not in the title, but not anywhere. It must not work from the assumption that one of the sides is right. For an article like this, the question will occur to everyone: has there been no distortion of history by the other side? The opposing views must be fairly represented.

I do not think the article fell under G10. It should not have been speedy deleted under that criterion, though it might have been correct to use G11, promotional, for promoting a cause. . But there is no point in appealing with the present version, because the present version will not conceivably be accepted. First, you must rewrite it, simplifying it, and not going off into tangents. Try to avoid discussing in detail the actual facts of ancient history. Give the evaluations by neutral western scholars, and let the evaluations speak for themselves. When you have done it, try again ,under a more appropriate title. There is no chance that it will avoid being proposed for deletion at AfD. It will. When it goes there, argue very carefully, Avoid any negative comment on anything or anyone, especially on the editors supporting deletion--if you attack them for having bias, the article will probably be deleted. If they have bias, their own arguments will make it obvious. Reply to objections, once or at the most twice. You need to hope that your arguments will convince people; saying them repeatedly will not contribute to it. Good luck with it. DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Divot (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications box replacement prototypes released

Hey DGG; Kaldari has finished scripting a set of potential replacements available to test and give feedback on. Please go to this thread for more detail on how to enable them. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

category intersection

You mentioned this in a few CFDs. Mind swinging by and giving your thoughts here, on a possible band-aid while awaiting wiki-data? Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection#A_working_category_intersection_today? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Japanese ambassadors

In the context established by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susumu Shibata, may I ask you to to take a look at two related articles. I wonder how to measure consensus opinion about Tsukasa Kawada‎ and List of Ambassadors from Japan to Algeria‎? --Ansei (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would avoid making additional ones while the issue is unresolved, for the work may be wasted. For the ones already here, you might want to add more information if possible to get them stronger. Something I see missing is the dates for their ambassadorship, and this at least should be available. DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hasty Deletion of Sruli Recht

Hello DGG,

Deleting this article was hasty and rather hostile - Instead of opening a dialogue to discuss changes, you deleted the additions of many different people who are interested in this person. This is a notable designer, and a simple google search can present with enough data on this. It would have been more helpful to discuss these concerns and suggest the adjustments and amendments so that the page could be developed instead of this approach. This article was part of developing the Icelandic wiki project and has had various people contribute to it.

Please reinstate the article so the factual data that you claim is promotional does not have to be resourced, and the page does not have to be restarted from scratch.

Sawwater ( talk ) 23:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It will be easier for me to let you try to defend it at AfD. I'm undeleting the whole history--earlier versions, tho even more promotional, have some possibly usable references. I suggest you update the refs so they work, and be prepared to say why they are not press release or mere mentions. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. What is the time limit? Sawwater ( talk ) 15:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

7 days, but the sooner the better DGG ( talk ) 15:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, may not be able to begin till the weekend. Can you offer advice: how is the article different so something like Gudmundur Jorundsson which appears to be a very direct press release written by the subject themselves. Should it be more or less like this one? Sawwater (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been updated with all information cited by thrid party sources. Please suggest further corrections if needed. One citation is from a news-website that is industry only subscription based and can only be accessed by logging in. How does one cite this?Sawwater (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updated, requesting removal of the deletion suggestion
Each point comes directly from a reputable source. There are 93,300 google hits on the subject, as well as published books, including the Gestalten publishing book on Icelandic fashion design, which has a Sruli Recht photograph as the cover. This designer has been noted in some of these articles as the best known designer from Iceland.
For comparison, I suggest to look at the page of Gudmundur Jorundsson which references the subjects own webpage bio, and is written by and signed by the subject, and also uses quotes referring to other people.
Other very well known fashion designers pages are similarly "unreliable" by your standards, even though Sruli Recht is very well known in the fashion business world. It is possible that the general wiki editor's field of interest are various and rarely fashion oriented, which makes the subjects less covered/ edited by those knowledgeable, and more scrutinized by editors such as yourself.
Please see the following pages for reference - all very well known international fashion designers: Rick Owens, Antipodium, Yigal_Azrouël Akira_Isogawa It would be good to have an editor who's field of interest is fashion and design weigh in come to think of it.
Recht is mentioned in Time magazine, Fashion Business times, Huffington post, has a dedicated segment on TYT, the worlds biggest online news... the list goes on. We could find and add a heavy amount of references from printed fashion journals if necessary, but there would be more references than text in the article.
I would appreciate help in knowing how to improve this article based on your criteria, as the article is clearly relevant to any reader researching fashion design. Wikipedia is here to educate those not knowledgable on a subject, by those who are.
The only doubt about the notability of the subject is the suggestion of deletion at the top of the page. Otherwise, if the lack of notability of Sruli Recht can't be proved then I propose immediate removal of the deletion suggestion.Sawwater (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

some of this does seem relevant, and I commented at the AfD. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Debajyoti Mukhopadhyay

Notable? I pick up a few hits in multiple books but nothing extensive. He seems to meet WP:Academic ...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is borderline for WP:PROF--see [[2]]; he is not currently faculty at Curtin. This is a good illustrations of a career which is notable by the standards of his own country but not necessarily internationally. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion notice

You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#RFC-birth date format conformity when used to disambiguate so I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Birth date format conformity .28second round.29.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle Wildcats

Thank you for your comment on the AfD - it does seem strange that notability standards on one continent are not applied to another. Also I feel that if one applies a purely legalistic view to the inclusion criteria then there are enough reasons to deny the deletion. The non-commercial organisation criteria seem to be met.

I had a quick read through your essay on Notability & Inclusion and appreciate the term 'deletionists'

IanMelb (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)IanMelb[reply]

Success Academy Charter Schools

Hello. You had commented a couple of months ago at Success Academy Charter Schools (Talk), and I was hoping you might weigh in again, or at least offer some additional advice on to how to proceed. Thanks! Grayfell (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get there today . DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki></nowiki>[reply]

David Pickering

Have you been able to find reviews then? I haven't, but then perhaps my WP:BEFORE skills are inferior. I thought I'd better check with you before taking it to AfD. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but probably not in open sources. It will take me a week or two. I would appreciate the time to do it. Otherwise I shall need to use the less reliable arguments of library holdings, and that he would not have been asked to write so many similar titles for the publisher, had they not been successful. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any update on this? I'd forgotten all about it but looking now I still can't find any evidence of notability. Thought I'd ask you before taking it to AfD though. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not deleted

Talkback

Hello DGG,

You recently removed an article I wrote about a company. I understand that you considered the language to be advertising focused. Can I submit an updated article to you as a rewrite?

Thank you.

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Robertjlang's talk page.
Message added 5/13/13. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talk:John Le Mesurier

Hi, I wondered if you could provide some input into the discussion at the bottom of the page involving a dispute over a fact in this FA article.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Candace Young

Hello. I am the author of the article above, which you reviewed and deleted. I was wondering if I can appeal this decision and explain why I believe that this should go to the community.

Based on my reading of your rationale, the decision to delete (as opposed to holding a vote) was motivated by a lack of independent evidence. However, I would like to raise the following points:

1. You correctly noted that several refs were her own work. However, one ref was merely her written testimony before the Missouri legislature, where she was called as an expert witness on an important policy issue. The second work was a peer-reviewed journal article on higher education policy in a symposium edition on how to successfully run an assessment regime. While she did write the article, it has been validated by other experts as warranting inclusion in a journal to provide guidance.

2. Regarding her APSA position, the webpage clearly showed that she chairs the committee in charge of the conference, and this is a standing committee of the APSA. The chairs are elected, and she has served twice, so for two years now her colleagues from across the nation have elected her to lead the APSA committee with jurisdiction over the discipline's approach to teaching. Yes, she does serve on a panel, but the key part of her position involves: organizing the national conference, determining what papers make the cut, and coordinating the conference summary article that is published each year in PS: Political Science and Politics.

3. You also noted that the Crews article is unpublished. This is not fully accurate. The Crews article was published as a companion piece to the print journal as an online supplement. The piece was still peer reviewed and is considered by the journal to be of the same caliber as physically published pieces. The only difference is that the online articles are geared towards a more narrow audience.

If at all possible, I request that the article be restored so that the community can vote on the issue. As you surely saw, the original article was not particularly geared towards establishing notability based on broad impact. That is, however, the goal of this article. Because the original vote did not consider the issue of broad impact, I think the new article that attempts to establish that deserves a vote so that the community can weigh the evidence. Thank you --Adamc714 (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be rather surprised if you get anywhere with this, but OK. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

deleted at afd

Unknown 8

I'll grant you are right, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Unknown 8 is possibly not intended as a joke. I declined it as WP:OR. I'm sure I could've found several other reasons to fast-decline it as well. Anyway, it's been properly declined now. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Success Academy Charter Schools and needs

Please correct your AfD Success Academy Charter Schools nominating post quickly and visibly, i.e., not by deleting or striking out parts of it but by posting a separate and affirmative correction or substantiation consistent with my replies at the AfD. Your nominating post has irrecoverably vitiated the AfD, which is probably irrecoverable without starting it over, which is warranted only if supported by policies and guidelines. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I responded there, but only because you asked. I do not plan to respond further, there or here. To repeat the explanations again is what would be unfair emphasis on my own opinion. The community will decide on the basis of the arguments, and what they think of the article. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Lfdder (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This might be in your line

It might take me a few days before I get to it. Any help regarding Talk:Lois Herr would be appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did a small edit, & will look again. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Errol Sawyer

Hi David. Can you help me to review the article of Errol Sawyer and get it in Wiki? It is in my sandbox. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred Bokker (talk • contribs) 22:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

tonight or tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

—Anne Delong (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I"ve unprotected Chalkidiki Greek

as a convenience to you, since they want to send it to AFD, and since this was your suggestion to begin with. Since I knew you would have done the same thing, I just went ahead without seeking permission, confident you would have granted it in this circumstance. Ending that exercise in incivility quickly seemed the prudent course of action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, seems they have PROD'ed it instead, so much for faith. I may yet send it to AFD so a discussion can be had. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As what to do with it seems somewhat controversial, I think unprodding and sending to AfD, as both you and I think best. DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We may be in the minority here, but AFD is the best course of action to allow actual discussion, and perhaps saving if it really does warrant an article. I've sent it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chalkidiki Greek, which I'm sure will not please a few, but I firmly think this is what AFD is for. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Anne Delong's talk page.
Message added 15:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

_nonsense ferret 15:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

30th parallel article

DGG, I've found that you have declined speedy deletion of my article - thank you. May I ask you to take part into the discussion about this article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th parallel (phenomenon), because, it seems to me that Barney the barney barney and RHaworth are not objective and want to delete my article because its "bizare": ":: You might want to look at 30th parallel (phenomenon) as well, which is a WP:COATRACK for the above, and is extremely bizarre. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)" (taken from here: User_talk:RHaworth#Dolphin_Embassy)[reply]

Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Adobe OnLocation for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adobe OnLocation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bejnar (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Input needed re Peter Hersh

Hi DGG. If you have the time, your input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Hersh would be much appreciated, given your expertise with academic bios. The article is about a physician and clinical professor. Bizarrely, someone at AfC passed it yesterday when the references consisted virtually entirely of primary sources, and today proceeded to nominate it for deletion (!). I've cleaned up the article after it was moved into article space as the original version was promotional, repetitious, and actually misleading in places. Voceditenore (talk) 10:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it very reasonable to accept, and then get a community opinion. How else can it be done? An MfD is the alternative, butit serves only to delete the afc, not debate moving it into mainspace. And for WP:PROF, the publications are the secondary sources. It depends on their impact. DGG ( talk ) 14:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the deletion rationale was that it was an autobiography, not notability. By the way, several chunks of the article when it was moved into article space were pasted from the subject's website. I've fixed that now. Nevermind, thanks for your input there. I may well change to keep.:) What tool do you use for the citation numbers? It would come in handy for future AfDs. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar, usually. Advanced Search, using publications written by, and they come out in numerical order. Someone else did it in Wos, and get slightly lower results. but even where I can get Web ofScience or Scopus, which I wan't this morning, , GS does similarly though with usually higher results for it covers a wider range of publications.Several people, including one of my former students, have published results showing that the 3 are equally valid, tho they each have their own artifacts.

I had not noticed the deletion reason--I assumed it was notability because it was a little borderline--these figures are good for the bio med sciences, but not truly exceptional, and there were no major prizes or really major positions. And the article was a straight CV, and a little promotional -- too many adjectives, & " one of the first" . & "one of 7" And all the papers,major and minor. It has the weaknesses of an autobio/COI job, which is what I think the nominator mush have meant. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Second Opinion?

Hi DGG. I guess one of the issues with my COI work is that I often have access to a lot of Original Research. I was wondering if you would provide a second opinion at: Talk:MarkMonitor#Research_section regarding the inclusion of information about the company's board members. The organization has since been acquired and no longer has a board, but naturally there will be no sources to explicitly state that the board was dissolved. CorporateM (Talk) 20:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again regarding this source?

Kiethbob believes the source constitutes an op-ed, because it clearly represents the opinion of the author rather than professional reporting. I originally thought of it as a regular article, but I believe Kiethbob is correct. However, if it is an op-ed, I believe we should remove it entirely, rather than: "A 2011 opinion piece in Tech Dirt criticized MarkMonitor's research methodology.[25]"

As discussed here, I feel uncomfortable debating the finer points of something like that. I think it is more sensible for disinterested editors to work it out, rather than debate with a PR person regarding contentious materials. CorporateM (Talk) 17:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blackboard, in progress

Hey there, DGG. Following our last discussion, I did some new research and today I made a series of edits updating the article according to your advice late last month. If you're interested in seeing what I've done, here are a few links:

I'm just interested to hear if you think this looks better or, alternatively, if you have any further suggestions. I'm working on some further changes as well, and when I'm ready, then I'll look for someone else to consider moving it back. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this will take a day or two, but I will get there. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sex effects of water pollution for deletion

DGG, You mentioned a strong dislike of "quack" anything on your talk page, a view which I share :) The fact that the page sources holistic medicine journals, the Daily Mail, and is written in an alarmist style, combined with plenty of existing data on the pages Water pollution, Template:Pollution, and Template:Marine_pollution led to me requesting the peer review. The only suggestion I heard back from science article volunteers was a suggested deletion. What do you suggest? respectfully, —Hobart (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the topic quackery. Chemicals do affect animals in this fashion. The sources you mention are not the only ones present. I see what you mean about the style, so fix it. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KW

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

brilliantly done article, but what would you like me to do about it? DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words.

You thought that you might be able to find the Russell book, which is rare, in the Fall, and so I thought I'd tell you that an interlibrary loan in Sweden was sufficient to find the acknowledgement (which was previously established by a few indirect citations). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

potential common ground

Where I think we may agree: The article consensus is changing or shortly will, as more editors join in editing the article and posting to its talk, resuming the traditional process so the earlier consensus will no longer produce the effect complained of. What I had invited at the talk page will probably now happen because the AfD brought in more people willing to work. (It is interesting to me what complaints were not made about the article.) Your original COI complaint, although mistaken, was made in good faith. Where we differed was in apparently requiring me to proceed in ways that would violate policies and guidelines, not for everything but for much, and, as you know, I had an obligation to refuse. I don't think this needed an AfD since the article's talk page was open, but, with the AfD, now presumably all of us can resume the normal course. Let me know if you think this will be a problem and I'll try to work with you on your remaining concerns. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have only this common ground, that we both want an article about the schools. I don't really think I need to defend what I said and did-- everyone who commented agrees your editing has been indistinguishable from someone who is a paid PR agent. As to who was violating the policy and guidelines, the community apparently has a firm opinion. As to what the article should be like, the community seems to agree with me also. The only one editing further -- an excellent and trustworthy editor--suggested a 90% cut in the material. As I said earlier, the matter is closed here. Comment at the AfD, if you feel you must say further, but please do not post here again. DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: your talk page stalker, posting from the lovely Florida Gulf Coast. Holy Moly! 90% seems about right. I'd do it, but there's dinner to cook here. But sheesh, yes. Nick, if I may, here's a good opportunity for what some call a learning moment: DGG is right. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Patt

FYI

"My grateful acknowledgement to ... Ralph Patt for his valuable assistance in the preparation of the manuscript", wrote Russell (1959).
Russell, George (1959). "Acknowledgements". The Lydian chromatic concept of tonal organization for improvisation. 40 Shephard Street; Cambridge, MA 02138: Concept Publishing Company. p. vi (unpaginated). {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: location (link)

Mackdonald Language Academy

I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of Mackdonald Language Academy. You nominated it under the A7 criterion, but there it actually specifically states that educational institutions are exempt from that criterion. Since A7 is not an appropriate venue for deleting this article, I would suggest using WP:PROD or WP:AFD to proceed for notability reasons.--Slon02 (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this has come up a few times. It is normally considered that degree-granting educational establishments, not language schools (or tutoring academies). But it doesn't matter, for it will undoubtedly soon enough be deleted one way or another. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFC query

What's the usual way of dealing with AFC submissions like [Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_most_beautiful_girl_in_the_world this one?] Decline and speedy? Or just speedy straight away? Valenciano (talk) 06:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it as a test page, G2. (I prefer not to do single-handed speedies of afcs at this point until we've clarified the rules). It's just playing around with WP. I see no point in declining first--the contributor knows perfectly well that it won't be acceptable,& it obviously can't be fixed. (I prefer to use test page rather than A7 for entries like this in mainspace also, seems unfair to say something negative about the unfortunate subject by calling them non-Notable DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misread what I said?

Hi, I think you misread what I said at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Motionless_electromagnetic_generator. I never said the sources were unreliable, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i did misinterpret, and commented there

Section rename

I renamed Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Questions to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Questions (May 20) because I was tired of the "save" button taking me to the wrong place. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

right. There will always be many questions. I should have thought of that. I appreciate your help in figuring out the details -- I don't want to be too critical about something until I fully understand it, or give up on fixing what can be actually fixed. OK if I incorporate your answers there into my discussion above , or should I rewrite ? DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Question?

May 22 - Thank you for your feedback. I would like to try again based on your recommendations. Is there a way to access the page you deleted, so I can further edit?

Hi DGG, you deleted this page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SpiderCloud Wireless (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement). I'm unclear on what caused you to mark and delete the article. I am eager to remedy the problem and have tried to follow all rules to the best of my knowledge, perhaps I missed something? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbranin (talk • contribs) 21:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

replied on your talk p. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Double voting

Hi DGG,

It looks like both User:DGG (NYPL) and User:DGG voted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farhad Mohit. L Faraone 01:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

to my total amazement, you have brilliantly detected my subtle attempt at sockpuppetry. :) DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banqsoft

Hi DGG.

I've tried to improve my -article with some references. If this is not good enouugh, could you try to explain what else I can improve?

Best regards, Marius.Willy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marius.willy (talk • contribs) 09:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Partisan Repulic of Rasony

DGG, thanks for your help with the deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Partisan Republic of Rasony. I wanted to note that it was a multi-article deletion, with Operation Heinrich also ominated. If you wouldn't mind speedy deleting that for consistency, that would wrap things up. Cdtew (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

done DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

F.Godmom

Hi DGG. I have one question, is this article F.Godmom notable enough? Sorry for asking this, but I know that GVnayR likes to create pages totally at "random", and has caused (actually still causing) many trouble in the past because of copyright infringements among other "childish" things. When you have some time, please review that article. Regards. --46.50.120.95 (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this isn't a field where my opinion would be of much value--the way to find out is AfD . To be sure, you need to register an account in order to do that, but you can also ask at WT:AFD that someone open one for you. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confused. Perhaps I did something wrong.

Hi David. Thanks for all your many years of generous service volunteering here at Wikipedia. As you are somebody whose opinion I greatly respect, I wanted to ask about some comments that have confused me. This comment of yours seems to sort of conflict with this comment. As the author of the RfC in question, I think I may not have provided enough background or maybe not described the situation properly. Perhaps I didn't make a clear enough connection between the template and the service. Could you possibly let me know if I could improve the situation? Thanks very much. 64.40.54.118 (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the conflict. I think it's a wonderful service, and should be implemented very widely. It doesn't quite do everything, and considering I equally use two different public libraries and two university libraries, a link to a single library will not be of as much use to me as most people. Do I misunderstand, or is it that I did not explain myself clearly in the 2nd comment? DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was misinterpreting your comments. One seemed enthusiatstic while the other seemed subdued, but I was probably reading that in to it. I was more concerned that I may not have presented the RfC details well enough for the community to fully understand it (i.e. what the service is and its benefits). I guess I was looking more for suggested improvements to the RfC. Thanks for the help. 64.40.54.118 (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I was not clear enough, so I added some unmistakable emphasis. I think there are lots of possible improvements, but the most important thing is to get the basic interface adopted. I'll have some suggestions. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I'll look through the RfC tomorrow and see if I can rewrite it to be a bit more informative. Thanks kindly. 64.40.54.118 (talk) 06:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's in a name ?

An editor is interested in the correct title and information pertaining to the article entitled "CSA (database company)". Of course, I am also interested in accuracy. The introduction use to say that the company name is "CSA Illumina" [3] under the ProQuest banner.

However, someone tagged the article, and removed the "Illumina" from "CSA Illumina" in the intro [4]. The editor did leave a query on the talk page. Today I have responded and assembled some links. Although the other editor has not responded (not a lot of time has passed), it seems to me that "CSA Illumina" is not incorrect [5], but it may also be called CSA Illustra [6].

In any case, now that I have wet your whistle with the above external links, maybe you could review the talk page discussion, and links, and maybe you can come up with something (I hope). Thanks in advance. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check the sources later today. I have some familiarity with the company DGG ( talk ) 15:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just added some refs to the Science Citation Index article. It looks some interesting reading, if you have the time and interest. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qualpro

Hi DGG. You recently added an Advert tag to an article I wrote on Qualpro. Any suggestions on what I need to do to make it less promotional?

Also, just as a heads up, I pinged you a few days ago about MarkMonitor (again) to see if you had an opinion on this:"A 2011 opinion piece in Tech Dirt criticized MarkMonitor's research methodology.[7]" I don't mean to pester (and by all means I can ask someone else) just thought it might have gotten lost as your Talk page fills up quickly. CorporateM (Talk) 23:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly, for Qualpro try using the name a little less, making links to journal articles link to the journal, with an added convenience link to the firm's copy if the one on the journal site isn't freely available, use less detail in the reports of their findings in specific cases, avoid repeating wording between different sections, and look for at least one academic article discussing their methods--ss is, it's hard to tell the degreeto which they are unique, or whether their methods are routine. For MarkMonitor, I remain unclear on exactly what it does besides monitor cybersquatting. I'd like very much to have a better source for criticism, and I wonder if there are any skeptical comments in the newspaper reporting. I'm reluctant to remove it , as it gives some balance to the article. Again, words & phrases are repeated a little too much,and the company name used too much. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I adjusted a substantial number of references to "QualPro" (didn't realize I had said it so many times) and trimmed some detail under the Experiments section. The bulk of their media coverage was related to specific projects, so this was hard to trim, but I carved out a bit of it. I found a few direct links, many of which require registration or are of poor quality and removed the URLs completely where I couldn't find a non-QualPro URL. These were used only because they are the most accessible and best-quality copy of the source material, but I don't want anyone to think I am just trying to generate links, so I would rather just remove them.

The MarkMonitor article is mostly written by Kiethbob, who just used my draft for sources and a starting point, so I would prefer not to edit his work. CorporateM (Talk) 01:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that, but that's no reason to inhibit me. It's normal for successive reviewers to see additional little problems. :) Similarly, I will take responsibility for adding back the convenience links. As you say, it's better for it to be someone other than you. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome other editors to come and refine or improve the work I've done at MarkMonitor (or any other article I've worked on for that matter) Happy to have DGG and others in the collaborative process :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 05:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of entry for Moravia IT

Dear DGG,

I see you proposed for deletion the page of Moravia IT at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravia_IT, which was then deleted. I believe this is because of the alleged infringement of copyright of the logo, which I uploaded. The company (which I work for) has undergone a rebranding in 2012 and uses a new logo now. It may be my mistake in incorrectly marking the property of this logo when updating the page, which I wanted to stay current. Can you please restore the page and I will upload the current logo again (it is normally available at www.moravia.com). I think it is a pity if a valid page should be deleted simply because the entity's current logo is not properly tagged.

Thank you! Vikivik (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When just the logo is a problem, we merely delete the logo. The actual problem was much more serious --so serious that I have had to delete the article: it was copied almost entirely from various parts of your web site, either literally or as Close paraphrase with only a few words changed. Specifically, the history section was copied from "Our story" & other parts were patched together from elsewhere on the site.

It might be possible to give permission according to DCM, but remember that this gives permission to the whole world to use and modify it, even for commercial purposes. In my experience, it is almost always easier to rewrite.

I think a sustainable article could be written. It would be best to do so through the WP:AfC process, using the [WP:Article Wizard]].

To avoid a promotional tone, it's better to avoid all possible adjectives, certainly ones implying quality. I also see that there are no references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. Everything there is a press release. or a listing, or a dead link. Every statement that you have been given an award must be sourced to a reliable source. You might want to remove regional awards, which are minor, and "largest" 20 means less than specifying the rank. And avoid bold face, except in the first sentence. If you want to say "5 out of the 8 Fortune 1000 computer software companies or 4 out of the 7 Fortune 1000 computer hardware manufacturers" you need a 3rd party source, which is tricky, because we also do not allow lists of customers.

I hope this helps. DGG ( talk ) 16:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment cut off?

Your reply to me at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_May_21 seems to begin in the middle of a sentence. Did the start get cut off somehow? Dricherby (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified. But I think in practice we would almost always agree, and that we may also agree on the underly ing basis of notability , so any disagreement between us is primarily a just our different way of wording things. My apologies for letting that discussion go so far off the actual topic. of what to do with the article. DGG ( talk ) 21:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK – I was also coming to the conclusion that we seem agree on the actual concepts but not on how to express them. Dricherby (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of pundits

Hello. As a contributor to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pundits back in 2009, you may be interested to know I have renominated this article for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pundits (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection Of Ayesha Thapar Page

Hi David,

I had created a page on Ayesha Thapar - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ayesha_Thapar. This article was rejected by - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sharafat99. I have complied with the WP guidelines and proved the subject's notability with valid references. I have provided authoritative news sites as references among others. Request you to review the article and make it live as a stub, as you would also agree that this is not good enough to be a featured article. I have been working on it since quite some time now and I feel it will not improve until it is worked upon at a collaborative level.

Thanks, Tushar Taliyan (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the problem: though the references are technically adequate for notability , the actual position she holds is not, as it's a quite minor part of the group her grandfather started. . The interest in her seems to be as a social figure, In a situation like this, an article is technically justified, but if the figure is minor, we do not necessarily decide to actually make it. If it were accepted into mainspace as an article, you are probably right that the community would decide in the subsequent group discussion at AfD that we should not make it at this time. I offer you the safest solution, which is that I will accept it, but replace the content with a redirect to Thapar Group , where she is already mentioned. The existing content will be preserved in the history, and it can be expanded into an article if her business career further develops. Let me know DGG ( talk ) 14:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Order of the Beak ‎

Hi!

Id appreciate any help, but I dont think my article will be published. Thank you.

Ianlee73 (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Cecil Bisshopp, 10th Baronet

I don't think I'm especially dense (maybe you disagree) but I just don't grok Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Cecil Bisshopp, 10th Baronet. He's no different from any other clergyman born of the gentry who died under 30. I certainly can't find any basis for expansion; even what we have is unsourced. What am I missing? Thanks, as always, Mackensen (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the GM reference sufficient by itself. Not all gentlemen born of the clergy have such referencing, just as most of them were not Baronets, nor did they get to Jerusalem. Personally, I think the decision that Baronets were not intrinsically notable was due to the unreasonable attempts to try to stretch our tolerance by the person creating many of the articles--similar attempts elsewhere in WP have had similar results. WP relies on mutual tolerance, and taking advantage of it causes over-reaction.

There is no abstract level of notability--we could put it at many different places, and still have an encyclopedia. It is not one of the things that matters most: what matters most is remaining free of copyvio & promotionalism and bias, and inconsistency in inclusion. Those are what destroys the usefulness of an encyclopedia. My position from the start has been to go for the broadest interpretation of notability that the community will accept, in counter to those who go in the opposite direction, The only change has been my increasing awareness of the need to avoid the sort of inclusion that gives temptation to promotionalism (which is why I am not inclusionist on local organizations). DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I accept all that you have said, but I still think today's outcome deeply unfortunate. The creator of that article has created several other articles about Bisshopps; like Arbuthnot he's probably a member of the family. They're all this horrible puffed genealogy and even the notable ones (MPs and peers) will need considerable cleanup to be useful. I never thought all baronets were notable myself; I wouldn't have considered most peers notable save they were members of a national legislature (even that was bit weaselly; plenty of peers never went to Parliament or went once and never again). I don't even remember how I encountered the article in the first place, and I suppose I ought to walk away. Thanks for your thoughts. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We may disagree less than you think. Consider my third sentence, the one beginning "Personally..." I would not have created this article. I would not have bothered looking for refs to defend it. Someone else having found the GR, I commented that the sources were adequate. But in general I like rules about including all X's above a certain level, because it gives consistency and reduces the need for argumentation. I am thus perfectly willing to accept the general rule that Bts are below the line, and peers above--or for that matter almost any rational rule. DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kriyananda talk page

Please consider adding your voice to the new discussion on this page [8] - the Requested Move section. Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most helpful thing for me to do is to stay out of it. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

I noticed you (and other admins) often tag pages for speedy deletion, even though you can delete them yourselves. Is this out of personal preference for wanting review by another admin or is there some guideline or unspoken rule that calls for review by at least two different people? Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of us think it better that two people see the article. I am capable of mistakes, and I know I occasionally make them, because people are not at all reluctant to tell me--sometimes I will have missed something, or not understood, or just gone too quickly. Even for the utterly obvious, there's the possibility of carelessness or sleepiness, or just frustration at having been seeing so many totally unsatisfactory articles. I doubt anything requiring human judgment can be done at less than 1% error. I've deleted over 12,000 articles over the 7 years I've been doing this. and that would have been 120 wrong deletions, and potentially 120 good editors lost to WP. But with someone else checking, that makes it only 1 or 2 in the whole time.

In fact, I've argued that this should be absolutely required, but there are cases where one must act immediately, and it's been difficult to specify exactly the exceptions. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, thanks. I agree with you. I was just curious. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I appreciate that there are times when you must act immediately, such as WP:ATTACK and WP:OUTING and possibly other situations. Do the admins have a tool that makes it easy for admins to "delete (or WP:REVDELETE) now, and list the page for review by another administrator ASAP" and if they do, to most admins who make "unilateral deletions" use this tool? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) There is no rule that admins can't delete anything on sight, but tagging and leaving for a second admin to delete is a good, unwritten practice that most seem to observe. Most of us will of course delete blatant COPYVIO, attack, and vandal pages immediately and some other cases of obvious nonsense. However, admins don't actually make many mistakes with their deletions, so 'delete and review later' by another admin would be redundant. I've deleted around 3,000 pages and only restored 20, and those were userfications. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I define 1% as "many" if one thinks of the cumulative effect over the years. If everyone who had a reasonable case stayed and complained, yes it would work, but most don't. There's also the definition of "error"-- does it mean an article that would pass AfD, or an article that with enough work might possibly pass AfD, an article to which the speedy criteria did not apply, but would end up deleted anyway The 1% is for the first two classes; for the third, it's more like 5%. In any case the error rate will depend on the type of speedys. I tend to look at the ones that have been passed over for a few hours. I only really know about my own errors, and of course my rate may be unusually high because I may be unusually incompetent. Some years ago I did intend to audit speedies--the reactions I received from admins involved in the ones I challenged persuaded me it was not the route to effectiveness here, and tolerating injustice in this was the way to be more useful overall. (There was 1, & only 1, admin who did change their practice in response to my comments.) I think I will decide the same about the G13 AfCs. DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second eye wanted

I wanted to get a more experienced meat(sock?)puppet-spotter to look at this before I took any other action. I checked and the four "ninety-nines" appear to be in the vicinity of the same large American city. I will say this, sock or not at least their surviving articles appear to be well distant from G11. Your thoughts? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I was watching this page because of a conversation above and happened across this.) Whois says that the range 99.0.0.0–99.191.255.255 is an AT&T dynamic IP pool and the four IP addresses you quote haven't edited within two hours of each other [9]. From that, the IPs could just be the normal result of one person editing at different times. (I've not looked at the edits themselves; just the timing and the IP addreses.) Dricherby (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two named editors in those links are undoubtedly working for the same PR firm, tho I cannot tell if they are the same person. The scattered ip edits don't seem significant ; the COI is already being addressed by others. DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Hauptman

Hi DGG,

Thank you for contacting me about the Todd Hauptman article. I believe him to be notable for more than one event; his resignation from working as Mary Polak's campaign manager was one well-documented event, but he is also notable for his anti-human trafficking work and his co-founding of the Fraser Valley Transplant Network. Should I add further sources to demonstrate Hauptman's notability?

Neelix (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

responded on your user talk. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recently dead, possibly notable?

DGG, can you give me your opinion on the following scientists who recently passed away:

Is Arnold Honig notable enough for an article?

probably, given the mentions in these books; physics indexes need checking, tho.

What about Arnold Wolf? Bearian (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JBL was a leading company in its field, but I'd want another source also. DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pubudu Chathuranga

Given it's a BLP, I suggest at least userifying the article until references are mustered. A quick google search didn't find any substantial coverage, so the user's input is required. It won't survive mainspace. The user clearly circumvented AfC after his submission got delayed in the queue. Keen to hear your input. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check again, and you'll see it. First few hits in GNews verified some points of the career. Rewriting the illiteracies and removing the irrelevancies was pretty quick also. If I hadn't found them, the appropriate next step would have been BLP PROD, specifically invented for this sort of problem. If no one documents further, I'll do it next week at NYPL-PA, but I'd guess the awards can be verified even with Google News. Articles like this fall into two classes: the 90% easily verifiable, the 9% probably true but where there are no available sources, and the 1% pure inventions. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cozzi

I've seen your good cleanup on Gaetano Cozzi: for me too is ok, now. Btw, I'll just watch if some POV sentences, still removed time ago and added again, will be replaced. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 20:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Proposed deletion of Barbara and Jack Davis Hall

Hello,

Thank you for your message. Last night I was so tired to add the proper information to the article. I will add them to the article today to help make the article useful and important. Will this solve the issue? Arsi Warrior (talk) 06:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the notability will probably depend on whether the building is important architecturally. This is best shown by awards given it. If thee are none now, there may be later. Please remember that the references supporting notability must by references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. If you can add this material, do so and removethe prod, which you are entitled to do; if I or anyone doesn't think it sufficient, we will take it for a group discussion at WP:AFD. DGG ( talk ) 14:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Florinel Enache

Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Florinel Enache, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The awarding of a medal by the President is enough importance for A7, plus the references. May well not pass through AfD, so you should take it there if you still want it deleted. Thank you. Ged UK 11:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you're right, it's an interesting special case: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florinel Enache DGG ( talk ) 14:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability opinion

I stumbled across some articles today all written by the same author that are all related and all have seemingly the same issues. The main one being notability. I noticed that you put a PROD tag on one the articles a bit over a week ago and it was subsequently removed by the author. I'm thinking about nominiating some (or all) of the articles for deletion, but I just wanted to get a second opinion first as I haven't been involved in AFD for awhile. Articles in question are: Mark Flood (animator), Jack Morrison (actor), Imraan Ali, Amy Gregson, Two Women, One Heart, and The Freak Next Door. Thanks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just found another: MediCinema. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My preference is to go in sequence. I'd suggest doing a joint nomination for the films, after checking for reviews; If they turn out to have reviews, they might be notable & what to do then depends on the nature of the review, --the writing of the articles is shows so little understanding of our standards that even if there are reviews, the (presumably) PR person who wrote these might not have bothered including them. The notability of the animators will depend on the notability of the films, & the importance of their work in relation to them , . The charity needs to be rewritten with a noncopyvio description of the charity (see earlier versions in the history and) the removal of the notability-by-association list of names & checked for sources. The Flood article will have to be rewritten in any case, but if the charity or the films are notable, he might be also. The alternative is to do a joint nom for the films, and at the same time adjacent ones for the others. Some people would lump them all together, but I think that's bad practice. DGG ( talk ) 14:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't know when I'll get around to it, but I'll probably do as you suggested. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Publishers Clearing House

Hi DGG. I know you prefer not to proxy edit or approve PR-generated content, but I thought you might be interested in this. I could definitely see you being interested in the requested deletion if nothing else.

Also, let me know if Qualpro needs anything else before removing the Advert tag. CorporateM (Talk) 16:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Borked move - Crowdfunding

FYI - hahnch e n 21:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. Somehow I sent the delete command twice. Maybe my mouse needs cleaning. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]