User talk:DGG/Archive 80 Sep. 2013

                                       ARCHIVES

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

Barnstars, Awards, etc.

Reminders

Topical Archives:
Deletion & AfD,      Speedy & prod,        NPP & AfC,       COI & paid editors,      BLP,                              Bilateral relations
Notability,               Universities & academic people,       Schools,                       Academic journals,       Books & other publications
Sourcing,                Fiction,                                               In Popular Culture      Educational Program
Bias, intolerance, and prejudice

General Archives:
2006: Sept-Dec
2007: Jan-Feb , Mar-Apt , M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D 
2008: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2009: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2010: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2011: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2012: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2013: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2014: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2015: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2016: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2017: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2018: J, F, M , A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2019: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2020: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2021: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2022: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2023: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O

 

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

Help needed at José de Eusebio

Hi DGG. Could you take a look there and at the discussion at Talk:José de Eusebio. The person who added the AfD tag has not created the Discussion page for the AfD (possibly not autoconfirmed yet or simply doesn't understand the process?) The AfD would be snow keep in any case, but I can't seem to get through to him/her. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

another editor has fixed this by now--can you think of any conceivable motive? DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The behaviour is indeed strange. A Spanish conductor and musicologist who specialises in the works of Albéniz is hardly a high profile subject. How did he arrive at that particular article? Ditto his assertion that the article is the result of "infiltrated wikipedists who are populating the encyclopedias with their own protected and hereto promoted team or people." For a "new" editor, he seems to know the deletion jargon—"cross wiki spam", "vanity page", etc.—if not the criteria. I'm wondering if this is some kind of payback for a kerfuffle on the Spanish Wikipedia where he might have previously edited under a different name or as an IP. He nominated the Spanish version for speedy deletion first and the English version four minutes later. He claims to be a native speaker of English, but his written expression doesn't bear that out. Anyhow, I'm keeping an eye on his future contributions. Voceditenore (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Help needed at José de Eusebio

Hi DGG. Could you take a look there and at the discussion at Talk:José de Eusebio. The person who added the AfD tag has not created the Discussion page for the AfD (possibly not autoconfirmed yet or simply doesn't understand the process?) The AfD would be snow keep in any case, but I can't seem to get through to him/her. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

another editor has fixed this by now--can you think of any conceivable motive? DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The behaviour is indeed strange. A Spanish conductor and musicologist who specialises in the works of Albéniz is hardly a high profile subject. How did he arrive at that particular article? Ditto his assertion that the article is the result of "infiltrated wikipedists who are populating the encyclopedias with their own protected and hereto promoted team or people." For a "new" editor, he seems to know the deletion jargon—"cross wiki spam", "vanity page", etc.—if not the criteria. I'm wondering if this is some kind of payback for a kerfuffle on the Spanish Wikipedia where he might have previously edited under a different name or as an IP. He nominated the Spanish version for speedy deletion first and the English version four minutes later. He claims to be a native speaker of English, but his written expression doesn't bear that out. Anyhow, I'm keeping an eye on his future contributions. Voceditenore (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion to merge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Planning_in_Porirua_(1940-1970) with main Porirua page

Hi there David,

I am a resident of Porirua city, a barrister and solicitor with a keen interest in New Zealand politics and political history.

Regarding your suggestion to merge the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Planning_in_Porirua_(1940-1970) with the main Porirua page: I disagree.

The State Planning page gives an insight into a particular political era in New Zealand, and the Porirua example of State Planning explains to many New Zealanders why their towns and cities look and behave the way that they do. Yes, this is part of the history of Porirua City specifically, but more broadly it's an insight into the political history of New Zealand.

Although we're a small country, and our cities are accordingly small also, for us, these two pages have two distinct purposes. Merging the one into the other would lose the impact of the real political story that is State Planning in New Zealand. Porirua just happens to be a great example of a state planned community - the location is not the story!

In addition to the historical example of Porirua, New Zealand has other examples of state planned settlement - but mostly in relation to trade or production needs, rather than, as in Porirua, a desire to plan a community. The most controversial would be the moving of the town of Cromwell to accommodate Lake Dunstan (part of a major political scheme of the 1980s known as 'Think Big') and the fully planned town of Twizel, built in the late 1960s to provide workers for a nearby hydroelectric scheme.

Forgive me if I've ranted on a little bit! To me there's a clear distinction between the purposes of the two pages, and merging them would be a loss to the pool of easily available historical New Zealand knowledge.

I'm happy to discuss this further :-) Rachel Rkwrkb (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I've re-read it. The general background of city planning and urban growth is covered by other articles: the content of this article is relevant to an encyclopedia either as an example to illustrate the principles, and therefore of interest to anyone concerned with the general topic, or as part of the history of the area. If it's an example, it would have to be justified because it is one of the standard examples used in teaching or discussing the subject,and I see primarily local references. To use it as an example makes this an essay--you are proposing this as an interesting illustration for general interest, and that's too close to Original research and synthesis for an encyclopedia. (What;s there is more like a class paper, a rather good one.) If it's of interest mainly in connection with the region it doesn't belong as a separate article.

One way of dealing with it is to expand the topic , into urban and regional planning in NZ--and your remarks above seem to lead in that direction. . I think having such more general articles about various countries or regions might be quite justifiable, though we haven;t previous done that very much.But part of the problem is the title: "State planning" is a very general concept, usually meaning planning by a state for its overall economy. I think the usual term for your topic at least in the US would be regional planning. I see also the article State housing--which appears to be limited to NZ. I wonder if the usage of this term actually is specific to NZ.

If I wish to pursue the merge, the procedure here is for me to place an argument on the article talk p. for the article proposed to be merge to, and for you to respond to it, and, if it does not by itself attract attention, to request others to comment--the procedure is at WP:MERGE.I do not think the problem is sufficiently great for me to do this against opposition, but I will copy the discussion there, this part as an expansion of my single sentence there, followed by your reply from the above--which you may wish to modify.

Please at least consider this as a suggestion for how to rewrite to of the article in a way more foocussed on the more specific subject, or suitably expanded. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletions in terms of G5 of four articles

Hi DGG, on 3 June 2013 JamesBWatson deleted 4 articles Thomas Pearson Stokoe, Johannes Schumacher, Hippeastrum cybister and Getaway (magazine) created by Androstachys, at that time a sockpuppet of mine. Since November 2011 I have been editing under my original name. Is it possible to restore these articles which I think are quite useful? cheers Paul venter (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

JamesBWatson is quite active today. If JamesBWatson deleted them, why don't you ask him? Why would you expect any other admin to unilaterally override him?—Kww(talk) 19:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Because from previous discussions I know that he is a staunch deletionist for punitive reasons - I also know that there are others who believe that G5 is nothing more than WP shooting itself in the foot. Paul venter (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the reason he came here is because for at least one of them, I had removed the speedy G5 tag, and JBW deleted it anyway. The situation with these is uncertain and there is no real solution, but as I understand G5 we may but do not have to speedy delete the article (I almost always do delete such articles, but a few are worth rescuing). In a situation like that, it is wrong for any one admin to insist on imposing his view across the board, after other make an opposite decision. The Wheel-warring definition makes this not wheel-warring, but I think it comes pretty close. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

If you are unwilling to restore the articles, is it possible to let me have copies of them? Thanks Paul venter (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know whether you saw the question above, so I am drawing your attention to it. Regards Paul venter (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I noticed your careful edit to WP:AUTISM

On the basis that you saw and edited the essay, may I invite you to consider joining this conversation at WER? Fiddle Faddle 10:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Help with opening a sockpuppet investigation

Hi there, SPI request I created looks like the code didn't execute correctly. I used the assistant tool and followed instructions. Can you provide assistance? Thank you, Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You will have to ask someone else; I have never learned the procedure at SPI, or any other of the intricate procedures that complicate WP. I work with people and content, not games. DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Opening SPI cases can be tricky. I see you fixed your case and that it's now been opened, closed, and archived. Good. But I suspect you don't have Twinkle enabled in your Preferences panel. Why not? It makes things like opening SPI cases much simpler. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I had not realized Twinkle could do that--(I see I need to explore the modules I haven't been using, like ARV). DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It something to do with the subst code. I removed some of the bracket links from the evidence field and it parsed properly. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Khaldoun Almhanna AfD

So I don't think i disagree with this nomination, though i might refrain from entering a vote. I had a discussion with the user in question, and they appear to be working in good faith. I have removed their entry from my talk page but it is of course in the history, as an ip editor. (I felt like it gave enough identifying information that i would be uncomfortable with it, though i left it up to the user whether to ask for revdel). I also left an entry on their talk page.

I had suspected that there was a CoI here based on some searches i did, but apparently there was a mistaken-identity element there. I would encourage you to engage with this editor, as I am trying to, because i believe it's entirely possible that the series of mistakes they described is true, and that they simply need encouragement and direction to contribute more usefully.

Feel free to comment here or on my talk page, whichever is more convenient for you. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

If a person wishes to establish themselves as a good faith editor, it is best not to start out by writing articles about several borderline notable people from the same institution. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and we'll see how they do in the future. I'll be keeping an eye on them, and I imagine you may as well. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

User:UseTheCommandLine, Cantaloupe made a useful statement somewhere, that ethics does not = alignment. There are a lot of PR reps that are ethical, but that work for a non-notable company or someone with a bad reputation, etc. There is nothing we can do to "help" them, because they just want something different than us. They want to have an article on a topic we don't want to cover.

The same is true in my COI work. I only accept a small minority of new business inquiries that come in, because most of the time they just want something too different than what Wikipedia wants. There is a good example here of my approach to coaching a PR rep to voluntarily move on. Though, everyone has a different take on it. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 17:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Khaldoun Almhanna AfD

So I don't think i disagree with this nomination, though i might refrain from entering a vote. I had a discussion with the user in question, and they appear to be working in good faith. I have removed their entry from my talk page but it is of course in the history, as an ip editor. (I felt like it gave enough identifying information that i would be uncomfortable with it, though i left it up to the user whether to ask for revdel). I also left an entry on their talk page.

I had suspected that there was a CoI here based on some searches i did, but apparently there was a mistaken-identity element there. I would encourage you to engage with this editor, as I am trying to, because i believe it's entirely possible that the series of mistakes they described is true, and that they simply need encouragement and direction to contribute more usefully.

Feel free to comment here or on my talk page, whichever is more convenient for you. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

If a person wishes to establish themselves as a good faith editor, it is best not to start out by writing articles about several borderline notable people from the same institution. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and we'll see how they do in the future. I'll be keeping an eye on them, and I imagine you may as well. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

User:UseTheCommandLine, Cantaloupe made a useful statement somewhere, that ethics does not = alignment. There are a lot of PR reps that are ethical, but that work for a non-notable company or someone with a bad reputation, etc. There is nothing we can do to "help" them, because they just want something different than us. They want to have an article on a topic we don't want to cover.

The same is true in my COI work. I only accept a small minority of new business inquiries that come in, because most of the time they just want something too different than what Wikipedia wants. There is a good example here of my approach to coaching a PR rep to voluntarily move on. Though, everyone has a different take on it. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 17:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Matthew Bryden

It seems I've gotten into a bit of an argument with another editor on this page in my volunteer editing and I feel like we're just going in circles, or arguing passed each other, and are now just bickering against each other instead of working together. I suppose I don't really know how to resolve such disputes, because most the articles I edit are not that active. I've tried to start a fresh string here. Would be interested in your input. CorporateM (Talk) 17:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Ruby McGregor-Smith

Hi. Instead of just posting warning boxes at the top of the article, could you please explain on the Talk Page your argument for flagging the article as being written like an advertisement and the content having been copied and pasted? It has been over a month and nothing has been discussed. Thanks, Vivj2012 (talk) 10:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Promotional:use of adjectives of praise

copyvio: first section copied almost word for word from [1] DGG ( talk ) 15:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you highlight the promotional content? I need examples of adjectives of praise so I can request another editor improves the content accordingly.Thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi DGG. The 'written like an advertisement' warning box has been at the top of the Ruby McGregor-Smith article for four months. Without knowing what's wrong with the content I'm unable to improve/resolve it. Could you get back to me when you have a moment? Many thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 09:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Move Cossack Research Center to Hetman Mazepa Cossack Research Center?

Hi, I've started a discussion at Talk:Cossack Research Center as to wheather the article should be moved to Hetman Mazepa Cossack Research Center, as that is how the article talks about the center in the lead. I'm contacting you because I identified you as a fairly major contributor to the article through a script. Thanks, RainCity471^{report my errors}_{list of failures} 21:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 03:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(db-self|g7) tag on Ashoka's_policy_of_Dhamma

HI, The article was created under a typo-errored tiltle 'Ashoka's policy of Dhama', it was supposed to be "Ashoka's policy of Dhamma". I presented my query at the irc help channel about renaming the page title. They suggested to move it under a different/desired title as per WP:MOVE. So, I did it. Later I was concerned about the previous title, "Ashoka's policy of Dhama" , as it was still active. One user there at irc channel, 'mareklug' suggested to tag it with (db-self|g7) to delete the previous title. So, it is all. I was meant to delete the intial title redirect (Ashoka's policy of Dhama) and keep the article under rectified title, "Ashoka's policy of Dhamma".

And, thanks for your concerns raised regarding article, I'll try improving/resolving. Thanks again! AnupMehra ^✈ 15:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Campus apartments

DGG - I am reaching out to discuss the deletion of the "Campus Apartments" page. I was recently made aware that the article's author was a banned user, which was not apparent to Campus Apartments. Is it possible to revisit the deletion of this page? Perhaps, it could be adjusted accordingly to meet Wikipedia guidelines? MAJ6688 (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Quick question

Do we have a policy regarding the creation of list articles, such as List of mergers and acquisitions by IBM? Client is asking if we can create a list page and I can't seem to find any relevant policies or guidelines. CorporateM (Talk) 17:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

if the company is large enough and the history complex enough, it can be the clearest way of presenting things. Usually we do it as paragraphs within an article, but a list within an article is another option. If it looks too large, it can be split. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested

Hi DGG - given the amount of work you do regarding verifying the notability of science and academia biographies I'm hoping you can take a moment to look at Ahmed Shaaban (surgeon). From what I can see (and what the article currently asserts) is that the subject is a consulting surgeon and a member of two related professional societies. I'm considering PRODing the article, however I'd like to check with an editor (you!) with a stronger background in borderline cases prior to doing so. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Prod seems right. It would be A7, except for FRCS. Fellowship in this is a normal step for senior surgeons in the UK, and does not itself show notability , but it is an indication of at least possible importance. (for some academic societies, an elected fellowship does show notability ) Consulting in the UK = board qualified specialist in the US, and is not even an indication of notability DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and have now prodded the article. Cheers for the sanity check! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

AMPAS awards database

Just FYI, I found their database search page here. I've updated IFF (software) and changed my AfD !vote. - Pointillist (talk) 10:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

How do i lock a page? Need Help

Hi DGG, I don't know who else to contact. I manage a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Global_Trading. Day in day out some users are writing false information and hate speech for the company. It leaves me thinking if i can get the article locked or delete it off completely. Can you please assist me with it. --Mahmoodyaqub (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Siegfried Hall (University of Notre Dame)

Hi DGG,

I noticed that you deleted the page for Siegfried Hall for a lack of sources and notability. Can you please explain the reasoning behind your move? As an IP who has worked on this page, I believe both of these were fulfilled.

Thanks, 66.254.242.180 (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siegfried Hall (University of Notre Dame). You are very welcome to comment there. The consensus of the community will decide. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.254.248.19 (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Appcelerator

Have the issues you raised in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Appcelerator been addressed enough to allow accepting the submission? Do you see other serious issues? I'm asking RadioFan the same question. If both of you say "okay" I will probably accept it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Aggie80's talk page.
Message added 20:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Passion for Skiing

Hi there. I saw a convo you were having with another editor on a user talk page about this subject, but I can't find it now. I used the AFC page to develop a page in article space. I considered moving the AFC page, but I'm not familiar with the AFC process. A history merge is probably in order. As far as notability, I didn't have any trouble finding substantial coverage of the book and the follow-up documentary. Apologies if I violated any procedural rules. Seemed like a worthy subject so I dug right in on it. :) Take care. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

What you doing seems reasonable. If a notable film is made from a book, it establishes the book as notable also, but at this point a combination article does seem best. If it's notable, I missed seeing that, but I have been known to miss things--I'm not one of the admins who delude themselves that everything they do is perfect. In any event the articles needed to be rewritten for promotionalism, as you are doing. my comment was at [[User talk:Stewater The previous content is at: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Passion for Skiing and Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Passion for Snow. There's also a User:Stewater/Dartmouth's Dedicated Alumni There's no fixed procedure for merging from AfCs to mainspace articles that I know of--I do whatever is reasonable, and redirect from the AfC to the new article's talk p. to maintain attribution. I'm very comfortable with you following up on the content, & I'll take care of the cleanup & redirects as needed, and recheck to see if by any chance the DDA book is notable. Thanks for the rescue. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Definitely a niche subject and not hugely notable, but there are some stories covering the book and the movie, plus the film award. So I think it's enough, particularly for a non-fiction subject such as this one. Take care and have a great weekend. I appreciate your assistance. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

In regards to David Horvitz's "game" of deleting his Wikipedia page)

Hello DGG,

I'd like to explain, if it's not already known, that Horvitz is a conceptual absurdist artist. Such projects in a way is a performance, a commentary on social media and technology. I see no harm in deleting the page for it becomes a form of performance art. I understand there is protocol but to uphold protocol for a situation that will generate no controversy seems silly. To delete would be trivial, so why not support its deletion? A game is meant to tease to entertain, but this is a new form of participatory art with a social commentary about the web and the accessibility to information. It in no way is to undermine WP as an insult or as a jest. This is art and to have the authorization to delete the page would complete the work. I hope you understand and find in favor of assisting in the proper deletion of David Horvitz's WP page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joebunkeo (talk • contribs) 19:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

his making the page may be part of the game as much as the deletion, but he is none the less notable. WP is not a place for original creative writing--or performance art either. I consider the entire process to be abusive of the encyclopedia. I consider it just like the professors who wish to conduct an experiment in social communications by having their students add deliberately false information to WP, to see if it gets removed. . It seems you got trapped in your own absurdist artistry: to get the article in, you had to show he's notable, and now it's in, you find you can't reverse the process. Consider it part of your art work: it may not be what you planned, but performance art with other people as unknowing participant-subjects has that inherent aspect. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at HMSSolent's talk page.
Message added 06:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 06:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Chesa Boudin

Hey David. It took me a couple months, but I did nominate it for a re-AfD, as you suggested. Have a nice weekend. -- Y not? 18:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for following up. I commented there, to clarify my understanding of the sequence. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Inflection (technology)

Hi DGG. Back in July you deleted Inflection (company) as coming from a Morning277 meatpuppet. The page has since been recreated as Inflection (technology). Do you think it's Morning277 again? ThemFromSpace 18:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

the present article is considerably more concise, without the extensive use of first party sources removed. The attempt to evade the title is unfortunate (especially because the name used suggests a concept, not a company). That it was used shows clear awareness of the previous deletion, The content is identical to lede paragraph of the deleted article. I don't see how it could be done without puppetry of some sort. But I remain unconvinced that G5, should always be sufficient basis to delete a fair article on a notable appropriate subject. Nonetheless, I have said before, and I think I would still say, that in the case of some particular difficult rings of puppets, including this group, anything we can do to discourage them is justified. Our intention on deleting their articles is that their clients won't pay them. But if the subject is notable and we write an uncontaminated article from scratch, they'll presumably still take the credit vis-a-vis their clients. So do we punish the client by not having an article about them ever?

I note that (and there's this very good source the ed(s). didn't notice, which is clearly independent and goes a long way to prove notability.

I'm too uncertain of the right course to take action myself. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

PROF qualified main topic articles written as biographies

Hi DGG. I posted a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) to carry forward on a discussion at COIN that you posted in. I would appreciate receiving your comments at the PROF proposal. -- Jreferee (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your intentions, but I think you are making too much of this. To the extent it's a problem, it's a more general problem,and belongs elsewhere than in a notability guideline. I've commented in some detail. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Portvision

Please split the history of Portvision. I recommend returning the pre-Portvision edits to their former home at User:Jeremy112233/My sandbox/1 so Jeremy112233 can work on them later if he wishes. The first Portvision-related edit is 17:49, 2 May 2012‎. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It looked to me that there was a confusion moving it back and forth to AfC. Since the article seemed ready for mainspace, I did what seemed reasonable, in a way that preserves the attribution. I've asked him if he minds. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, if it's not going to go back to User:Jeremy112233/My sandbox/1, consider splitting off and deleting the parts of the history that are irrelevant to this article (think of it as a reverse-history-merge with the older part going to the waste-bin). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Jackmcbarn's talk page.
Message added 14:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC

Two questions

Dear David, would you mind giving your expert opinion on one or two questions? The first one is a bit trivial and may not interest you too much (concerning whether or not subtitles of journals should be bolded in the lead, WP:Manual of Style/Lead section#Bolding subtitles). The other one is more substantial and deals with defining the year of establishment of academic journals (User_talk:Headbomb#Laser Physics (journal)). Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Frank Gruber (entrepreneur)

Is the current Frank Gruber (entrepreneur) similar enough to the PRODded one that a histmerge and/or talk-page-undelete is warranted? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It's expanded over the deleted version, but the deleted version is itself a considerably reduced version of the original promotional article. This is the best version so far. The key ref is no.1, which was originally present, but unwisely removed. It is certainly significant coverage, even if it is essentially a PR job, it's a sophisticated one, since the Washington Post used him as the main example of a general cultural phenomenon for a fairly long article. I regard merging history for something like this pedantic, but you can probably find someone to do it. Optional AfD: I think the odds are 2:1 it will be kept, but it doesn't hurt to find out. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

My copyright violation on an article talk page

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Talk:Rainbow Family.
Message added -- Trevj (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nomination of Heartstone (artifact) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Heartstone (artifact) 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/Heartstone (artifact) 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. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

re: Dev

Sorry I took so long to answer you - been working on a project (can you say 'Obamacare'? something changes every freakin' day!) and haven't been able to get away for long.

If you haven't already done it, go right ahead and unprotect it. I think that was an RFPP thing but I'm not sure. I need to put a 'go ahead and unprotect/undelete/unanything in my absence' notice on my talk header but I never get to it. Hopefully after I get this stuff done I'll be able to get back here every day.

But yeah, anything that needs to be undone if I'm not here, go right ahead and just leave me a message. Hard to really break anything here, you know. At least that's what we tell 'em, anyway. ;-) Thanks - KrakatoaKatie 06:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

2012 Peachland wildfire

Hi DGG,

I just found out that you have chosen to delete 2012 Peachland wildfire,an aticle I started and spent some hours on. The article was first wp:proded by the same editor who nominated it for wp:afd. I pointed out at the time that an article which was rated high-importance by a wikiproject (not by me) should not be considered a non-controversial delete. According to your afd-comment you disagree. Would you be kind enough to explain why? Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't choose to delete it-- I merely closed the AfD, and the consensus was clear. What I agreed with is that a challenged Prod is best decided at AfD--just as you say, anyone may consider a prod to be controversial for any reason, and if they do, Prod is inappropriate. DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Reinhart Field (updating)

I DGG, thank you for writing. I was reading your bio and you seem like a very positive person that is interested in helping. I appreciate your honesty. I am also here to collaborate and place constructive information. As you can see in my history, I'm about enhancing as much information as possible and not decreasing it. With regard to Reinhart Field, though you may be right in that it may not be an important building, the facility itself is an important soccer and sporting venue in NYC. It is used by two universities. It is part of the NCAA sites. And it is used by local soccer teams. I just initiated the page today. Let me develop it further. I am currently developing as many already existing pages as possible. I will certainly update Reinhart Field soon. All the best. NYCWikiKid (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Please do develop it further. It will in any case be 7 days before it could be deleted--and when you think you have enough, you can just remove the Prod tag. If I or anyone still wants to delete it, we would need to bring an AfD discussion where the community will decide. You are correct that it need be notable only as a facility or venue, not as a work of architecture. that What you need is 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. The problem with this type of article is that these need to be more than mere mentions that particular games were held there. My general advice is to go slowly and write full articles initially. Better a few good articles that won't be challenged than many weak articles that will run into difficulties. Any questions, just ask me again. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. I am already working on it. I should expand it within a couple of hours. And thanks for the assist. Take care. NYCWikiKid (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hi DGG. I updated Reinhart Field. Hope you enjoy it. Cheers. NYCWikiKid (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

John Deere Pavilion article

Hello...I have expanded the John Deere Pavilion article and added justification for its notability. I've left a more expansive explanation on the talk page there. Considering that, I've removed the flag but if there are other steps that need to happen, please let me know. Dbroer (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

yes, you've explained the importance, but regional sources like this are not always considered sufficient--especially when they consist mostly of press releases from the company or interviews with them. It would help to have some indications that it has wider interest. I'm not going to nominate it for deletion, but anyone else can, and then there will be a community discussion at {{WP:AFD]]. . DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Wasco Energy

Just in case you didn't notice through notifications or your watch list, I fixed your merge template and move your merge proposal comment over to Talk:Wah Seong Corporation. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)