→Wrong: enoughhas been said here. |
|||
Line 2,039: | Line 2,039: | ||
It is not my pizza, and i do not understand that statement at all. If this restaurant listing is "trivial" what makes mcdonalds any more important? why is it that godfather's gets it's page when someone posts it, and yet this restaurant operates in the same way with roughly the same business plan and yet it is removed for being meaningless? as for the little italy's pizza challenge, if you will look further into it i did not create that article it was created by someone else obviously from this area. How does this make no claim to importance? simply because you have not heard of the restaurant, surely that does not constitute as its lack of importance? And as the article was just created is it not asking alot for every relative reference be immediately placed in it? The listing and repeated mention in the college newspaper did nothing more than to prove the challenges existence, not the restaurant. I am very confused how it is an encyclopedia and yet mcdonalds, burger king, fox's pizza den, and the other thousands of restaurants that are reflected within wikipedia's pages are any different other than their scale and influence. At what point does something go from an informative article to what you describe as advertisement? I think it is rather naive and ignorant for one person to declare that while the history of an establishment is not important to them, it is somehow not important or relevant to any other portion of the population. Is it not wikipedia's reputation as having information not contained in the Britannica or other encyclopedia that has granted it such wild success? I am not here to advertise anything or promote any ideas that would go against facts. I am simply attempting to create a historic and accurate article for anyone and everyone that will be in the area and is curious about the restaurants past. there are thousands of citizens and even larger amounts of alumni that are aware of this establishment and to deny them any form of accurate information is akin to censorship and goes against all that free knowledge has come to represent. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Blstormo|Blstormo]] ([[User talk:Blstormo|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Blstormo|contribs]]) 03:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
It is not my pizza, and i do not understand that statement at all. If this restaurant listing is "trivial" what makes mcdonalds any more important? why is it that godfather's gets it's page when someone posts it, and yet this restaurant operates in the same way with roughly the same business plan and yet it is removed for being meaningless? as for the little italy's pizza challenge, if you will look further into it i did not create that article it was created by someone else obviously from this area. How does this make no claim to importance? simply because you have not heard of the restaurant, surely that does not constitute as its lack of importance? And as the article was just created is it not asking alot for every relative reference be immediately placed in it? The listing and repeated mention in the college newspaper did nothing more than to prove the challenges existence, not the restaurant. I am very confused how it is an encyclopedia and yet mcdonalds, burger king, fox's pizza den, and the other thousands of restaurants that are reflected within wikipedia's pages are any different other than their scale and influence. At what point does something go from an informative article to what you describe as advertisement? I think it is rather naive and ignorant for one person to declare that while the history of an establishment is not important to them, it is somehow not important or relevant to any other portion of the population. Is it not wikipedia's reputation as having information not contained in the Britannica or other encyclopedia that has granted it such wild success? I am not here to advertise anything or promote any ideas that would go against facts. I am simply attempting to create a historic and accurate article for anyone and everyone that will be in the area and is curious about the restaurants past. there are thousands of citizens and even larger amounts of alumni that are aware of this establishment and to deny them any form of accurate information is akin to censorship and goes against all that free knowledge has come to represent. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Blstormo|Blstormo]] ([[User talk:Blstormo|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Blstormo|contribs]]) 03:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
::Because they have multiple references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online. "Scale and influence" do tend to have a great deal to do with it. A RS is one that is , among other things, selective, and local newspapers, college and otherwise, normally cover every restaurant in the vicinity. When someone tries to tell me that a local eatery deserves an article because BK has a article, it does not help convince me.. I've told you 2 ways to go: if you can find any admin to undelete it, I have no objection, tho I will certainly list it for AfD and the community will decide. If you list it at Deletion Review, the community will decide there. That two other admins have decided just as I have confirms my view of it. Enough has been said here. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 03:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== DGG, I blame you... == |
== DGG, I blame you... == |
Revision as of 03:28, 16 July 2009
“ | I am very gratified to have learned that so many people seem to like me, but even more gratified that they understand and like (or at least tolerate) the work I'm trying to do. | ” |
— at my RfA |
Reminders
Topical Archives:
Deletion reform, Speedies, Notability , IPC, Fiction,WP:Academic things & people, Journals, Sourcing, BLP
General Archives:
2006: Sept-Dec
2007: Jan-Feb, Mar-Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2008: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2009: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
Please post messages at the bottom of the page - I will reply on this page, unless you ask otherwise
ECRI Institute
Thanks so much for getting to us, DGG! I really appreciate it.June 3, 2009 CK~~
If your article is in danger of deletion, possibly some of the following messages may be of help to you:
- If you can fix the article, I'd advise you to do so very quickly, before it gets nominated for regular deletion
- We're an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. You have to become famous first, then someone will write an article about you. In the meantime, there's lots of things to do here -- so welcome.
- An article must have 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases)
- To use material from your web site, you must release the content under a GFDL license, which permits reuse and modification of the material by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and is not revokable.
- For articles about an organization, see our Organizations FAQ (a wonderful page written by Durova, from whom I learned my approach to people writing articles with COI.
In December I gave a presentation to librarians in Pittsburgh area. Would you like me to send you my presentation slides? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- After a day of fighting with my email and then Wikimedia, I finally gave up and uploaded a file to rapidshare. At least it works :) Download. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
magazines...and speedy
...and creative works in general cannot be deleted under speedy A7, per WP:CSD In any case, I think Railfan and Railroad might be one of the two leading magazines in its subject. did you check that? Please do not use speedy when not strictly within the specifications.'
Magazines are businesses, not creative works, and therefore fall squarely under {{db-corp}} guidelines -- which also explicitly refer to articles which make no assertion of notability, which this article doesn't. Your vague recollection doesn't qualify either as an assertion of notability nor a reliable source. Please do not wikilawyer about obvious failures of speedy standards and specifications. --Calton | Talk 16:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree it will quite possibly be deleted at afd, unless I or someone finds more material. Relative rank is capable of objective determination via Ulrich's. But as for speedy, WP:CSD: "A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. " if you want to change the rules, discuss it there. I think you will find the consensus is clear about magazines. A book publisher is a company. A book is not. A record distributor is a company. A recording is not. A series of recordings is not. A boxed set of recordings is not. A magazine publisher is a company. A magazine is not. Speedy is not stretchable. What you call wikilawering I call following the rules. " There is no consensus to speedily delete articles of types not specifically listed in A7 under that criterion." DGG (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Noticeboards, noticeboards, noticeboards!
I think I remember you chiming in when the No Original Research noticeboard was created as it being just an extra page to watch. We've now got the Fringe Theories, Fiction, NOR, and NPOV. I'm wondering if we're not spreading ourselves too thin over too many boards. Any ideas? MBisanz talk 03:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- We also have COI, and BLP, and RS, and the duplicative pair (ANB and AN/I), and BONB, and a number of similarly functioning pages, such as WT:SPAM, CP and its family, the various VPs and RfCs, WQA if it survives, the widely ignored RM and PM, and those I dont even know about). And the XfDs, the Ref Desks and the Help Desks, and AIV, 3RR and their relatives. And the talk pages for every policy and guideline prominent and obscure. And user talk pages where interesting stuff tends to be found. I organize what I do with bookmarks: I've got a group I call WPck (wikipedia check), and how far I get down the list of
30 or so51, now that I've actually counted-- each day is variable--but I've never gotten to the bottom. Some in my opinion in practice tend to serve for POV pushing, such as BLP and FRINGE. (At some I agree more with the trend--like RS, so I don't call it POV pushing)- I forgot the talklists and IRC. I prefer to forget about IRC, and I wish I could really forget about the talklists.
- But look at it in a positive way--it's forum shopping which keeps there from being any one WP:LOC.DGG (talk) 04:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Def going on my best of list. MBisanz talk 17:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- We also have COI, and BLP, and RS, and the duplicative pair (ANB and AN/I), and BONB, and a number of similarly functioning pages, such as WT:SPAM, CP and its family, the various VPs and RfCs, WQA if it survives, the widely ignored RM and PM, and those I dont even know about). And the XfDs, the Ref Desks and the Help Desks, and AIV, 3RR and their relatives. And the talk pages for every policy and guideline prominent and obscure. And user talk pages where interesting stuff tends to be found. I organize what I do with bookmarks: I've got a group I call WPck (wikipedia check), and how far I get down the list of
Wikipedia:Deletion reform study group
Moved to User talk:DGG/Deletion reform -- please continue there. DGG (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
(Copied over from my talk page:) DGG, many thanks for your comment. I'm glad that my text may be useful for the NYC meet. I'd be pleased to have any feedback or reactions that come out of that. And I do now indeed intend to publish a version of the essay somewhere. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
A3 to Prod ?
Do you really think it is necessary to {{Prod}} for process? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. I think it necessary to follow the speedy criteria as written. Anything else leads to chaos Some people will delete appropriately, others not. The purpose of process is to prevent misuse, at the cost of going slightly slower. Of all WP process, I think PROD is the cleverest compromise. DGG (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello again ...
Would you please take a look at User talk:Matthewedwards#Category:Flagged articles, and then add your comments on the cats I have created to compliment the templates?
Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) 07:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello again ... {{Flag-editor}} now has an optional assist
parameter that makes a friendly offer to help, for those thus inclined, instead of defaulting with making the offer. :-) — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- getting there! I'll check the details later. Next goal, perhaps: making it shorter while still making it friendly. and maybe copyvio should be different --if it's clear it should be db-copyvio, if not, suspected copyvio already has the template "copypaste". DGG (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- I realized that, but the point is, "I don't have time to check right now, but it's suspicious, so I'll flag it with this generic tag" ... maybe Some Other Editor will check it out in the mean time, and decide that it's {{Db-copyvio}}-able. :-) — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- For example, Liliam Cuenca González (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was part of a WP:COI/N and WP:COPYVIO that led to a site being blocked and removed by a bot as WP:LINKSPAM ... it's all the sins in one (unfortunately repeated) case, but it certainly can be improved if editors are aware of the situation ... hence Category:Flagged articles. — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I realized that, but the point is, "I don't have time to check right now, but it's suspicious, so I'll flag it with this generic tag" ... maybe Some Other Editor will check it out in the mean time, and decide that it's {{Db-copyvio}}-able. :-) — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
)
Current project
Your third suggestion: I like. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC) P.S. As this is out of the blue, I am referring to the section on your userpage. "A good faith request by any established editor is sufficient for any administrator, whether or not the deleting administrator, to undelete an article deleted under speedy, except for BLP and copyvio. This should be automatic, and need not involve Deletion Review. it is polite to ask the original administrator first, but not necessary, and, even if s/he refuses, any administrator can undelete it without it being considered wheel warring. The article would normally be immediately sent for AfD. By definition, if an established editor disagrees, it is not uncontroversial and needs community involvement. "
- Yes, that's the one. I think it would actually save a lot of drama and free up some wasted time for creators, onlookers & DRV contributors. It might increase the load at AfD, but I'm inclined to think not that much. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
)
WP:Lectures
Hiya David, I see you were scheduled to give a lecture on sourcing in mid-May...did you give the lecture, and is there a "transcript" somewhere, or perhaps you've done an essay on the topic? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I dont think it has been transcribed yet, but the outline is at User:DGG/LR DGG (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
H.O.P.E. speech
Hey, DGG. This is volt4ire from the NYC meetup. Pharos mentioned that you would be a good person to help (or at least steer me in the right direction) in doing a pro-inclusionist speech. Any suggestions for speakers, arguments, debating-points, etc.? Thanks! volt4ire 02:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- do you think they will want to hear about specific details at Wikipedia? rather, I would aim it at the general roles of web 2.0 information sources, then specialize it to encyclopedias, then us, then to specific problems if people want to hear about them. DGG (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think volt4ire's original idea was for some sort of inclusionist vs. deletionist "debate", and I had recommended you an an inclusionist (I couldn't think of a New York-area deletionist at that moment). Which is an interesting idea, because of all the inside baseball at Wikipedia, the notability issue seems to attract the most outside interest (several articles in Slate, for example).
- Which is not to say that this is necessarily what we should do. But I do imagine at a conference like H.O.P.E., we should avoid basic explanations of web 2.0, and focus somewhat more on the issues that are particular to us.--Pharos (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, see Wikipedia talk:Meetup/NYC#H.O.P.E. Conference panel (maybe we should shift this conversation there).--Pharos (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Which is not to say that this is necessarily what we should do. But I do imagine at a conference like H.O.P.E., we should avoid basic explanations of web 2.0, and focus somewhat more on the issues that are particular to us.--Pharos (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Fringe
In Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee, you wrote but situations of a single person with a completely far fringe view are dealt with fairly well already. There are cases where a real-world minority- or fringe-view is overrepresented on Wikipedia. There are also cases where a majority- or wikipedia-majority-view silences a minority view or reduces their weight well below their real-world due weight. This can happen by one side outmaneuvering the other into a behavior violation or by simply driving them away from the project in frustration. I don't think there is a good solution, other than to have affected articles watched by people who are informed about the article's subject matter but with no emotional stake in the article. This tends to happen more on articles on political or social topics, where way too many editors have a personal agenda, and on articles about people, places, or groups, where fanboys may succeed in turning the article into a virtual press release. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- as I said there, I think that dueling by taunting each other into unacceptable actions is not a really rational approach. . Perhaps it survives because the people who have been here a while tend to know just how far they can safely go & some of them have gotten quite good at it. But perhaps also it works because the people who are for good or less good reasons committed to an agenda with a zeal and devotion and purpose which transcend rational argument tend to be rather easy to lose proportion and descend into unacceptable actions. There is nothing wrong with zealotry when one is right, but it has to be pursued elsewhere--those who care more about their cause than objective editing encyclopedia are a danger to the encyclopedia.
- Unfortunately, the attempt to deal with it otherwise tend to amount to an appeal to authority, which does not do much better--one can find authorities for almost anything. And so one argues about the relative merits of the authorities. People both in the right and wrong of it (as if w could tell) are equally likely to what to prevent their opponents from making a fair case. What is necessary is a way to determine what objective editing is, and enforce it. My current thoughts are mandatory mediation with enforceable remedies--not by subject experts necessarily, but by people with common sense and proven impartiality.DGG (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
AfD essay
Greetings, David. I have been playing around recently with the idea of writing an essay on an aspect of AfD you might be interested in. The idea behind the essay (stub version here) is that it would be admirable for inclusionists/eventualists who argue that articles could be improved to an acceptable level to take immediate steps in bringing that article up to scratch. Per this comment, I imagine that you are sympathetic to the notion. Would you be interested in collaborating on the essay or throwing around a few ideas on the subject? Sincerely, Skomorokh 11:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- I hope you do not mean "immediate"--I dont see it in your proposal. --it is many times easier to nominate for deletion than to fix. I fix articles at Afd, yes, but i can only do 1 or 2 a week or so properly (I usually do another 2 or 3, but some of those fixes are minimal & dont really meet my standards for a decent article.) In that week, usually 1000 are nominated, of which probably 200 of the deleted ones could be fixed, and perhaps the same number of the ones that get kept need majpr improvements. But Wikipedia is too large to require fixing to save articles--many articles will not be worked on for long periods,--this is very unfortunate, but until we have more people prepared to work on the less widely interesting topics, it will remain the case. One thing we'll need to get them, is to not delete articles that they might be interested in. them. Incomplete articles are inevitable in a wiki like this.
- Lets try to generalize this--that people who nominate for deletion must demonstrate they did at least a minimal search, documenting where they looked.
- Maybe it should be a how-to, not an exhortation.
- Try a longer draft & I'll look in more detail. DGG (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Consistency
- BIO has become very nebulous, especially because one can interpret "significant coverage" and NOT NEWS to produce any result whatsoever for many of the articles you have in mind. We need to make up our mind abut what depth of local figures we intend to cover. We need to make up our mind about whether to cover the central figures of human interest stories. And then stick to it, whatever the decision is. You and I would probably disagree on one or both of these in general, I at least would much rather accept almost any stable compromise rather than fight each of them from over-general principles. DGG (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- We'd probably be closer together than you might think. Yes, the community as a whole does need to thrash out local notability-- something that a narrow constructionist can rely on but which would allow some flexibility. Any standard, even one I loathe, would be better than none. As you say, any result is possible the way things are. A dice roll would be less stressful and do as well. This is why I avoid AFD. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Stress
- as with any democratic type of process, it works better if the good people stay in. The way I avoid stress is by commenting once or twice, and then not looking back--either my arguments is accepted, or not,and then on to the next. I generally do not look back to see what the result is, or I would get too often angry, or at least disappointed. Not that it's a game for me, but that I can be effective only by keeping detached. DGG (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
CSD vs. AfD
The articles in question don't fall under "local chapters" - that was a slightly different yet related item. The articles concerned consisted of two lines, (name and address), and external link to a page where the name appears in a list of related groups, and/or a link to a dead or non-informative homepage. That does indeed give no indication of importance (no sources), unless something being called "Grand" implies importance (which it shouldn't). I am certain that I had to start 4 AfDs that I really didn't need to because of baseless claims of supposed notability "because of the name" or "because this other thing (which also had no independent sources and thus didn't assert its notability) was important."
I also discovered that some of the articles were informationally wrong, and referred to entirely different groups than what the sources were pointed at. Yet I'm the one supposedly "gaming the system" and with a "personal bias" because I don't think we should have articles that remain unsourced for months at a time with no editorial changes and no reliable sources. MSJapan (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- MSJ - the CSD system is not meant for questionable cases, which is what you've been doing. JASpencer (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- If an article is wrong, fix it.
- If it is downright vandalism, and the vandalism would be unquestionably clear to anyone even if they knew nothing whatever about the subject, tag it for speedy
- If it is downright vandalism, but the vandalism would not be immediately clear to anyone ignorant of the subject ,list it at Prod or AfD
- if the article is unsourced, try to source it. The proposal that articles that remain unsourced can be deleted for that reason alone, even at AfD, has been repeatedly and decisively rejected by the community. If you want to challenge it , try the Village Pump. If you nominate for speedy on that reason it is disruptive, because you are deliberately going against established policy and instead following what you think the policy ought to be.
- If for a particular article, you think either the facts or the notability is unsourcable, nominated for Prod or AfD. It helps to have a good reason, like the result of a search, because if others can source it, they will probably consider that you have made a careless nomination.
- For the minimum requirements to keep an incomplete article, see WP:STUB. Again, by repeated decision of the community , it does not have to be sourced.
- It is considered unsuitable and a violation of WP:BITE to nominate within a few minutes after it has been written an incomplete article for not indicating any nobility -- instead place a notability tag. If after a few days it indicates no notability whatever, then place a speedy tag. If it indicated anything that any reasonable person could think might possibly indicate notability, use Prod or AfD--se below for the advantages of doing it that way.
- If however, it contains too little content to tell what the subject is even about, it can be nominated for speedy as empty.
- The amount of work involved in trying to recover from an improper deletion , or argue about a questionable speedy, is even worse than the tedious mechanism of Afd. Therefore, if you think there will be any opposition, use AfD. It has the additional advantage that the article can be prevented from re-creation. This is especially valuable if someone is deliberately creating bad articles. DGG (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- (This does not imply any view of mine on any of the articles or on the topic. I !vote to delete a lot of things at AfD, and I might well !vote to delete the articles in question. And I do a lot of speedy. We need speedy, and I have no hesitation in using it when it is unquestionable.) But there's no point arguing individual article deletions on personal talk pages. that's what Afd is for. DGG (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- yes, I understood that. DGG (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- Question as to your comment at JASpencer's talk page... that "If there is any reason to think the article's deletion would be challenged, even for inappropriate reasons, it is necessary to use AfD."... doesn't that negate the entire concept of speedy deletes? Your approach would allow one disruptive editor to "exempt" an entire topic area from speedy deletes... all because he thinks that anything to do with the topic is notable. Blueboar (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- I misworded it there, and have corrected it to even for reasons which would not save the article at AfD. Objectiions that are clearly disruptive should of course be ignored, objections based on good faith are another mater entirely. When I encounter disruptive addition of articles I have no hesitation to warn or even block the person involved. But some of the afd criteria are matters of judgment, and if in any reasonable doubt, I prefer the community's judgment to my own. DGG (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you... that does clarify things significantly. Blueboar (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- And thanks, I am always grateful when people point out if I've gotten something wrong, or worded it too broadly. I know I will make mistakes, and I must rely on others to correct them.. DGG (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you... that does clarify things significantly. Blueboar (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
We edit conflicted on this speedy delete, saying exactly the same thing (both declining the speedy). Good to know I'm still in line with your thinking every once and a while :-). I'll get in contact with the article creator shortly and see if I can't help him/her out. Keeper ǀ 76 21:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think we'd agree with each other 95% of the time, with almost all the others being matters that we both would consider equivocal. Obviously the remaining few are the ones that stick out. All we can really do there is stay polite and let other people judge. If I've pushed you too hard on any of them I apologize, and I certainly never intend to let an argument on one thing carry over onto another. You might be interested in some of my recent comments today at WT:CSD. DGG (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- I was hoping we agreed more like 99% of the time :-). I read your comments at wt:csd, very well worded. I support them. I personally, with rare exception anyway, have never "speedy deleted" something that was untagged. Probably because I don't do "new page patrol" and rely on others to patrol properly. I wish there was an easy tool to see my ratio of "agree with patroller" versus "remove tag". I think I'm about 1 of 5 that I "decline" for one reason or another, maybe but hopefully not more like 1 of 10 (I spend a lot of time at C:CSD). In the last few months, I think the "speedy taggers" have gotten more careful and less bold, which is a good thing. I attribute it to this: Many "speedy taggers" are doing NPP because they foresee an RFA in their near future. It is well known (and appropriate) that if an editor is sloppy as a speedy tagger, they will be sloppy as a speedy deleter, therefore those taggers with "aspirations" of "finishing the job", which seems to be all of them, are reluctant to tag borderline articles. Encouraging, in an ironic sense. Anyway, I'm not an article builder, never pretended to be one, I'm no good at it. I've asked another editor, who I know to be an excellent article rescuer, to take a look at this specific article that you and I both agree isn't speediable. Seeing as this particular artist lives (purportedly) about 5 miles from my home, I don't quite feel right about doing much more than copyediting myself. Thanks for your input and insight. See you 'round, Keeper ǀ 76 22:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think we'd agree with each other 95% of the time, with almost all the others being matters that we both would consider equivocal. Obviously the remaining few are the ones that stick out. All we can really do there is stay polite and let other people judge. If I've pushed you too hard on any of them I apologize, and I certainly never intend to let an argument on one thing carry over onto another. You might be interested in some of my recent comments today at WT:CSD. DGG (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
"the assertion that someone has written a non-self published book book in any subject is a clear assertion of importance" - oh, dear Lord, that makes my heart break just to read! I'm an author, book reviewer, bookseller and long-time member of the National Writers Union; do you have any idea how many new books come out every year, even when you screen out the self-publishers? Most of us harmless Grub Street hacks will never be notable; and certainly most of my one- to three-book friends are not, nor would they assert themselves to be. This concept, if accepted, would open up the gates to endless floods of vanispamcruftisement! I cannot accede to your request. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC) (yes, Dave, I know you're a librarian [weren't you a Wombat at one time?]; but librarians aren't subjected to as much of the petty end of the spectrum as booksellers and reviewers are, and see less of the dross and more of the substance)
- I never said it was enough to be notable, just avoid speedy, at least in the case of an apparently significant book, and certainly in this case when supported also by published articles. Speedy is deliberately worded very loosely to permit any good faith assertion of notability to pass and be judged by the community. I agree most of the people who have written a single book wouldn't pass notability, but the point is that this is most of the people -- some would, and no one admin should be able to judge that for the same reason we don't speedy books themselves at afd. someone in the field at least should have the opportunity to check for reviews and citations and library holdings and sport things by recognition that need further checking. As for librarians, we get junk enough but of a different sort. I'm not sure I catch the reference to wombats? I invite you to find a suitable wording for what counts as passing speedy, but in this case, since there was material besides the book, I am probably going to Deletion Review, not to support the article particularly, but to establish that your standard of "indication of importance" is too high. DGG (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Obviously we disagree. Ah, well; certainly not the first time! (As to the wombats, that's a Stumpers-L reference.) --Orange Mike | Talk 18:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- I never said it was enough to be notable, just avoid speedy, at least in the case of an apparently significant book, and certainly in this case when supported also by published articles. Speedy is deliberately worded very loosely to permit any good faith assertion of notability to pass and be judged by the community. I agree most of the people who have written a single book wouldn't pass notability, but the point is that this is most of the people -- some would, and no one admin should be able to judge that for the same reason we don't speedy books themselves at afd. someone in the field at least should have the opportunity to check for reviews and citations and library holdings and sport things by recognition that need further checking. As for librarians, we get junk enough but of a different sort. I'm not sure I catch the reference to wombats? I invite you to find a suitable wording for what counts as passing speedy, but in this case, since there was material besides the book, I am probably going to Deletion Review, not to support the article particularly, but to establish that your standard of "indication of importance" is too high. DGG (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- DGG - I completely support your position. The point here is not to have an exercise in the use of rhetorics but to operate on the basis of evidence and community feedback to make sure Wikipedia remains true to its purpose of providing useful information written by open and transparent consensus [1]. I'm disappointed to see Orange Mike continue to ignore the feedback from the community. I hope it's not the case for other articles he's been reviewing. Were you able to take the "Deletion Review" action you mentioned?
Alex Omelchenko (talk) 04:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal
Since you have been actively involved in past discussion, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines--SaraNoon (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
archiving
I no longer remember how it was done but if someone knows or wants to talk to the bot operator, look at what's done for the museums project. In archiving it creates an index which includes topic and which archive it's in. I don't know if it can be done retroactively. TravellingCari 12:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at documentation, though I can change the names of the archives, the indexing is done as it makes the archive. I would have to remerge everything. What happened of course, is that a/I never imagined at the first they would get so large b/I started with topical archives, and this takes more maintenance than Ive actually done, and , of course 3/ there have been some very long postings here, not all by me,some interesting enough that I want to keep visible. Expect slow improvement. till and maybe a new normal system in January 09 DGG (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Indexes, what indexes?
- At User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo there is a pointer to User:HBC Archive Indexerbot. I think this is the bot alluded to above by Travellingcari, currently used by WP:MUSEUM. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at documentation, though I can change the names of the archives, the indexing is done as it makes the archive. I would have to remerge everything. What happened of course, is that a/I never imagined at the first they would get so large b/I started with topical archives, and this takes more maintenance than Ive actually done, and , of course 3/ there have been some very long postings here, not all by me,some interesting enough that I want to keep visible. Expect slow improvement. till and maybe a new normal system in January 09 DGG (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Fictional (?) book
One of the good example showing how this project is failing is that instead of trying to find out the truth about the book (as you've tried), involved editors are using it to prove bad faith on part of others (see second para). Sad, isn't it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- well, all students learn that it's asking for trouble to add refs relying only on listings on the web but without seeing them. But I'm not perfect here myself. :) DGG (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Back in 2005 and earlier, it was fairly common to see editors misunderstand what the reference section is for and add stuff that now we all know should be under external links of further reading there. Inline cites helped a lot; before I - just like many, many others - used to lump everything under references, whether we used it or not... it's nice to see how our standards of quality improved. If only that improvement would involve civility and good faith... :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand your frustration, but you really need to stop your ad hominem attacks on him on every AfD he does. It doesn't make you look any better than him, and it also makes you as viable as engaging in WP:POINT as much as he is. If you have a clear problem, initiate a request for comment; maybe ArbCom (you probably know there was already a second look at his conduct, in which they decided no action needed to be taken) will take a third look at his conduct or change Wikipedia's policy on AfDs.
I'm not trying to oppose your takes on things or ride you or like that; we have certainly both agreed on some articles from time to time. I also certainly agree that he is a tad heavy on bringing articles to AfD without exercising other options, but there are other venues for that — AfD, I believe, is not one of them. However, fighting fire with fire doesn't help the situation, either. That's all I want to say. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- You are probably right that it's overkill, and that I have called sufficient attention to it, and could advantageously use less detail. (My reason for repeating something on every article is that in the past, those articles on which people have not bothered to add keep comments have gotten deleted). Additionally, I have refrained from the temptation to respond with an identical rationale to his identical rationales, and have reworked each one specifically for the particular situation. I havent even given the same !vote -- some keep, some merge, some redirect. One even delete. They are not ad hominem. I consider what he is doing disruptive, and I am talking about that, not him. I have said nothing about motivation except repeating what he has said himself. I am willing to work with him or anyone in effecting merges and other improvements in these articles.
- And I thank you for letting me know the bad effect I am apparently having. It's good to have outside critiques. DGG (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Deletion
Articles must establish their notability and verifiability clearly and objectively. If someone is creating an article, it is just as in adequate to write the first paragraph of what may become a ten paragraph article as it is to create an article containing nothing more than the reiteration of its title and then reject claims that the subject is not notable. Editors who cannot or will not create articles with substantiating references from the start must be ready to have these articles deleted, or they should create them as userfied articles. Patrollers of the new articles page cannot be expected to check the HTML of all the nonsense articles they see to verify whether or not references were indeed placed and it is only the lack of a reflist markup that keeps them from being revealed. While your intentions may be excellent, your position is essentially defenseless. I therefore respectfully reject your your comments and ask that you instead direct your efforts at informing new editors that new articles must establish their own merit prior to them figuring out how to use Wikipedia, or they risk speedy deletion of what appears to be nonsense, unverified un-notable refuse, hoaxes and vandalism. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 13:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, articles must establish their notability and verifiability clearly and objectively to be kept, but they merely have to give some indication of it to pass speedy. Please reread WP:CSD and WP:STUB The first policy that you suggest, that an article must have references to be kept at speedy,. has been suggested from time to time, but repeatedly rejected. If you want to propose it, try the WT:CSD page But first read it's very long archives. That an article must be complete or even tenable at the first edit is also not policy, though I do warn people that they would do well not to make too fragmentary a start, because some admins are a little trigger-happy. What I said on your talk page, that it is not appropriate to speedy an in process article the first few minutes of its existence, is standard practice. You are not currently prevented from placing such a tag, but if you do, be aware that I and others will criticize you for it. What I am saying is not my eccentric way of doing things, but standard here. Please read or reread WP:BITE and WP:Deletion Policy.If an article can be improved by normal editing, it is not a candidate for speedy.
- However, we do have a way to accomplish the sort of challenge to an article you have in mind. That is the WP:PROD process. You might want to consider it in the cases of patently incomplete articles.
- I know you've been here about one year longer than I have, but I don't think what you have been suggesting has ever been the policy. And I notice your top userbox, so I think we might have some common ground after all. We do have common interests. Perhaps we will meet at one of the NYC meetups. DGG (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Your Comments on my Talk Page
Originally, I started deleting comments on my talk page from rude people that disagreed with some of my outspoken positions. Just don't need to keep reading negative nonsense from people that can't take alturnative or unpopular views.
But with respect to AfD comments, I generally don't see the point of repeating what the nominator has written if it is the same as my thoughts on the issue, which is what "as per nom" means. Do you disagree? Which AfD that I've voted on are you interested in? Perhaps I can expand my comments. But again, if my thoughts are the same as the nominator's, what's the point in a word-for-word copy since "as per nom" says the same thing?
prod
"unreferenced" is not a reason for deletion. Unreferenced and unnotable, maybe."tried but could not find any sources for notability" much more convincing--when you say something like that, I'd probably accept your view. But of the 2 you marked unreferenced, one seems to have had a ref . tho not a good one Blaqstarr--I didnt check further, and the other Esa Maldita Costilla, is probably notable given the performers involved. DGG (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- I guess our standards differ. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Your instincts were right on this one, DGG. I know this is kind of necro-bumping, but better late than never... Chubbles (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
You raise an excellent point there. I seem to be averaging a DRV on one of my closures every second day (although the majority are being endorsed). The recent phenomenon of DRVs when one isn't satisfied with the result, but dressed up as "certain arguments weren't addressed, so the admin should have closed it my way" is worrisome, not least because a DRV would have been even more certain if the debate had been closed the other way. This is liable to put good admins off closing AFDs because of a perceived stigma in having your decision posted at DRV, especially when users decline to discuss matters with the closer first as the DRV instructions twice require (a matter about which we have repeatedly butted heads). Where can we go from here? Stifle (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've moved this down, in case you missed it. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- still working on an adequate response.DGG (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Refining AfD outcomes
Hi. I read your comments at the AfD and DRV of List of Who Framed Roger Rabbit characters. In particular, I noticed your suggestion to alter AfD/DPR. I started a discussion WT:AFD#Merge outcome, based in part on my interpretation of your comments and concerns. Flatscan (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding at the discussion. Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
54]] (T C) 12:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I will be in Brooklyn on 2/7/09. Bearian (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- we should make sure to find each other.DGG (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Since you have had repeated experience with this user's AFDs like, I thought I'd contact you. This user's AFD behavior is appaling especially how he refuses to bundle nominations in the same universe for which he uses identical reasonings. He also continually fails to consider the option to merge or redirect without intervention of deletion and makes no evident efforts to look for sources himself (there's a difference between unverified and unverifiable), instead preferring to force the issue by nominating for AFD (which causes a 5-day deadline for improvement) and which is specifically considered to be improper.
The articles in question might well require care, merging or even deletion, but the way he goes about it is unneccesarily terse and bitey.
I think it's time to launch an RFC. Would you consider helping gather evidence and supporting it? - Mgm|(talk) 15:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Before you start, you might consider seeing how the RfC/U on Gavin.collins goes first, since different facets of the same issue are involved.DGG (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
An offer of help, other inclusionists, and suggestions
Your name came up prominently at Talk:Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia#Prominent inclusionists? I was wondering:
- How I can help?
- If there are other inclusionists you can suggest I talk to, or if there are any groups you belong too.
- Any suggestions about how I can help form policy to be more inclusive.
Thank you, Inclusionist (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- the best way of helping attain a better and more inclusive encyclopedia is by finding sources for worthy articles that do not have them, especially those immediately under attack. I see you are already a member of the WP:Article Rescue Squadron. You can also look for articles in areas of interest to you that might be challenged in Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Article Cleanup or at Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles. This can be done most effectively after learning carefully the rules for proper sourcing given at WP:Reliable sources and the talk page and noticeboard associated with it. We already have a considerable amount of discussion, and it is practical work that is needed more. It is easier to talk about why articles should be kept, than to do the work to keep them. And when you do participate in Afds, never do so without a good argument that the majority of people will accept; weak arguments are counterproductive. Remember that by any rational standard most of the articles there should indeed be deleted. I find a good way to keep perspective is to a do a little WP:New page patrol, and to see and identify all the junk that really must be kept out of the encyclopedia. If you want to help policy become more inclusive, first think carefully about just what you want to have included and why it would enhance rather than diminish the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep
Hi DGG. You may be surprised to see me championing anything regarding "keep" !votes, but you might find this discussion about this AfD discussion interesting. My conclusion is that WP:Speedy keep might do well to have at least one non-bad faith / non-nominator-generated reason, such as WP:SNOW. Thoughts? Bongomatic 18:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have elsewhere commented just now [2] that the reason for speedy keep should be a "clearly mistaken nomination": or something of the sort, without implying anything about good faith. Except in extreme circumstances, we can't really judge people's motivations, and they are not necessarily relevant. for example, I readily admit that the motivation of one of my principal opponents in some recent discussions is their good faith and honest and forthright desire to reduce the Wikipedia coverage of fiction, which they in all honesty think excessive. That they are totally wrong and will destroy one of the key positive features of Wikipedia does not affect their good faith.
- SNOW is a different matter, and I think we use it altogether too rapidly, because we should give a chance for people to say things that we might not have thought of at first. I think it would be a good idea if almost all afds ran a full 5 days =120 hours.
- As for engadget, it closed before I had a chance to comment. I think the nomination was about was wrong as a nomination can be, and showed some inability to understand either the article, or a temporary lapse in understanding our guidelines. I think the nominator sometimes does interpret our guidelins in a way that i would not, but that at most is a persistent error, or non-standard viewpoint. Bad faith in a deletion nomination would be if someone wanted to delete the article of a competitor, or about an organisation that espoused a different ideology, or an article written by an opponent here or in the RW, or to make a POINT irrelevant to the merits of the article, or to do deliberate harm to the encyclopedia, or out of purely reckless vandalism. None of these were present here that i know of. DGG (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm trying to reach a consensus (or at least spark further discussion) at Wikipedia talk:Guide to deletion#Summary up to now. Feel like weighing in? Bongomatic 02:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
A true CSD survey
Well, I've gone through a number of CSD nominations from the past month and found about 40 that I thought might pose interesting questions on how people perform CSD's. Basically, I'm asking people to review the article in question and answering the question, "how would you handle this" with one of four options:
1. Agree with criteria for deletion. 2. Disagree with criteria for deletion, but would delete the article under another criteria. 3. Disagree with the criteria for deletion, but this is a situation where IAR applies. 4. Disagree with speedily deleting the article.
Alexander Dictionary of English Idioms
Alexander Dictionary of English Idioms has been tagged for speedy deletion as promotional. It may have been deleted by the time you read this message. I can't find references for it, but perhaps I'm looking in the wrong places. --Eastmain (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think its a minor publication of their language school, unknown otherwise, and accordingly I've speedy deleted it as promotional for the school. DGG (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Something else to consider
What do you think about IC 5357 and the half dozen or so stubs like it? Are all galaxies notable - there's likely to be "billions and billions" of them per Carl Sagan - even if we can never write more thant what's in that article - which is basically where to look for the place from the Earth? Are all stars- "billions and billions" of them in each galaxy, most likewise without much more than their location to be said for them? Are all asteroids or other balls of ice and rock out there (or down here)? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- What do I think? i think we should add the same information for each of the few million others that have been catalogued. Though for convenience, we ought to group them together in articles. The notability=article equation is part of the problem. There are 2 qys: should Wikipedia cover something, and, separately, how should it be arranged. I have, for example, no objection in the least to group episodes together, as long as a reasonable amount of information is included for each, including the actors, timing, and main plot lines from beginning to end. I think we could have coverage on every street in a city; most of them would be in groups. It would be easier to do than to argue about which ones to include.
- The real reason to restrict notability is to main the encyclopedia free from promotion and advertising. As this doesn't affect galaxies, we don't have the problem there. the real point is to stop arguing about arrangement and subdivision, and start writing content.
- Personally, i think it would be a good idea to build a stub on every possible notable subject, and encourage people to fill them in. Where would I start? every noun and verb in wiktionary, that there is more than one reference for. DGG (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- This made me chuckle - we worry about both ends of the scale don't we? "are hamlets notable?" at the one and then "are galaxies notable" at the other. :-) --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
request for input
here when you have some time (concerns a proposal to Verifiability policy) Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
verifiability and context
I appreciate your recent comment - would you mind proposing wording you would find acceptable? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
useful general remark
::if anyone wishes to fight with me, this page is the place; if anyone wishes to fight with someone else, please do it elsewhere. DGG (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The notability problem in a nutshell
Though it remains in the policy, there are now many exceptions to: If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. - quoted from WP:V (There are a number of areas where this is true, but primary among the one that concerns us here is fiction.) There are several ambiguities: the first is the meaning of the plural of sources, for it is accepted and elswhere stated that ones sufficiently reliable third party source is sufficient. Second, there are many cases where it is clear that first party sources such as official documents from government sources are sufficient to show the notability of the agencies concerned. Third, we routinely accept the probability that there will be such sources. Fourth, the sources for writing an article are not in the least limited to third party sources, for the primary source of the work itself is accepted as sufficient and in fact usually the best source for content. Fifth, and crucial here, is the distinction between "topic" and "article"-- a key argument above is whether a spin offarticle on a character is to be judged as a separate article. The sixth is the lack of a requirement that the third party source be substantial. DGG (talk)
- and we see how notability is used as an excuse to delete secrets that are merely hard to source like DCEETA. we have the spectacle of people saying that the NYTimes is not reliable, and it's just synthesis. thanks for the kind comments Dogue (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- there seems to be a recent trend to be as perverse in nominating as possible. See today's nominations for the chairman of AOL, and.a major dam. I think they may be intended as a POINTy demonstration that common sense is an unreliable criterion, or a proof by example that WPedians can be shown to be lacking in that mental quality. DGG (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
What else? Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Spreadin the word.....
From this discussion, we get the box on the right - cool eh? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Good work indeed from the two of you! This is the sort of thing that can make a practical positive difference to the encyclopedia! DGG (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
You are me
Sorry David, but you are apparently me. --David Shankbone 05:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- all David's are actually clones; we use disguises to conceal the fact, but they don't work 100%. DGG (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think Shankbone is the cabal. --KP Botany (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- the person who does the photos can control the world. DGG (talk) 09:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- You're awesome by me! I originally thought the page was about me, but apparently it is about you. Jeez, if you're going to have haters hating on you, at least get your name right! I'm guessing they put as much thought and research into their self-promotion as they did into that Facebook group. --David Shankbone 14:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- the person who does the photos can control the world. DGG (talk) 09:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Prods
You have lost me when you say that "unresolved issues is not a good enough reason to delete". Taking Manhunt (urban game) for example, the issues raised are as follows:
It does not cite any references or sources.
t needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications.
It may contain original research or unverifiable claims.
Its factual accuracy is disputed.
It may need copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling.
It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Its lead section requires expansion.
In other words, it is an extremely poor article that is almost certainly providing misinformation to the readers. So why keep it? Are you perhaps being pedantic and trying to insist that I duplicate all of the above as the prod reason instead of merely referring to the loud and clear issues that appear immediately below the prod box?
We are supposed to be providing the readers with a credible encyclopaedia, not preserving patent rubbish. --Orrelly Man (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- In the case of the above article the prod wasn't correct as the article had previously had a prod removed, AfD therefore is the only way to go. RMHED. 19:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
As for your question though,since it applies equally to Prod and AfD:
You should not nominate an article for deletion if it can be rescued: see WP:BEFORE and WP:Deletion Policy. It is an excellent idea to remove rubbish, but only if it cannot be improved. The mere failure to have improved an article is not a reason for deletion by itself, no matter how long it has been unimproved. Let's look at those reasons:
- We do not remove articles for being unsourced. We remove them for being unsourceable. You need to do a proper search. For games of this sort, I think this should include printed books on children's games. Atthe very least before nominating, you should check Google Books.
- The second reason is just like the one above; it does need them, & the thing to do is to look for them. It's not a reason for deletion unless there are none to be found. (t
- If the factual accuracy is disputed, then it should be edited, not deleted. The disputes about accuracy should be discussed on the talk page and resolved. It would only be a reason for deletion if you were prepared to show it did not exist at all, or that there was so much dispute that it was impossible to write even a brief article.
- If copy editing is needed, then it should be done. The need for this is never a reason for deletion.
- Ditto for general cleanup. If it needs it, do it. This too is never a reason for deletion.
- If the lead section needs expansion, expand it. This again is never a reason for deletion.
Thus, none of the unresolved issues were a good enough reason for deletion, just as I said. I hope this explanation helps, more than my edit summary did. As a general rule, what we do with poor articles is improve them. What we do with misinformation is correct it, if we can show it incorrect. If you know enough about the game to make these statements, you know enough to help the article. Articles of this sort do tend to attract dubious material, and need proper attention. Then Wikipedia will be a more credible encyclopedia and not provide patent rubbish. I see you are interested in these games, so I look forward to seeing your improvements in this set of articles. DGG (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- I can see you mean well but you are being very unrealistic. If the original editor will not make the effort to provide proper sources, why should anyone else? You have to remember that other editors don't have the time to do "proper searches" or expand the lead or edit factual inaccuracies and original research. Quite often, when you find a bad article, it has been created by some redlink userid who has made no other "contributions". Best thing to do is get rid of it or you end up wasting valuable time. If the creator is a genuine editor, he can always come back and recreate it. --Orrelly Man (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- why? because of our Deletion policy, as clearest expressed at WP:BEFORE, our need to encourage new contributors, and WP:BITE. It is you who unrealistically expect perfection at the first edit. It is every bit as valuable and necessary to fix articles as contribute new ones. DGG (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
and the related Joseph T. Dipiro article: an IP editor commented that one was very similar to content on another website, and a quick google search revealed that they both appear to be copyright violations. I agree that the journal could be made into a good article, but it may be better to start from scratch. I've tagged the articles, but if you could review and do what you feel is right I'd be grateful. Verbal chat 20:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- yes, I can rewrite them. DGG (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll help if needed - hopefully tomorrow. Yours, Verbal chat 22:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)(good god I nearly put "xxx" rather than ~~~~ by mistake)
Question from power corrupts
- User_talk:Ikip#no_real-world_notability_established Maybe you could help answer? I know you are considered the intellectual giant on these issues. Ikip (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- AMAB may have convinced you, but he did not convince me., i commented there. DGG (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- I am not convinced, I just respect him writing a long answer to someone elses question on my talk page.
- I am thankful that you wrote a long answer too. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- AMAB may have convinced you, but he did not convince me., i commented there. DGG (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Open Access Blog
Is not Open Access News. http://openaccessblog.com/ is a well-meaning but not notable blog. Fences and windows (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
New York Public Library classes
Hi David, I've started something at Wikipedia:Wikipedia at the Library. Hopefully this can be a space for us to work out our ideas, and I look forward to your contributions.--Pharos (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Threshold knowledge
I'm not interested. If other users want to keep this kind of article, that's up to them. Presumably you looked at it and made your decision; I looked at it and made mine.
If you look at my talk page, you'll see lots of examples of people moaning about their articles being deleted and lots of other examples of me having a proper discussion with them, restoring articles and helping contributors to improve them. I stand by everything I've said on the subject. Deb (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Dear DGG, thank you for your input in this case. I hope I was able to proceed through procedures in a level-headed manner. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at User talk:Deb#Threshold knowledge and, if you feel it would be of value, offer a second opinion. Although perhaps nothing more really should be said... Bondegezou (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Good Germans DRV
Hi DGG, Would you be good enough to review my comment (and the rest of) the DRV for Good Germans. The whole situation is one of the crazier things I've run into, and I trust you to give it a fair hearing. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- yes. an editor first mistakenly converted it to Wiktionary format and now complains it was transwikified. The admin should ideally have spotted it, but I am not sure i would have. DGG (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your thoughtful (as usual) input in the DRV discussion, DGG. As long as the outcome doesn't bar re-creation of the article, I'll be happy. Cgingold (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- PS - Thanks also for your remarks re adminship on my talk page -- much appreciated. I'll respond there later -- but I am really curious to know how you even spotted that section in the first place, seeing as it's pretty well hidden, nowhere near the bottom of the page. In fact, I had to look in the edit history to figure out why I had one of those orange "new messages" banners! Cgingold (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- seeing your work at DelRev, I checked if you were an admin, & seeing you were not, I considered you might be a good candidate. Before I go ahead with something like that, I read the talk p. history to see if there will be problems. For example, you might have consistently said no to other nominations. BTW, If you click on the "last change" in the banner, you get the history open to the latest change.) DGG (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- True enough - but I've gotten in the habit of clicking on the "my talk" link at the top of the page. Anyway, thanks for the bit of explanation, now I don't have to puzzle over it. :) Cgingold (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- seeing your work at DelRev, I checked if you were an admin, & seeing you were not, I considered you might be a good candidate. Before I go ahead with something like that, I read the talk p. history to see if there will be problems. For example, you might have consistently said no to other nominations. BTW, If you click on the "last change" in the banner, you get the history open to the latest change.) DGG (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- PS - Thanks also for your remarks re adminship on my talk page -- much appreciated. I'll respond there later -- but I am really curious to know how you even spotted that section in the first place, seeing as it's pretty well hidden, nowhere near the bottom of the page. In fact, I had to look in the edit history to figure out why I had one of those orange "new messages" banners! Cgingold (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your thoughtful (as usual) input in the DRV discussion, DGG. As long as the outcome doesn't bar re-creation of the article, I'll be happy. Cgingold (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- yes. an editor first mistakenly converted it to Wiktionary format and now complains it was transwikified. The admin should ideally have spotted it, but I am not sure i would have. DGG (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Asteroids
Hi, The Great Asteroid Stub debate has started again here, and input from someone with awareness of the administrative problems of swarms of minimal stubs might be helpful. Alai (who carried the aministrative flag previously) seems inactive of late, so I saw your note in Archive 9, and thought you might join in, or perhaps you could alert some others with useful insight? I believe we can provide the essential information in a table format (with thousands of entries, NB), with links out to serious articles. But I hate to trash their creator's (Captain Panda) efforts by mass deletion, beyond what is really necessary to alleviate the problems these stubs actually create. I would really like to bring this discussion to a satisfactory actionable conclusion this time.
Thanks, Wwheaton (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Declined speedy on Joseph Haslag
In declining the speedy did you note that the author did PR for the subject of the article? User talk:Jacknaudi/Joseph Haslag, Talk:Joseph Haslag It's your call, I'm not going to AfD, I'm not even going to watch anymore, but I do hope wp doesn't get clagged up with PR dross. Bazj (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- writing bios with COI is discouraged but not forbidden. Good PR people can be an asset, if they follow the rules-- see our FAQ (on businesses and other organisations). Many people write such articles poorly--professors & their helpers tend about 50:50 to omit the stuff that shows their notability (presumably thinking it obvious), or to enter a lot of spam and irrelevancies including every book review they ever wrote. If they do it OK, good. If not, and they meet WP:PROF, we add or subtract, as needed. COI is a warning that some editing is likely to be necessary. The chairmanship and the publications almost certainly show him as a major figure in his field, and meet the requirements at WP:PROF. Thearticle does need some improvements, & I will follow up and make sure that they are made. Nominate for speedy as promotional when there is no core for an acceptable article. See WP:CSD for the formal standard. If you're dubious about an article and it does not meet the standards for CSD, consider using PROD.DGG (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
CfD nomination of Category:Library types by subject
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Info_talk.png/36px-Info_talk.png)
Category:Library types by subject, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.
I haven't formulated an opinion on this yet, so I'll be interested to see what you have to say. Cgingold (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thought you'd like to know, I've made a renaming proposal for this category. Cgingold (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)= Merge discussion at Talk:Tom Tucker (Family Guy) ==
I've opened a merge discussion at the above-mentioned location. Please consider participating if you are interested. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Mentioned you on AN.
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_administrative_assistance_with_whitelist_request_for_Lyrikline.org_page_for_Chirikure_Chirikure The copyright bugaboo is persistent. --Abd (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- commented there. DGG (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Boy, did you! Thanks. Beetstra, who had unintentionally derailed the process, made up for it by realizing he'd made a mistake by linking the specific whitelisting to the global and site-total whitelisting issue. I.e., he wanted to deal with the whole site, not a pile of individual whitelisting requests. Understandable. Perhaps there was a method to my madness.
- commented there. DGG (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- However, a journey of a thousand miles starts with one step. If I couldn't get one poet link whitelisted, how likely would it be that I could succeed in a site-wide whitelisting. Now, the existing situation may still require some attention here. He whitelisted the English language pages, and I'm not sure that will be sufficient. However, one step at a time! He did, in the end, much more than I'd asked for, and we can clean up details later.
- Plus I think I now have a suggested process that will avoid most contention over whitelisting caused by blacklisting admins circling the wagons and routinely confirming their original actions by denying whitelisting requests based on propriety of blacklisting, which is a totally different issue than single-link whitelistings. Because only blacklisters and antispam volunteers routinely watch the blacklist/whitelist pages, however, the issues get linked, quite naturally. It is as if DRV consisted only of a panel of admins who had speedy-deleted articles!
- I made almost-specific proposals along these lines on my Talk in response to comment from Beetstra announcing his whitelisting.
- Beetstra, while becoming difficult at times, has overall been very helpful, he seems to have recognized that I'm not out to wreck the place, that I'm simply standing up to represent the other side of the equation, that little detail: in the end, it's about content, not about killing all the spam. I believe that we can do both, efficiently, making the anti-spam volunteer's job easier and more efficient. It involves separating the whitelisting process from blacklisting, and establishing a guideline that active blacklist admins (and active volunteers) abstain from denying requests for whitelisting. No harm of one of them accepts such a request, because they are, from my experience, quite unlikely to do so abusively. It's just the denials that sometimes are a problem. It's a product of battlefield mentality that is natural, as you know, when dealing with mountains of spam. WP:WikiProject Spam actually suggests that WP:AGF be set aside in dealing with spam, and I'd say, sure, but that's not complete. Stop spam, intercept it, suspending AGF, on "probable cause." Arrest the linkspam (i.e, blacklist). But then don't have the same people making content decisions on the same links. Use the tools or don't. Don't do both. Normally we talk about, with admin abuse (and I'm making no accusations of impropriety in saying this, admins are following existing practice, usually) involvement in an article and then use of tools. Here there is the use of tools, to protect the project, then content involvement. I.e., an admin then asserts a decline, typically, based on, not clear content criteria, but defense of the original blacklisting. Normally, with content, any editor may assert content that is reasonable (not necessarily acceptable) by making the edit, and it's a problem only if there is clear violation, like vandalism or BLP violation or clear copyvio, there are no rules requiring that all edits be "acceptable." But when it comes to reviewing whitelist requests, suddenly, extremely stringent requirements are set up, and the proposed link must be "necessary." Why? The whitelist doesn't make more work for the linkspam volunteers, as long as there are not a torrent of such, and if the linkspam volunteers pay practically no attention to the whitelist, they simply have less distraction. If an inappropriate link is whitelisted because some spammer pulled the wool over the eyes of a user who closed, it is very, very easy to delete the whitelist regex.
- The whitelist page could be mostly managed by non-admin users, who would review whitelist requests, and would routinely approve those which are reasonable edit proposals on the face. Any autoconfirmed user who wants to add a link to a blacklisted site would simply propose it there, perhaps with a link to an article talk page notice about the proposed edit. If an IP or site-owner, etc., wants to ask for a link, fine. On the whitelist talk page. So by the time a whitelist link is approved, there are at least two (and in the presence of contention, three at a minimum) autoconfirmed editors in favor of allowing it. And then implementation can be done by any admin who knows regex, or the blacklist volunteers could be requested to review approvals and add them en masse. (for many links, the regex is pretty simple, and I'm sure there are lots of regular editors who know regex and who would consult.) As I see it, the page could recommend delisting or total-site whitelisting (with global blacklisting), but that request, if it is approved on the whitelist page by other than an acting admin, might go to the blacklist page for review regarding risk of continued linkspam. Before a judge releases the prisoner, the judge might ask the police if there seems to be some immediate and continued danger from the prisoner. --Abd (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think that there is a possible pool of volunteers who might watch a whitelisting page if it gives them some responsibility, some level of authority to help others make edits. The risk of damage from a bad decision is small, compared to the torrent of linkspam that exists. If there isn't enough help, a backlog would develop, but, now, it wouldn't be the fault of the blacklist volunteers! It would be up to the community to fix it, or not. --Abd (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I look at it from another aspect: the same admins who tend to overdelete spam also tend to overdelete articles. You cannot get a set of rules that will limit the damage, without a very elaborate set of controls. There is great concern at the moment about the existing procedural overhead. The best approach I think is to gently adjust the rules, and attempt to persuade the people. There is no possible rule that will replace general watchfulness and a willingness to speak up. All questionable admin actions should be challenged, and I am not speaking of this issue only. Even people too stubborn to back down after making a mistake on a specific issue can still learn eventually. DGG (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think that there is a possible pool of volunteers who might watch a whitelisting page if it gives them some responsibility, some level of authority to help others make edits. The risk of damage from a bad decision is small, compared to the torrent of linkspam that exists. If there isn't enough help, a backlog would develop, but, now, it wouldn't be the fault of the blacklist volunteers! It would be up to the community to fix it, or not. --Abd (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello
Congratulations on your chess set post, you got it right. I know you are an Admin, but with respect, most people that are Hall Monitors and Admins are more likely to be Essjay types than say a professional person with a real job. Anyway, I will try to return the favour for you some day. Happy editing and my best regards. Green Squares (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, but there's a very wide variety between admins, in both quality and background, and I'm not sure how well the two correlate. Some of the admins who tend to support me the most frequently are undergraduates or (I think) high school students. One tends to notice the nastier people more, because nastiness is prominent. I think the general prevalence of it is overrated, and that much of it is due to a few individuals. And they aren't all of them admins,either. DGG (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- The hall monitor that deleted the articles states that they can be recreated, but he is refusing to it, do you have the sysop tools to put the incorrectly deleted articles back, or the authority to force the hall monitor to put them back? Green Squares (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Some of the admins who tend to support me the most frequently are undergraduates or (I think) high school students. LOL, a few of us are older :) StarM 02:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, as of my final reading, there is certainly enough support for an "Overturn" yet I do not see the articles going back up?! Thanks Green Squares (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
NAS
I believe I used this utility to convert a CSV list into a wiki table. — BRIAN0918 • 2009-02-26 17:50Z
Hi DGG- I'm not here to complain, just want to explain my actions. On Hemispherectomy Foundation I removed the proposed deletion tag, based on the fact that I feel it is just as notable as Vitamin C Foundation or Victor Pinchuk Foundation, which have been hanging around for a while and are lacking in quality. I did add another reference source to Hemispherectomy Foundation and do intend to expand it as time allows. Acceptable? Thanks, Paxsimius (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- those other two are dubious as well in their present state & I've marked them. The articles (all 3 or them, actually) must have substantial coverage in 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases, or material based on press releases) to show their importance . Andsome financial data helps also. I'll check back eventually. DGG (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
This article existed with a timeline as is reproduced on the talk page. This has been converted to plain text consistent with standard encyclopedia formatting. One editor, and I tend to agree, thinks the timeline was a more useful and accesible format for the information. What do you think? Is there a way to have the cake and eat it too? Have you had any experiences with timelines in the past? Clearly it's not standard formatting, but they can be useful and encyclopedic devices me thinks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- commented there. DGG (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Eleazar (painter)
Hi, thanks for your opinion and for giving me the chance to recreate my article. Because of the recommendation of Chick Bowen, I want to ask you if it's possible to rewrite my article because I'm not allowed to do it; this is what Chick Bowen said about the recreation: "Recreation permitted, but will have to be a sourced, neutral article. If the subject wishes to proceed with recreation, he is urged to seek help from other editors to ensure that conflict of interest is avoided. It would be much better if someone other than the subject wrote it; perhaps someone commenting below would like to do so?" Thanks again. A greeting from Barcelona, Spain.--Eleazar1954 (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have re-created the article in my user space as User:DGG/Eleazar (painter). First step is to add specific references to reviews of his shows or specific paintings in published sources-- please do this--you can edit that page. For now, have removed the paragraphs discussing the general features of the oeuvre, but they will appear in the edit view between a <!-- and a --> mark as comments; they must be supported by specific references and rewritten as quotations from those references. The items in the references section must be moved to the places in the text that they support. I recognize you are in a sense uniquely qualified to comment on this--but it can't be written that way. I've also cleaned up a little. See what you can do with references & I will take a look in a few days.. DGG (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, many thanks for the re-creation of the article. I think it’s OK. I have add a Curriculum Vitae reference for supporting what the article explains about exhibitions and collections of Eleazar. Finally, I haven’t put any more specific references or reviews because all are write in paper (not Internet references apart from those that you write and the reviews in the Website of the artist). I hope that everything it’s OK for you.Really thanks again and a greeting.--Eleazar1954 (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Jews and Scots
Hi DGG, thanks for your note. I think you do tons of great work, but when I suggested putting you to work I didn't mean on that article, so to speak, since I don't think the title is right. Does that make sense? I think the topic is important, but not in this form. Oh, I see now that it's gone. You know, maybe I should put my money where my mouth is: if I have a moment, I'll see about adding a note (or a paragraph) with those references you found to the Anti-Scottish sentiment article. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree the title is not right-- but it's more specific than anti-scottish sentiment--there is a true overlap. I have not yet thought of a better title, or I would have suggested it The material I picked was from the first 20 gbook hits, there seemd to be thousands of others. I wonder what's is the 19th c. novelists.... DGG (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've consulted an expert. The actual best source was already in the article as written: David Daiches, "Two Worlds: an Edinburgh Jewish childhood." Shows how wrong it was for it to be deleted. I rarely use the term political correctness, but it applies here. DGG (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree the title is not right-- but it's more specific than anti-scottish sentiment--there is a true overlap. I have not yet thought of a better title, or I would have suggested it The material I picked was from the first 20 gbook hits, there seemd to be thousands of others. I wonder what's is the 19th c. novelists.... DGG (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Were you able...
...to read the article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- thanks for asking, still not yet. I'd appreciate a copy directly.DGG (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought this new article might interest you. Cheers. Thanks for all your help. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Eleazar
Hello, I want to ask you if there has been any problem with the re-creation of the article that you rewrote about Eleazar (painter)User:DGG/Eleazar (painter). In any case, I want you to know that I already did (added) what you said to me. See you,--Eleazar1954 (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Clickety click
DGG, I thought you might have something worthwhile to say about this AfD and also a relevant part of "WP:CREATIVE" (on which see also my comment). -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Heh heh, I'm enjoying this: DGG (ever the inclusionist) tending toward deletion of what's unenthusiastically backed by Hoary (ever the deletionist). Your comment on the meaninglessness of those particular library holdings is spot on: this says less about Powell than it does about the inadequacy of critical thinking behind "WP:CREATIVE". Um, anyway, could you revisit your comment in the AfD? As of a few seconds ago, it needed formatting and other attention. -- Hoary (talk)
- I think I've said delete more often than keep today & the last few days. I think that's because fewer articles have been nominated for deletion the last week or so- by and large only the worst stuff is still being nominated, the passable stuff isn't. As for WP:Creative, where it does seem to work is that visual artists in conventional media who have works in the permanent collection of two or more museums does seem to indicate notability. It's easy to delineate things that certainly do indicate certain notability. It's easy to find careers that don't. The question is whether there's a concept of "notable, but not very notable," & what to do with such. DGG (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
mediawikiblacklist
I ask you because you're active there--am I correct that any enWP admin can deal with things also? DGG (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, although you need at least some knowledge of regular expressions. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Not really sure what to do with this. I saw you removed a PROD in June 2008. It does demonstrate some notability, but the article is problematic in its current state. Also, if it is to remain, shouldn't it be at David Yermack? Currently, that link is a redirect to this article. Enigmamsg 22:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- thanks for noticing this. It was originally entered as the right name, and had been (incorrectly) moved. I moved it back. A full professor at NYU Business School, one of the most distinguished in the world, is almost certainly notable by WP:PROF, though the things that show it need to be added--mainly in this case, his major publications and their citation record. I see no reason for a notability tag, as the article has a 99% chance of passing AfD. Though only editors-in-chief of major journals are automatically notable, being an Associate Editor of major journals is a non-trivial accomplishment, and we usually add this material--though we remove lists of where people have merely reviewed for,which is a trivial accomplishment. Similarly, being a visiting professor at distinguished universities is also a significant contributing factor to notability. so I added this back. I'll watch the article. DGG (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Students' Guide
I noticed your involvement with Wikipedia:Wikipedia at the Library. I've got a draft of what is called the Wikipedia Student's Guide, which isn't a perfect fit for those getting instruction at the library, but might be useful. In any case, if you have any suggestions, they would be welcomed. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
DRV process, restoration and system
Heya, your recreations of DRV pages are a great help for us non-admins helping out in DRV and majorly appreciated. I was wondering, would you back up a proposal for a change to the DRV process to include restoration of the article as deleted to DRVPAGE/PAGENAME instead of mainspace? That would still allow non-admins to see the page while avoiding any confusion or frustration that may arise from the temporary restoration and would keep deleted articles out of mainspace (and thus main search index) until a decision is made to recreate them... For example, the recreation of TurnKey Linux (DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 29) could then be done to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 29/TurnKey Linux instead of the mainspace location. Obviously recreation would not be mandatory (as this would be difficult to enforce/support without placing further strain on an already low population of admins) and wuld not be possible if the page contained attacks, copyvios or similar but could be requested and serviced exactly the way it works now. Just a thought. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] (talk · contribs) 14:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I would support any procedure which gets the articles routinely visible during DRV. The proposed one has some disadvantages: The work involved for the admin would be slightly greater in moving it to a sub page, because after the DRV the page would have to be moved back even if deleted, so it can later be found where one would expect it. It will also be a burden on the servers for long pages, as all the links would need to be changed, and then changed back; for pages with a few thousand revisions, the load is significant. But it does have the great merit of keeping it out of mainspace & the index; personally, I dont think it normally does any harm to have it there for 5 days or so, especially if it was originally in mainspace for a long period; however, many people do think this harmful,and the proposal would eliminate their objections,and probably be easier to pass than a plan for routinely using mainspace. We are not the least bit short of administrators: what we are short of is fully active administrators. Too many use it as a trophy, but don't do much of the work. But a script could probably be written do do the move, and the move back. It can't be literally required, because we cannot do this for copyvio and many BLPs, and there's no real point in doing it for obviously meritless reviews. I think it should be required otherwise, just as I think notification of all significant editors should be, and all who commented at the previous XfDs. But there is no reason I can see not to use it boldly as a trial.DGG (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and suggested this change at the end of WT:DRV. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] (talk · contribs) 08:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- I would support any procedure which gets the articles routinely visible during DRV. The proposed one has some disadvantages: The work involved for the admin would be slightly greater in moving it to a sub page, because after the DRV the page would have to be moved back even if deleted, so it can later be found where one would expect it. It will also be a burden on the servers for long pages, as all the links would need to be changed, and then changed back; for pages with a few thousand revisions, the load is significant. But it does have the great merit of keeping it out of mainspace & the index; personally, I dont think it normally does any harm to have it there for 5 days or so, especially if it was originally in mainspace for a long period; however, many people do think this harmful,and the proposal would eliminate their objections,and probably be easier to pass than a plan for routinely using mainspace. We are not the least bit short of administrators: what we are short of is fully active administrators. Too many use it as a trophy, but don't do much of the work. But a script could probably be written do do the move, and the move back. It can't be literally required, because we cannot do this for copyvio and many BLPs, and there's no real point in doing it for obviously meritless reviews. I think it should be required otherwise, just as I think notification of all significant editors should be, and all who commented at the previous XfDs. But there is no reason I can see not to use it boldly as a trial.DGG (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Notifying of featured article review of William Monahan
I have nominated William Monahan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 21:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- commented. the problems are quite radical. With the socks gone, we can see some rationality about this. DGG (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
reply from Ched on recent AfD (Supermarket tabloids)
Hey DGG, how you doing today? Regarding your recent comment at this AfD. While many editor would like to see a simple "Keep" or "Delete" !vote on the XfDs, and in theory perhaps it is preferable to stick to one or the other, in practice I've seen many articles go through quite a change throughout the 5 day (soon to be 7 day?) process. Being an administrator, I'm sure you've seen even more bizarre discussions. I'm not sure how you're hoping to differentiate between "Tabloid" and "Supermarket Tabloid", but I don't have a problem with it either way. I do think that the "Supermarket tabloids in the United States" is a bit pretentious in title, but that's just a passing note on my part.
Getting back to my Merge !vote: While you may prefer a cut-and-dried "Keep-or-Delete" situation in XfD, the changes that articles are able to go through during the process does lend some credence to the possibility that suggestive !votes can accomplish some positive input. At this point in time, neither Supermarket tabloids in the United States nor Tabloid are particularly well along in development. The former is not much more than a list and some trivia, but the later could be brought up to C or B class without too much difficulty I would think. I agree that the former should not have been tagged, but I'm not going to comment on specific editors, but rather the articles and items in general. It simply seems to me, that at this particular time and in their current states, it would benefit the wiki to merge the articles, get Tabloid up to snuff, and then if one finds enough RS to split out a notable "in supermarkets" fork, or a "in particular countries/cultures" fork - that's fine. Well, that's just my thoughts on the matter, and all previous comments are simply IMHO. Best of luck with the article(s). — Ched : Yes? © 06:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and I left a note on the AfD that the closing editor is free to consider my !vote in the "Keep" category ;) — Ched : Yes? © 06:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Commented there—in short, the idea that AfD's are not the place to opine about mergers is contradicted by (extremely longstanding) WP process. Bongomatic 07:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- and pretty nonsensical practice it is too--see below:
- how to differentiate a straight keep close from a merge is an unsolved question. Officially, there is no difference, merge is a form of keep, and technically a merge close is a keep, with a recommendation to merge. All this is,as you seem to realize, a little artificial, and there are two separate problems, whether to keep content at all, and how to arrange it. Obviously, we could have a Wikipedia with a few large articles, or we could have one with many short articles, and it would be essentially just the same,except for such matters as the prominence of topics in Google, and the ability to link & organize: we do not have the technical capability at present to link securely to article sections, and we cannot list article sections in categories. I look forward to the time when the contents of Wikipedia will be rewritten as a proper database, with discrete units of data, and the appearance and arrangement of the content adjustable according to the readers preference and needs--technically, this is attainable now. In dividing things up, I think it is a good idea to follow the literature. The existence of a separate book on a subject usually indicates the advisability of a separate article--it's an indication that there is quite a lot to say. That standard journalism texts differentiate them tends to confirm this. I'm not about to expand it, but it seems to me that the contents and purpose of the typical US supermarket tabloid is very different to that of the US news-stand tabloid--one aims at sensationalism mixed with a little human interest, the other at human interest mixed with a little sensationalism and perhaps a little news. The UK tabloid is another type altogether. In terms of writing articles, sometimes separating out a small subject can lead to easier improvement in an article--many editors here do much better with topics of more limited scope. But i do know that 5 or 7 or 10 days is a very short time to expand an article properly if done by cooperative editing--most articles here grow slowly over time. If, however, one person takes it in hand, then I think the best principle is to let an ambitious and competent writer do pretty much whatever organization they want, and submit it to criticism. There are many ways to build good encyclopedia articles. There are also many ways to avoid doing so, among which is disputing too long over the proper merging at AfD. As my favorite author Samuel Johnson said, you may stand there disputing over which leg to put in your breeches first, but meanwhile your breech is bare. DGG (talk) 07:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Possibly nonsensical, although if an actual consensus occurs to merge in an AfD it seems as valid a conclusion as if it had occurred anywhere else. In any event, my point was simply that your statement that "AfD is not for merge discussions, in any case" is (possibly valid) opinion, and shouldn't be confused with or stated as policy / established and fully documented practice. Bongomatic 08:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- how to differentiate a straight keep close from a merge is an unsolved question. Officially, there is no difference, merge is a form of keep, and technically a merge close is a keep, with a recommendation to merge. All this is,as you seem to realize, a little artificial, and there are two separate problems, whether to keep content at all, and how to arrange it. Obviously, we could have a Wikipedia with a few large articles, or we could have one with many short articles, and it would be essentially just the same,except for such matters as the prominence of topics in Google, and the ability to link & organize: we do not have the technical capability at present to link securely to article sections, and we cannot list article sections in categories. I look forward to the time when the contents of Wikipedia will be rewritten as a proper database, with discrete units of data, and the appearance and arrangement of the content adjustable according to the readers preference and needs--technically, this is attainable now. In dividing things up, I think it is a good idea to follow the literature. The existence of a separate book on a subject usually indicates the advisability of a separate article--it's an indication that there is quite a lot to say. That standard journalism texts differentiate them tends to confirm this. I'm not about to expand it, but it seems to me that the contents and purpose of the typical US supermarket tabloid is very different to that of the US news-stand tabloid--one aims at sensationalism mixed with a little human interest, the other at human interest mixed with a little sensationalism and perhaps a little news. The UK tabloid is another type altogether. In terms of writing articles, sometimes separating out a small subject can lead to easier improvement in an article--many editors here do much better with topics of more limited scope. But i do know that 5 or 7 or 10 days is a very short time to expand an article properly if done by cooperative editing--most articles here grow slowly over time. If, however, one person takes it in hand, then I think the best principle is to let an ambitious and competent writer do pretty much whatever organization they want, and submit it to criticism. There are many ways to build good encyclopedia articles. There are also many ways to avoid doing so, among which is disputing too long over the proper merging at AfD. As my favorite author Samuel Johnson said, you may stand there disputing over which leg to put in your breeches first, but meanwhile your breech is bare. DGG (talk) 07:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- and pretty nonsensical practice it is too--see below:
- Commented there—in short, the idea that AfD's are not the place to opine about mergers is contradicted by (extremely longstanding) WP process. Bongomatic 07:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
←OK, I'll be the first to admit that I probably should be contributing to articles, rather than socializing on your talk page. Now comes the "but" part. Several things come to mind here, and I've read and re-read the items of topic. Several items spark my desire to reply; one would be that great quote you mention of Mr. Johnson, wonderful quote; our (US) forefathers did have an enjoyable flair for the language. The other, and more relevant, topic would be my choice of Merge as my !vote on this AfD. I'll admit that I'll most likely never become a prolific contributor to any of the XfD sections, but I do wish to conduct my posts in with proper insight. In fact, it appears that you, (DGG), and I actually share many common intents. Be they the expansion, or organization of material on Wikipedia, or more "real life" related items such as politics. I also have no desire to play "let's gang up on the admin" ;). Now looking back, two statements come to my attention, which indicates that it was wrong for me to post the "Merge" portion of my comments. At the AfD and here, I'm drawn to 2 statements:
- "AfD is not for merge discussions, in any case." (from the AfD)
- "...and pretty nonsensical practice it is too--see below:" (from posting above)
That indicated (to me at least) that you felt it was wrong to post "Merge" on the AfD topics. Then I came across this post by you, and now I'm really confused. I do want to understand what is proper, but I often find that actual practice doesn't always see intent in an eye-to-eye fashion. — Ched : Yes? © 09:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Full disclosure: It will be very rare that you'll see a "Delete" from me in any of the XfD sections. Short of NPA, NLT, or an article on what somebodies grandmother had for breakfast - I'm all for including any info we can at Wikipedia. ;) — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 12:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Essentially, how to handle these is an unsettled question, and there is no consistent practice. This is because of a very basic discontinuity:
- AfD is about whether articles should be kept, not what the content of them should be
- A merge or a redirect does not actually keep an article, though it may sometimes keeps the content--but not always. What it does depends on what happens after the AfD.
The problem arises because of our focus on articles and notability , rather than on content , appropriate extent and detail of coverage, and "suitable arrangement." I see no solution within the current framework. The first step to a real solution would be to delete WP:N, but this does not have sufficient support yet. The reason is doesn't is because it would force us to decide what we actually wanted to include in Wikipedia--about which there is no agreement, so people prefer to take their chances with ever more complicated rules on sourcing, and the presence of principles such as NOT NEWS. The current policies are such as to permit a plausible argument for keeping or deleting almost anything. One extreme solution is to say that we we should keep in whatever a sufficient number of established Wikipedians want to keep in--but a glance at some of the articles that actually get some support at AfD indicates this might not work too well. The opposite, to keep out whatever enough people want to keep out, gives equally bad results. Why we think that establishing the balance of those who come to a discussion by chance gives better results is not clear to me, except that it has some rough resemblance to popular democracy. It might even give a reasonable result a little more than half the time. (more seriously,i think for those that are actually disputable rather than obvious, the figure might be as high as 66%) . And it might be that having the arguments as a !vote on content would be even more chaotic and inconsistent.
In the meantime, we can only use whatever manner of argument that will give a reasonable solution case by case, under the framework at hand, for how else are we to proceed? I make no claim to perfect consistency. When I participate in AfD I speak as an advocate to get what I think should be done, either for the particular article at hand, or sometimes in hope to influence the decision on future articles also. When I close, which is rare, I try to judge what others think should be reasonably done. There is no way a community as large as this will actually have consistent consensus on details. DGG (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Extinct editors
this must be one of the funniest AfD comments I ever came across! Owen× ☎ 16:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- thanks!DGG (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
well-worded AfD.
Nicely said! tedder (talk) 02:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I might have said keep a year ago in order to establish the principle, but the principle is firmly enough established, that we can be a little flexible in interpreting it. DGG (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- I wish we could get WP:SCH to be policy. It would make things like this much easier to deal with. (I thought you'd already commented on that AfD- you haven't) tedder (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Well said AfD
Put absolutely perfectly. Incidentally, if you haven't seen it in the morass of my talkpage I replied on the Oo7565 matter. I'm still not sure a ban would be the way to go – I suspect he'd come straight back under another name, and at least this way someone can keep an eye on him. On an unrelated matter, you might want to take a second look at AFD/Brindle family; I've still to find a single reliable source for this article, and every one of the "sources" provided in the AFD is the complete opposite of the article. (The article is about the family being a crime family; not a single source mentions any member of this family ever having been convicted of any crime.) – iridescent 17:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- What's the connection between Alan16 and Oo7565? tedder (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- none that I know of--Iridescent was giving a single comment on 3 separate issues. DGG (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Wealthy fictional characters-- opinion?
List of wealthy fictional characters looks hopeless to me—what do you think? Bongomatic 07:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- add references with quotations from the works, and it wont look so hopeless at all. DGG (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I added an item (no references), but someone else nominated it for deletion— have to say, that upon further reflection, I think it has to go (despite its cuteness). Please add your views at the AfD. Bongomatic 00:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- yes, its not a good job, but the topic is a possible one. Some day, if I am never needed at afd, and people accept a compromise at WP:FICT, .... DGG (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Happy DGG's Day!
![]() |
DGG has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Cheers, If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox. |
It's about time! ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
If you have a moment and feel like it, would you mind a look here? I *think* the subject is probably notable but given when he lived, finding sources is a challenge. Some of the scholar results seem to fit, but others seem entirely unrelated. There are also a number of news hits, but they're behind pay gates. Know that they're not required to be publicly accessible to use, I just can't judge content to establish notability from what I can't see -- but thinking that quantity here might get past WP:PROF more so than quality. Thoughts? StarM 00:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- There's enough to tell. The NYT isnt substantial, 51 words, butt he very fact they gave it an article at all is significant. That he then published a long essay in the NYT Bk review is significant. The LA Times article is a signif ref. also. But the most useful general approach is something fairly new: WorldCat identities; best technique is to find a book by him in the regular WorldCat, then click on the author's name.: [3]. Significant author & lecturer. Meets WP:BIO. DGG (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, didn't know about WC IDentities, will have a look at it when I have a few moments. I had a feeling he was probably notable. ThanksStarM 03:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's new, technically still experimental. I love it--the info was always there, but this saves a great deal of work compiling it from the individual book entries. DGG (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, didn't know about WC IDentities, will have a look at it when I have a few moments. I had a feeling he was probably notable. ThanksStarM 03:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- There's enough to tell. The NYT isnt substantial, 51 words, butt he very fact they gave it an article at all is significant. That he then published a long essay in the NYT Bk review is significant. The LA Times article is a signif ref. also. But the most useful general approach is something fairly new: WorldCat identities; best technique is to find a book by him in the regular WorldCat, then click on the author's name.: [3]. Significant author & lecturer. Meets WP:BIO. DGG (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Relations
See User:Aymatth2/Relations. Don't know whether to laugh or cry. Don't know what action if any is needed. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- since 10% (e.g., Swiss-German, Israel-Ukraine, Latvia-Poland) , and another 20% clearly defensible (e.g. Denmark-Estonia, Israel-Italy, Argentina-Peru), its a pity he did the others. It looks like he understood geography and history just as little as the people who are attacking all of them indiscriminately DGG (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't see any pattern, but maybe there is one. He put some work into making the maps, tracking down the embassy sites, adding the internal links. Not a lot, but a start - if there were any plan to expand the stubs. Quite a lot probably are defensible, not all obvious. I tried to recover a few: Canada/Haiti amazing there was not an article already; Nicaragua/South Ossetia not so obvious until you find out about the furor over recognition, then clear; Greece/Nigeria also not so obvious until you focus on trade & investment, then clear; Estonia/Mongolia - well, nice try but no banana. Some of them really don't make much sense. It bothers me that these stubs are going to keep popping up in AfD, each generating much more collective energy in the discussion than it would take for one editor to do a reasonable first expansion. Oh well, not much that can be done, I suppose. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- a/ We can ask for a motion at AfD Talk that there be a 4 week moratorium on deleting them. Try it. b/ people like you & me can nominate the weaker ones, & only the weaker ones c/people can systematically source them . As for c, I unfortunately have another priority, which is fiction. DGG (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I checked AfD talk and someone is already suggesting a change - but I don't know if that will help much. Just slowing the process down is not particularly useful. I am reluctant to work through the list nominating the weaker ones, because I don't know which they are without checking a bit - I am sure there are surprises like Nicaragua/South Ossetia. And my attention span is way to short to work through country X/Y articles for the next two or three years. No. These tadpoles are going to have to survive or not survive on their own, with a bit of help from the Rescue Squad. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- you are saying in essence, that it is so much easier to delete than to save, that the deleters can usually overwhelm those who want to improve articles. You're right. The solution then, is the more general one of requiring the nominee to search, and present the results of the search. DGG (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Now that is something I entirely and fully support! Brilliant concept. Before nominating an article for deletion, check to see if it can be improved. An amazing and original suggestion. I would like the following policy for AfD nominations:
- Add an "==External links==" section to the article if not already present
- Search for sources that may be relevant
- Create * {{cite web |url=|title=|publisher=}} entries in the external links section for the sources found
- In the nomination for deletion, state the search terms used.
I think that simple rule would save a huge amount of effort for reviewers. See Man Shield for an example of the result on a 1-line stub with no references. Great idea. This should be policy. Where is it being discussed? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- several points
- first, any style of referencing will do, there is no need to use the cite templates; if you put them in wrong, somebody will fix them. The point is to get them in somehow
- second, when you do use them, by far the best way is with the "cite gadget" User:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar, added to your monobook JS page in user preferences.
- the full details for using thecite templates, which are very powerful but correspondingly complicated, are at WP:Citation templates
- third, we need references, not External links, third party published reliable sources which support the notability of the article. Some will be on the web, others not (and anyway cite web is not what one uses for newspaper articles, etc found on the web but rather the more specific templates.) If you find a book that supports the notability, it can be added as a reference to a general statement about the article. WorldCat is a good way to find them. A general web site that does not meet the requirements a reliable source can often be used as an external link, though, and it helps a little.
- fourth, we want good references--material that actually supports the article. andyou sare really supposedto have read them, though that step is often skipped in practice here.
- For a refresher on this: One way is to start with WP:V,followed by WP:CITE andthe details in WP:Footnotes But the very clearest information for how to do this is the section on "Researching Articles" in How Wikipedia Works by Phoebe Ayers, Charles Matthews, and Ben Yates, available free online at [4]. Everyone working here could useful read the whole book. I have, twice--I think it's better in print: see [5]
- BUT this has been discussed several times, and rejected. The discussions are mainly at the AfD talk page, WT:AFD. I'll check for where the latest one is at the archive. DGG (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- several points
I appreciate your feedback. I am starting to get more confident but still have a lot to learn about policies and guidelines, etiquette, mechanics etc. I will read the book.
I prefer using cite templates, and have the parameters for the web, news and book variants stuck on my wall - but that is just personal preference: makes it more likely to get the format right. I am o.k. with external links sometimes, but agree that all the content needs inline citations so it can be verified. But I will sometimes go through a research mode where I hunt down sources, read them, decide there is useful material and put the reference in as an external link (memo to myself). Then when I have sorted the subject out in my head, go back and write the article content, moving the external links up into references in the body. Just an approach. Man Shield is an example - started it, got distracted, have to get back to it. As it stands, it would qualify for deletion. This is just mechanics.
I was too explicit. The main idea was that nominators should check to see if there are readily-accessible, good sources, and should say what their search turned up in the nomination - some do, many do not. Also, I would prefer that both nominators and editors contributing to the debate would put any newly-found sources into the article itself than into the debate, simply because that makes it easier to expand the article. But I suppose an AfD discussion is about whether an article is good enough to be kept as it is now, rather than whether it has potential. So I suppose the AfD nominator is not obliged to consider whether it has potential, and certainly is not obliged to try and fix it. I just wish they were not so quick off the mark sometimes. Recreating an article that has been deleted after extensive debate takes a very confident and determined editor. Once killed, a small but useful article is very unlikely to be recreated.
Can the rules be changed now? I am coming to feel that, after massive debate, the framework of policies, guidelines and processes for Wikipedia is becoming cast in stone. Sometimes I see an effect of the process that is a bit irritating, and raise the subject. Generally in the end I am convinced that there is nothing much that can be done, probably nothing that should be done. The framework works very well. The job now is more about improving the content itself. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- not stone, very stiff mud. After two years of trying, Afd was changed to seven days, though not without opposition. DGG (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
If you have time, I'd appreciate your looking in at Horror film genre-specifc reliable sources and either advise or contribute. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Contribute new ones I can not, but I suggest that you need an explanation of why you consider each source reliable. possible a sentence or two for each, especially the ones without articles, or perhaps even on the talk p. I made a change to give direct access for the first two as an example. . Revert if you don't like them. I know it violates the usual rule for external links, but this is a special case--the point of a p. like this is to be convenient & it probably won't be in mainspace. . Where are you thinking of putting it, and under what title: I suggest: "Reliable sources for horror films" in WT space, and then I and others could do some similar and then we could have a list -- and of course a category. DGG (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- I do much appreciate your looking in. I have just given the page a few more tweaks to gently address ongoing mis-interpretations of WP:RS and WP:NF by well-meaning editors. Or maybe I am simply too liberal (chuckle), but guideline IS guideline. I like your suggested title, as my own is simply a descriptive of the work-in-process. I decided to "source" back to the relevent page of each various site's pages that explains their rationale, editing practices, and editorial staff... rather than having a linkfarm... in order to allow editors wondering about their sources to have a direct link to the page. And pardon my innocence, but what is "WT Space"? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- at the simple end, I meant WP space -- the pages where guidelines are put as in WP:N. WT was a typo, it does exist, as a functional abbreviation for the WP space talk pages--the abbreviation for the talk page of WP:N, is WT:N. Next, the reference to articles would do for the ones that have articles. At least a word or two must be said about the others, or else you're just asserting they're ok on your say-so. And for the ones that have articles, the articles must indicate why they're not only notable, but reliable sources. My view is that it still helps to have a guide of some sort on the proposed page, not just a listing. DGG (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Just got in from a shoot. Will do as advised and give a brief description of each (not already with wiki articles) and then use the current refs to cite the description and assertion of RS. I want the reader to be able to follow the refs to the same information I have found. And if I find other sources, I will add them as well. Any suggestions for my preliminary sections describing why the article exists? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's tricker, because this should be crafted as a precedent. Tomorrow. (Question: might be be well to discuss some places that are not good sources?) DGG (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Just got in from a shoot. Will do as advised and give a brief description of each (not already with wiki articles) and then use the current refs to cite the description and assertion of RS. I want the reader to be able to follow the refs to the same information I have found. And if I find other sources, I will add them as well. Any suggestions for my preliminary sections describing why the article exists? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
from a recent deletion review: how to close XfDs
judging consensus is trying to evaluate what the other responsible people there think should be done. One can evaluate arguments, but only to see which ones are not in conformity with policy. I completely disagree one can choose which policy of competing ones applies, or how to interpret policy: both are for the community to decide (or whatever small fraction is paying attention). I do not argue to convince the closer in particular of the merits of my argument, but to convince others who may come and look at the discussion and give an opinion. The closer should follow whatever policy-based argument a clear majority agrees with, unless it's totally irrational. DGG (talk) 02:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Sources about journalists
Hi DGG
Calling on you in your capacity as librarian, not admin. Do you know any good places to find information about journalists, rather than articles by them? I have just started a stub article on Michael Theodoulou who is an extremely prolific and I think well-regarded journalist. Any thoughts on how to find citations relevant to an article on him?
Thank you, Bongomatic 06:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- this has always been a problem. It would be much easier --as in almost all professions--to find non-directory information about historical than current figures. There are two fairly comprehensive specialized indexes: Communication and Mass Media Complete from Ebsco and "Communication Abstracts" from Sage, if you can find them. Lacking them, the best is probably the type of general database one finds in a library: (multiple exact titles of each, with different degrees of coverage): Proquest (ABI Inform, Periodical Abstracts) ) or Ebsco (Academic Search, Business Search) or Thompson Gale (Academic ASAP) , or Wilson (Business Periodicals Index , OmniFile). All public libraries have at least a truncated version of one or another, usually available outside the library to residents with a library card. All college libraries have a relatively full version of at least one. Key magazines covering the field include: "American Journalism Review" and "Columbia Journalism Review" There are also a large number of regional newsletter type publications, but almost always everything in them will be of the nature of press releases. General newspaper indexes sometimes work, if you can sort out the articles they themselves have written. DGG (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Managed to get some access but wasn't able to find anything other than by the journalist. Maybe something will turn up eventually. Bongomatic 16:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- if you let me know by email what your library facilities are I can make some more precise suggestions. DGG (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- this has always been a problem. It would be much easier --as in almost all professions--to find non-directory information about historical than current figures. There are two fairly comprehensive specialized indexes: Communication and Mass Media Complete from Ebsco and "Communication Abstracts" from Sage, if you can find them. Lacking them, the best is probably the type of general database one finds in a library: (multiple exact titles of each, with different degrees of coverage): Proquest (ABI Inform, Periodical Abstracts) ) or Ebsco (Academic Search, Business Search) or Thompson Gale (Academic ASAP) , or Wilson (Business Periodicals Index , OmniFile). All public libraries have at least a truncated version of one or another, usually available outside the library to residents with a library card. All college libraries have a relatively full version of at least one. Key magazines covering the field include: "American Journalism Review" and "Columbia Journalism Review" There are also a large number of regional newsletter type publications, but almost always everything in them will be of the nature of press releases. General newspaper indexes sometimes work, if you can sort out the articles they themselves have written. DGG (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Re: Onyx Pharmaceuticals
Hi DGG,
Thank you so much for the revisions and edits of the Onyx Pharmaceuticals page! I really appreciate you taking the time to help me out with article. I removed the dead links on analyst coverage and instead linked to Onyx's Yahoo!Finance Analyst Coverage page. In addition, I added Onyx's Hoover's profile page under notability.
When you have a chance to look over again, can you let me know if it looks like it is ready to be posted?
Thanks again for your help! - EG
EGagnon7224 (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- you still need to write the basic description of the company. and insert the references for it, and add the appropriate infobox. Please learn how to do it yourself. See our |guide to writing Wikipedia articles and, for further details, the appropriate chapters of [6] , How Wikipedia Works by Phoebe Ayers, Charles Matthews, and Ben Yates (also available in print). Factors that count towards notability for a company include gross revenue, number of employees, and date of establishment.--these are expected as part of an article. Get the info, and link to Hoovers etc as the source, I touched up the product part. For the scientific references, you need to find the p. numbers for Cancer Research, and the PMIDs for all three articles. The AP and DJ articles need web links. And do what I said for establishing stable links to changeable pages. Then, make the links to Wikipedia articles for the various enzymes and medical conditions. Yes, I could do all this for you. But it's your article. DGG (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Bilateral relations task force welcome
![]() Hi, DGG, and welcome to WikiProject Bilateral relations! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles relevant to the relations between two countries. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We hope you enjoy working on this project. Ikip (talk) 05:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC) |
Welcome to the project DGG :) Thanks for all your help. Ikip (talk) 05:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Pirate ships
Hi DGG. Here's an interesting case. Dai Hong Dan is clearly a candidate for deletion as WP:ONEVENT (see all-date Google news archive search—not perfect, but gives you an idea). But it seems that individual ships that were the objects of piracy are somewhat like episodes in a serial. Any thoughts on how to deal with them? Bongomatic 15:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- all large ships are notable. This one especially. Even if one doubts the first part of the corollary, being taken over by pirates is sufficiently important, whether in the 16th or the 21st century. The problem article is that yacht they took over. Yachts are not necessarily notable, otherwise. DGG (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. What guideline or logic gives rise to the intrinsic notability of every large ship, regardless of coverage? Bongomatic 22:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- 95% consistent practice of AfD for the last 2.5 years, since i first came--and---very soon after--questioned some such articles. I questioned a number of such practices at first, but the longer I'm here, the more impatient I get with AfDs & the more I think that such blanket acceptances are the way to avoid conflict and return to article writing. If it seems reasonable that we should have an article, that's good enough. What we want to keep out is the tabloid fodder and the junk and the spam. Not merely things that people think not quite important enough. DGG (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. What guideline or logic gives rise to the intrinsic notability of every large ship, regardless of coverage? Bongomatic 22:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- all large ships are notable. This one especially. Even if one doubts the first part of the corollary, being taken over by pirates is sufficiently important, whether in the 16th or the 21st century. The problem article is that yacht they took over. Yachts are not necessarily notable, otherwise. DGG (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas A&M Foundation
I left a comment in response to your comment at the AfD for Texas A&M Foundation; I don't know whether you saw it or not. —Emufarmers(T/C) 19:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- responded there DGG (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
from an afd
"It was asked above what the inclusion criteria should be for material like this. the answer, is they can be whatever we want them to be. We make the rules, and we can make whatever exceptions are indicated. It's not as if we were working on someone else's project." DGG (talk)
Notability guideline for News Organizations/Publications
Hi, DGG, could you comment here about the proposal of a new notability guideline for news organizations and publications by OlYeller21? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you Once again, thanks for your insightful words DGG. I have to admit that I had to read what you wrote twice to fully grasp what you were saying, because your posting tend to be a little bit deeper and more thoughtful than the average editor.
I admit, I was a little flustered today with your first typically neautral posting on ARS. But then I thought about what you said, and I realized this is exactly what I had been saying all along, that anyone should be welcome to post on any wikiproject (as long as they are not disruptive), you just said it in a more neutral, diplomatic way. Ikip (talk) 01:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Historical notability
". Fifth century people are notable per se just by having their names remembered fourteen centuries later. Even if their actual record is scanty, and you can sum up all that's knowable about them in a single paragraph, print encyclopedias brim with stubs of exactly this type. - " [7]. good comment by Smerdis of Tlön, for reuse as needed. DGG (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
merge/move
why not then do as you suggested, restore it and change the title, and then improve it to better NPOV. I'll look here for a reply. DGG (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- I thought it would be better if the two different histories were merged first, so they could be refactored. That might change the length of the History section which would affect the need for a separate article, especially if the rest of "Open access (publishing)" were cleaned up. But I don't really have time for a major rewrite at the moment. -- Beland (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- if I do it, I;'d have to do it from the separate articles. DGG (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
American Engineering Group
Dear Sir,
One of my article about American Engineering Group company is deleted a little while ago. Can you please give me suggestions on how I can make the article more suitable for wikipedia. Please respond.
Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraham70 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- There are two problems, first the article gives nothing to indicate thatt he company is notable. The standards from this are at WP:CORP. Basically, you need to show that you have references providing substantial coverage about the company from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. You need to show that you are recognized as a leader in the field. Typically, independent substantial reviews of products in professional magazines will help; routine announcements of new products or financial results or executive appointments will not. Having army contracts by itself is not enough--if they are for major products that have been discussed, that might help. Some of your products for them seem the sort that might well have been discussed in news reports if you are a major supplier.
- The second problem is the promotional nature of the article: it is mainly a list of products. That belongs on your website, not in an encyclopedia. the basic description of the company also is essentially pr material, with more adjectives than specifics. Figures for turnover and employee numbers help, if they are substantial--they need to be sourced, however & most financial results will not be easily available, since you re not a public company.
- I notice also that you have put information about your fuel cells in the article on Proton exchange membrane fuel cell. Thjisneeds to be sourced as well, to third party sources, to show that its significant.
- A good guide to what is needed is our FAQ about businesses, & other organisations. DGG (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
Please go through these links and see if they could serve as possible references. Our Company is also listed in design magazines for various products. http://www.governmentcontractswon.com/department/defense/american-engineering-group-ll-114164234.asp?yr=06 http://www.rubberdivision.org/expos/mini/techprogram.htm http://www.thecityofakron.com/engineering/ http://rubber.org/expos/exhibitors.pdf http://www.edmtodaymagazine.com/Job%20Shop%20Directory.html http://www.americantire.us/Sponsorship/ATC-Sponsors-ITEC-2008.pdf
Please suggest if there is any possibility of getting listed in Wiki. I really appreciate your help.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraham70 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- these are listings. They list that one of your people spoke at a conference, or that you have a contracts. They do not provide any indication that you are important. The one financial figure listed available to me was a very small contract for $40,000. What is needed is that other people publish substantial information about you. if the material in the design magazines is just a list of supplier's, its irrelevant also. If its a discussion of the company or one of its products, then it's relevant. I see from your web site "* 2007 SAE tech award for a unique fuel cell sealing concept featuring the Nanocomposite Double-lip seal.' * 2008 SAE tech award for the Carbon fiber Elastomer Composite Bipolar plate for PEM Fuel Cells."; such awards can be proof of notability, depending on the nature of the award; they might show that the prize committee of a major professional association thought you notable. That's the sort of stuff that belongs in the article (and, if I may give you the advice, more prominently on your web site; were I looking for a fabricator, that's the sort of thing I'd hope to see). There must have been something published in the trade press at the time. Find it. Some of your products are such that they might receive formal product reviews; some of your military products might have been written about in general news reports. That's the sort of material needed also. We also need some information about the business size: employees, gross sales, DGG (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi David,
Attached file contains some of the magazines over where American Engineering Group (AEG) LLC's products are published. Please see if this could meet what you are looking for. Please let me know your suggestions.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/AEG_Published_Articles.pdf
SAE tech Award 2008: http://www.engineering-group.com/AEGCurrentNews/News/download/download.php?id=11
Thank you very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraham70 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi David,
I am waiting for your suggestions and comments.
Thank you very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraham70 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Levi's article
Some of the posts over at the AfD for Johnston are rather scary. It seems that people don't understand notability, or even read the one links that they provide. The one event says that if its a really big event, even minor figures can be notable from it. Then someone put forth an idea that the rest of his life isn't notable so it shouldn't be mentioned. Bah, do they not realize that encyclopedias don't have only "notable" information, or most pages would be empty? The fact that so many people have heard about him and there being over 8 months of coverage, scandal, interviews and the rest makes it all rather mind boggling. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, I managed to get Nicolo Giraud up to GA, and I think the current state of the page validates quite a few of your arguments over the years. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- people will say anything if they don't like an article In this case, there's the added factor of the reasons why some people of various political persuasions don't want the article--as they cannot admit it, they are forced to use other reasons. DGG (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- as for Giraud, magnificent work you did there. People who don't know research sometimes do not realize that for any historical figure connected in any substantial way with a famous person or event, there's a web of connections, and there will always be sources. The art of a librarian is not to do research, but to know (by a skill that is not explicitly teachable) where there is, and is not, likely to be material. But at least people here should understand about knowledge networks. The reason Wikipedia is such a good place to work is that we can build our net on top of the pre-existing ones. DGG (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm tempted to say "all MASH episodes are notable," but not sure enough of my ground. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Please don't. They are not that clearly notable enough for individual articles. They are clearly important enough for good substantial sections of combination articles. Even if you think they might possibly be made into adequate separate articles, the present ones are by and large so bad as to not present a good case for defending. Making an encyclopedia is a practical process & takes compromise. Keeping content is a matter of principle--keeping them in separate articles isn't. DGG (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's 'bout what I figured. Redirects seem perfectly reasonable to me. Dlohcierekim 03:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Eli Whitney Program at Yale
Think the idea of deleting this page is gratuitous. The Eli Whitney Students Program at Yale is one of the more unique undergraduate experiences for non-traditional students available in the USA, providing a superb education at one of the world's best universities that is normally reserved for students coming directly out of high school. The page has been used as an informational resource for many potential Eli Whitney Program Students--I am one of them and I know of others who have found out about the program through Wikipedia rather than through Yale's own site. If Wikipedia is about sharing information, I can't see why anyone would want to delete this page. Eli-whitney-yale (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- any references from published sources outside Yale?DGG (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- None I could find. Cheers Dlohcierekim 20:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, AfDwill decide.DGG (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- None I could find. Cheers Dlohcierekim 20:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- any references from published sources outside Yale?DGG (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Lordship Lane, Haringey
As it was yourself I had a huge argument with about the notability of roads two years ago, can I ask for your opinion of what should be done with Lordship Lane, Haringey? Despite the considerable amount of work that's obviously gone into it, it seems to me to be a patently unviable article. While I know from experience that it is possible to write a valid article on a relatively insignificant road, this really doesn't seem appropriate; the road in question is just a short named section of the longer A109 road, but merging this into the existing stub on the longer road would grossly unbalance it. There are only four notable (by WP standards) institutions on the road (Bruce Castle, Broadwater Farm, Noel Park and Wood Green Animal Shelter), on three of which I wrote the articles, so I'm probably too involved to make any significant pruning or AFD nomination without it being instantly challenged.
Do you have any thoughts on this one? It's a sensitive one; despite it's virtual invisibility, it's obviously someone's pet project about which they feel very protective, and when User:Mattisse tagged it for cleanup in the past they responded quite defensively, so it seems quite likely that any deletion or massive pruning would cause the author to leave in disgust. (I'd be fuming if someone deleted a 50kb article I'd been working on for two years!) Do you think it's better to turn a blind eye to this one, or can you think of any obvious way to rescue it which doesn't involve slash-and-burn removal? – iridescent 15:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- fascinating implications in a variety of directions. beautiful though the article is, it needs some basic improvements, like saying which district of Haringey, so I can find it on a modern map (finally did). I think it can be perhaps regarded as an article on a neighborhood, though I am still trying to figure out if it is a significant commercial street. If it is, that justifies it, though obviously not in such detail. That it's part of a major road also doesn't detract--most highways when they go through towns are renamed for that portion Possible combination article: Streets in Haringey? What I want to do right now is to fix up my own neighborhood's article, Boerum Hill, now that I seethe possibilities--it needs work--somewhere along the line, it was missed that most of it is a registered historic district. The availability of Google Street views has some interesting possibilities. For London, I understand there is also [8], though it does have this particular street yet.'
- the fascination implications are that now we could do this level of detail anywhere in at least the US and the UK, and I suppose many other countries. Though the US does not have the VCH and the Ordnance Survey, it does have the Sanborn maps with their almost year to year revisions. There's no PD source for them all, though there is for NYC about about 5 year intervals. Then, the question is , why ought we not? Not what in the existing rules says we shouldn't for WP:LOCAL takes care of that, but what we should ideally do. The amount of available detail was not fully comprehended when Wp was founded, and each year i see new things that would make much more possible that anyone would have guess, visionaries though they thought they were. the main problem is that if we did coverage would be very irregular--but so it is anyway. Of course, there's Wikia. Is there a suitable project? If not, should we start one? DGG (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Broadwater_Farm%2C_1619.jpg/300px-Broadwater_Farm%2C_1619.jpg)
- Regarding whether it's a notable street, if one uses WP:50k as a general guideline I'd say it's right on the borderline. It's certainly a relatively old street – it's the yellow one running east-west on this map from 1619 marked "Berry Lane", but doesn't seem to have had (or to have) much significance. It runs east-west between two of the major north-south arteries into London Green Lanes and Ermine Street, but doesn't have any particular commercial significance; the big commercial developments are on the north-south roads. I'd say the four places I mention above ([[Noel Park, Wood Green Animal Shelter, Broadwater Farm, Bruce Castle) are the only points of interest (there are also two court buildings which one could probably wring a stub out of, but neither is architecturally distinguished). Personally I think it warrants the level of detail I gave to the individual named sections of A1 road – a comparator I regularly use for "relatively non-notable part of a notable longer highway" articles – but as I said above, this would involve a massive slash-and-burn operation. (The even marginally notable buildings could be kept, but the "Numbers 467 to 483 - Sila Ocakbasi Restaurant, Lordship Lane Internet Cafe, Cross Chemist, Bushey Car Spares, Flower Creations (Florist), Zeming Chinese Takeaway, Posh Pets (Pet Supplies & Dog Grooming Studio), Sinan Kuafor (Ladies Hair Salon)" phone-book style listings would still have to go.
- As you know, we have and always will have a problem, in that we're handling 2 million plus articles with rules drawn up for a project with a few thousand articles. My general thinking is still, two years on, the opinion that was forged in the flare-up of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portland Road and eventually led to the merge-and-redirect into A215 road; that stand-alone articles on marginal-notability topics make the project unmaintainable, and work better as subsections of larger articles in which the assorted sections provide context for each other – and that, since very few people read these articles and those that do are likely to want a lot of detail, the normal arguments against very long articles don't apply. This "enhanced list" approach would, IMO, work as well for any marginal-notability field – discographies of unsuccessful bands, the obscure cricketers who will never expand beyond three line stubs etc – but any attempt to put it into place has (ahem) caused controversy in the past – see the talkpage of Railway stations in Cromer for all the arguments laid out in full. 10,000 active users makes for a lot of inertia.
- At some point (probably not until I'm done with the current series on bridges) I might try doing a "massive merge" in one particular topic. Even if it gets reverted, it might at least prompt a debate on how we're going to handle the flood of data we're currently being bombarded with in a more nuanced way than "keep"/"delete". It's a shame WikiProject Integration and Association of Mergist Wikipedians have effectively died, as this kind of initiative is something that's really needed now more than ever. – iridescent 16:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Yo, is there chance that the article you left on this AfD was supposed to be for another AfD? I may be totally off, just checking. OlYellerTalktome 15:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- oops. As I have been saying, there are too many noms for episodes & its hard to keep track. I've put it where it goes. Thanks.DGG (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ya, it seems like there's a big toss up over episodes right now. I wish some conclusion could be reached at an inclusion guideline for notability. I feel like half the AfDs out there are for episodes. OlYellerTalktome 15:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- The other half of the AfDs are bilateral relations, and again there's various compromises that those placing the afds prefer not to even consider. There are several good compromise solutions for both, and in each case the large number of afds up there now seems designed to prevent any compromise. . Most mass nominations like this are in my opinion attempts at forcing one's own way, because of the difficulty of responding adequately. . DGG (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ya, it seems like there's a big toss up over episodes right now. I wish some conclusion could be reached at an inclusion guideline for notability. I feel like half the AfDs out there are for episodes. OlYellerTalktome 15:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- oops. As I have been saying, there are too many noms for episodes & its hard to keep track. I've put it where it goes. Thanks.DGG (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Redirects
Are you really going to make me go through an AfD for an almost improbable search term redirect? And no, I wouldn't "create a section" for one episode characters on a page designed for the more significant characters of the show. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- RfD, not AfD. And see my answer where I see you first raised the question, at WT:Redirect; you were right to ask it there-- a better place than here to have a discussion, if you want some opinions before going to RfD for these Smallville characters. DGG (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Law enforcement stubs
Hello I don't care to contradict you, but Law enforcement in The Gambia was deleted for exactly this reason, a {{db-empty}} and looking over your contributions, I don't think that you got all of the ones that I tagged; others may have been deleted as well. If you need to respond, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- I do things the way I think correct. It has been known to happen that another admin thinks differently than I about something. In practice, Wikipedia admins get along by not attempting to correct each other every time they disagree. DGG (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Law enforcement in ..
(from my message to Kintetsubuffalo)" The series of articles that you have written Law enforcement in Benin (etc) are ll being nominated by another editor as speedy deletion for lack of content-- As reviewing admin, I think they do not quite meet the conditions for speedy deletion, but they really are not adequate as they are, so I have changed them to proposed deletion, giving you 7 days to improve them with some content and references. I suggest at the very least, date of founding and number of staff, for the various services. DGG (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)"
- Sorry, I wrote those two years ago, I don't even know which ones he's nommed and you changed, and if nobody's added content to them in that long, maybe they're not notable. I am in Japan now, so English language source material is nonexistent except for the Internet, and I am pretty sure those orgs don't have websites. Ah well, the people have voted with their keystrokes. Thanks for the heads up. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've been thinking it might not be that hard, actually, & I'll give a try. DGG (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- and so it was. Easy actually, once the three multi-vol. encyclopedias on world law enforcement by country were found!! Now to check about the ones that may have gotten deleted, and recover them. DGG (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Request for advice
Dear Sir,
I found you under the list of inclusionists and decided to ask you kindly for some advice. I would be grateful for your suggestions anytime you find convenient, I do see you are very busy on here. I am new to Wikipedia and do not know much about its inner workings. I created an article about a friend and colleague of mine whose efforts I believe should be noted. He attempted to change some things regarding standards for translations in the Eastern European Republic of Croatia. Among his numerous achievements (check article for details), he had academic papers published and one of those papers is being used as required reading at Germany's University of Tubingen. National television in Croatia covered his activism. All statements in the article are sourced really well with online third party sources as well as actual tv screenshots of his initiative being covered on national tv. Be that as it may, an editor of Wikipedia has tagged the article as questionable notability. I have since that tag added additional sources, provided my constructive arguments about the article's notability, jumped through hoops. Other than the editor's brief opinion that he did not believe article was notable, no real response was offered to my efforts (see talk page). It seems a little strange that one person's subjective view of something being notable or not (mind you, notable, not famous) can wreak havoc on another person's hard work. How are these differences of opinion resolved? How can I remove the notability tag that was placed on article? Do I simply have to keep the tag on for weeks or months and than provide arguments if it is placed for deletion at mercy of others? The article name is Kresimir Chris Kunej. Thank you in advance for your response, Respectfully, Turqoise127 (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am not in the least sure that he's notable. The only thing that might be a deciding positive factor per WP:PROF is that the article is used for a course reading list, but that alone is borderline. The two small articles in the newspapers might be, but you need to link specifically to them or at least give the print source. They have to be more than mere mentions to count according to WP:BIO. The way this will be settled is when the community decides after it's been take to WP:AFD, if someone does. I may do it myself. It is not me who will make the decision. Administrators don't do that here, we just enforce the community decisions and the community standards. I will give you the advice based on my experience: the odds of it being kept are less than even, but AfD is not predictable DGG (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Pwn
"The article has plenty of room for expansion." Expansion from what sources? Urban Dictionary? Encyclopedia Dramatica? Message boards? Seriously, you'd keep an article on my left big toenail, wouldn't you? :-P Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- only if you're left-handed. (making the assumption that,as usual, the dominant hand is the dominant foot also). And only the big toe. I do have standards. DGG (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, I actually am left handed. Nice to see that you can come up with a humorous answer to a humorous question too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Re your note
Replied on my talk. EyeSerenetalk 16:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Shameless theft
Hi I have quoted you on my user page. It is attributed, but please remove it if you'd rather it were not there. pablohablo. 15:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- thanks for noticing it ! DGG (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
It's been there a while, I've only just got round to confessing! It just seemed to succinctly sum up a way forward away from all the
- "You have no standards"
"Well you would say that because you want to delete everything"
"Inclusionist!"
"Deletonist!"
rubbish that forms so much of too many talk pages. Mind you, I won't be arguing in favour of articles about 10lb hammer's toes, left, right or hammer any time soon. pablohablo. 19:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
request for advice
Dear DGG, I would appreciate your advice regarding the handling of an edit war continued by an anonymous user in the article sipgate. The user continues to add/revert material that is unmistakenly against WP policy Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. Would you please review this? The article (about a company) itself has problems with notability in fact. Kbrose (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- yes, I'll deal with it. It could even have been called to admin attention earlier. DGG (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. Would you also have time to look at PimpMyNumber. Primary author appears as insider (company IP infrastructure uses same DNS names as author), refuses to provide secondary sources to establish notability, and uses same IP network as our anonymous war editor, coincidence? Problems seems to be notability and COI. Thanks. Kbrose (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- I looked, but it appears NPOV so far; I'll keep watching. DGG (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Drug Coupon
Could you take another look at this one? It was redirected once to coupon by another editor before the user drugzoo added everything back to the article including its one and only reference drugzoo.com at which time I tagged it as promotional only. If nothing else it is a gigantic coatrack on which to hang the link to his or her website. Thank you. Wperdue (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue
- I removed that inappropriate link first thing. It may have been planned as promotional but there is the makings of an article there. DGG (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate you taking a look at it in a timely manner. Wperdue (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue
- I removed that inappropriate link first thing. It may have been planned as promotional but there is the makings of an article there. DGG (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Kudos, comment & question
Dear David, I salute you for the various ideas expressed, and your sense of integrity. Your experiences from Princeton & Berkeley were also significant credentials to bring to bear. I have a comment about your working group for science and academia. Someone in the group lamented on how to distinguish "men from boys". At least in the science world it's quite easy. Below the obvious Nobel level, the next 2 are well known -- Academicians and Fellows. If WP can include all people on these 2 levels, it'd be quite a complete collection. Of course I'm only speaking about the US situation. I suspect that they have similar pecking order in other countries. Now a question unrelated to the above. When you have a chance, take a look at the discussion page for Deep Ng, and see my proposal to delete. Please advise if it's reasonable, and if so, the next step. Much obliged. --EJohn59 (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)EJohn59
- commented there based on general considerations. You do realise it's not the least my subject.DGG (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Your comments are reasonable & helpful--EJohn59 (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)EJohn59
Clarify...
EC at the MfD? Send diff? I'll check. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah. Found it. Go ahead and switch our comments, since we were both responding to Dc. Keep yours indented and outdent mine. Thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding ECRI Institue, I have listed credible third party references and truly do not know why this keeps getting deleted - can you be more specific as to sections, words, etc.?
CarolKocherecri (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- the only references you have from outside the institute are [9],which does not mention it, and [10] which in a general article contains a quote from someone at the institute. But the article is being deleted as promotional: 3 different admins have now agreed. Most of the article talks about how it all the vice presidents, and the locations of the various buildings. If you can find and post here one reference providing substantial coverage from 3rd party published reliable sources but not press releases, or material derived from press releases, that talks about the work of the institute, I will restore the article and rewrite it for you so it is not promotional. It will take extensive rewriting, not normal editing, and I do not want to do it if it has no chance of being notable. DGG (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
RfC Invitation
Within the past month or so, you appear to have commented on at least one AN/I, RS/N, or BLP/N thread involving the use of the term "Saint Pancake" in the Rachel Corrie article. As of May 24th, 2009, an RfC has been open at Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Request_for_Comments_on_the_inclusion_of_Saint_Pancake for over a week. As editors who have previously commented on at least one aspect of the dispute, your further participation is welcome and encouraged. Jclemens (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
ECRI
DGG Thanks for any help you can provide so we can get ECRI Institute on Wikipedia. As a proper reference, here is a report from the Agency for Healthcare and research Quality, listing us in the Bibliography, page 56, #9 https://www.ecri.org/Documents/EPC/Cardiac_Catheterization_in_Freestanding_Clinics.pdf CKKocherecri (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but you need more than a passing mention, or a listing in a bibliography. You need to find an article or news report that discusses the organization in a substantial way. It does not have to be entirely about you, but it has to present sufficient material that a person can tell that you are important. I think you might be, but it needs to be shown by actual evidence that people in published work discuss the organization, not just mention it. If necessary, I may look myself, though not immediately, but if you keep track of what is written about you, it can facilitate things. I hope you have a library, but at least you must be affiliated with some organization that does: ask a librarian for help. I am one myself, but I can't personally do all the research for all the Wikipedia articles.DGG (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Here is another - we are part of the World Health Organization - I'll see if I can find a reference there. See below. CKKocherecri (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC) http://www.frsoft.com/pages/InfoPage.aspx?PageID=303
- 1. you are not part of the WHO, you are listed as an outside collaborating center in a particular project. If that is important, there will be published material discussing it. 2. The references to the Institute must be published' by a responsible source, not just the web page of a company using your product. Responsible sources for the purpose are published business or technical magazines or scientific or technical journals, or major newspapers. They can be online, but they must be independent and not derived from your own press releases. Please look for something usable. Unless it is really definitive, some people here will probably argue you need two of them, so I suggest you look for that. Once I see them, I will try to rewrite the article so it is not primarily promotional. Please do not send me scattered mentions of web pages. DGG (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: Notices
Don't worry, the current notices, and the planned ones, concern the development of existing outlines. For example, notices of work that needs to be done to them, and notices to recruit editors to help out on them.
The Transhumanist 01:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: Another related thread has popped up at WP:VPR#OoK's expediency. --TT 04:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- seems under control. DGG (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Bilateral Tables
Looking for feedback on what I have been doing. You have been involved in some of the debates about bi-lateral relations articles, many of which are just stubs. My feeling is that the best compromise is to make tables in the "Foreign relations of" articles that can hold the stub content, then redirect the stub there. This approach seems acceptable to many other editors. Maybe the table entry will grow beyond a reasonable size. If so, it is easy enough to convert the redirect back into a full article. Or maybe it will not, but it gives some basic comparative information so has some minor value. So I have been busily, maybe a bit obsessively, created the tables and merging stub content into them without paying too much attention to the content itself.
But now I am looking at some of the table entries, and wondering if they make any sense at all. The one in Foreign relations of Cyprus got me thinking. It seems that the stub creator stumbled on an official source here and then here and started churning out stubs for each pairing - some of which are truly trivial. I tend to think relations between two countries are quite likely to be of interest. There is usually trade, migration, agreements and disagreements, stuff going on between them. But (this may seem like bias), there may be little or nothing to be said about relations between two small, distant countries like Togo and Tonga - the two simply don't interact at any significant level.
To me, the criteria for a country pairing belonging in a "Foreign relations" table can be a lot lower than for a stand-alone article, but there must be some rationale for inclusion even in a table. I don't like rigid rules because there are always exceptions. I would say the relationship is non-trivial if the two countries share a border or conduct a lot of trade. Also if one has a resident ambassador in the other country, has stationed troops in the other, has a large migrant population from the other. Maybe other reasons. I suppose simple recognition in some cases is significant with countries like Abkhazia given the controversy.
But even as a table entry, Cyprus–Paraguay relations? Any thoughts? Aymatth2 (talk) 12:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- the only way to fix the foolish mechanical production of these stubs is to write proper articles to replace them. The real question is how to organize this. It is a very large scale version of the common situation of someone writing an impossibly bad article about something important, and then someone with more experience has to scramble to fix it before it gets deleted. (This does not mean mechanical production of stubs is never acceptable: it's been done well for geographical places and for individual species of plants, where there are good defined databases to start with that provide what is necessary for a supportable article, and there is general consensus that the subject of each will be notable--though in each case they was some argument about it.) Doing large scale projects without prior thinking and discussion and a sample run is not the way to work on a large database, or any large project or system. Not many of the people here actually have experience with this in the RW. Librarians do--our systems and databases are so large and complicated--much more so than WP-- that we have the opposite problem--of ever getting enough evidence to safely make major additions and changes, which is why we are notoriously such a slow-moving profession. In practice we make progress by small test samples, and by the experience of many failed pioneers.
- I agree with you that in many cases the bilateral articles are not fixable. My own guess is that between 1/4 and 1/2 of the total are not really going to be worth the doing. The difficulty here is that one cannot really tell without a proper search, because some apparently unlikely pairings have yielded interesting results--it is very hard to say a priori that something significant may not have happened. The way in which they have been nominated for deletion is every bit as bad as the way they were made--worse, because it multiplies the amount of work involved in dealing with them. There should have been much more careful screening to nominate the very least likely of them. To return to a common theme, if WP:BEFORE were obligatory, we would have much less of a mess to sort out afterwards.
- I think the merging for the time being as you have been doing it is the best solution. You should not be discouraged that many of the entries in the table are trivial. This is the case with all tables of standardized data--they contain a great many blank or nearly blank portions. I see nothing wrong with even a list of all 200 countries, with some saying: no information available. In the RW, a lot of table entries have just that. In a non-paper system like ours, it takes fewer resources--both computer and human--to include them all, rather than select them. Do not undervalue negative results--for someone searching for information, the fact that there is none for a particular query is a significant result. It does not look stupid--it shows, rather, that we have done the topic completely, the way an encyclopedia ought to. no information available can be encyclopedic. There are many analogies. As a simple one, tables of deaths per region per disease will have many zeros. They show that the data is zero, rather than nobody having looked.
- For the examples you have given at the end, I agree with the criteria, but they apply to articles, not entires. DGG (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your very thoughtful response. Yes, this whole collection could have been handled with much less effort if it had been viewed as a significant class of article, discussed, pioneered and reviewed to find what approaches would work or not work, and then the articles or table entries systematically created following a well-thought-out plan. Presumably the end result will be similar, after a huge expenditure of energy and emotion. Given the way Wikipedia works, I suppose we just have to look for practical and constructive ways to sort out these problems rather than spend too much time in futile debates. Your reply is reassuring. A table entry that indicates "non-existent" or "trivial" is useful. I will keep plugging away on the tables as time permits, probably not spend much time on the debates. Thanks. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Wish I had more time. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- For the examples you have given at the end, I agree with the criteria, but they apply to articles, not entires. DGG (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Southbeach Notation
Hi, Thank you for your advice re writing style and use of citations for the Southbeach Notation article, which now has a 'this looks like a news release' tag on it at the moment. I have added a lot more detail, further references, and comparisons to other notations to illustrate the notable differences. Can you confirm if this is now in an appropriate state to have these tags removed? Or is there further work required? Your advice is much appreciated. Mbonline (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- well, 1/you overdid the detail a little. 2/the first paragraph is unclear: what is "situation improvement" ? I don't think it's an English phrase 2a/ much of the rest is unclear also, such as "power of expression is derived from the interpretation of the models made by the people using it." Does it perhaps mean that it's flexible to accommodate different concepts? And what is "perspective alignment in individuals" ? I think I know what you may have in mind, but I'd have to guess. 3/most of the semantics section seems standard concepts, not particular to this scheme 3a/ Ditto for the sections on ".1 Multi-perspective Situational Modelling" and especially "Structured brainstorming" 4./The "Example is a tutorial, and not appropriate content 5/and most important, I continue to see no references at all to show that anyone except the people who developed it think it important. DGG (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the feedback. I will attempt to address these points. Regarding 5/, there are references to articles published in bptrends and trizjournal, which are both respected publications. Do these not count as independent authorities saying this is important? If not, what kind of references do you think are necessary? Mbonline (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Re:email
I have replied to your e-mail with an explanation. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of extraordinary diseases and conditions
DGG,
I have an enormous amount of respect for you and have no wish to damage your reputation both personally or as a Wikipedian. I hope you can take my initial response ("Are you having a laugh") as a reaction to you making (IMO) an astonishing mistake rather than perceived incompetence, inexperience or ignorance. Perhaps I misunderstood what you thought the book could be cited for, or perhaps you were "voting" to keep a list that wasn't actually quite the same as the one I believed I was sending to AfD. Indeed, many of the keep "votes" seem to be for a "list of rare diseases", which is quite a different thing. I am genuinely sorry if my response was hurtful. Colin°Talk 21:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- no problem. I may not have been clear enough in the first place. DGG (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep Hope alive!
Hey David. I was wondering if you would be willing to reconsider your delete vote in the case of Connie Bea Hope? At the worst I think a merge (which I have no inclination to support) to the tv station WKRG would seem a better route. I've been finding more sources and putting more pieces of the puzzle together as far as the show and its history go. For example I'm working on a source that includes the show as an early favorite in the channel's history. I think this biography is well worth including, even though it's notability is regional rather than national or international. Thanks for your kind consideration. Oh and I'm working on an article on the program itself now too Woman's World (tv) so we'll see what comes of that. Perhaps a merger may be in order down the road. But the show has had notable guests, so I'm going to see what comes of it. And I also found a source with an archival tape of the show. Thanks for your kind consideration. How was the new Star Trek movie? Have fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- my opinion is the same, but I am not the arbiter of what gets into WP. However, I think you'd really be stretching it to try two articles. If the CBH one is kept, merge the show in; if it isnt, merge her into the show. DGG (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: Comment
Alright, thanks for the heads up, and I agree with your change.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd personally take "published numerous books globally" as an assertion of importance. Just my 0.02$ though :) --MLauba (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- every publisher does. It means in their case that if you pay extra, they give it at ISBN. Most vanity publishers do it as part of the basic package. DGG (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Maury Markowitz
Since you commented in the Great Clay Belt deletion review, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Maury Markowitz and redirect deletions. Feel free to ignore or remove this if you're not. --NE2 13:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- seems to have been taken care of adequately. Obviously further watching is in order, but I can trust you to do that. DGG (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Not that you need it...
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Every time I post a note on RSN, it is DGG who gives the most informative, thoughtful, helpful and context-providing comments. I believe that this is because he is actually a robot, the perfect machine of editing and reliable-source-noticeboarding, built by genius aliens to help make the world a better place by helping wikipedia not suck. But I have no citation, so please forgive my original research and accept this barnstar in spite of my obvious insanity. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC) |
ECRI Institute
DGG - as requested, below are more substantial references for you based on the criteria you gave me -- thanks for that. These include a book, peer review/medical journals and newspapter articles. Should I try to put the page up again, or do you want to rewrite using the below - please let me know if there is anything else I need to do.
Rettig, Richard A, et al. (2007). False Hope: Bone Marrow Transplantation for Breast Cancer, 192-195, 204; Oxford University Press, New York, NY, ISBN-13:978-0-19-518776-2.
Stephenson, Joan, PhD, (1995). “Medical Technology Watchdog Plays Unique Role in Quality Assessment”, JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, Volume 274, No. 13.
Noble, Meridith, MS, et al. (February, 2008). “Long-Term Opioid Therapy for Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Efficacy and Safety”. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, Volume 35, No.2.
Treadwell, Jonathan R., PhD, et al. (October, 2006). “A System for Rating the Stability and Strength of Medical Evidence”, BMC Medical Research Methodology.
Treadwell, Jonathan R., PhD, Fang Sun, MD, PhD, and Karen Schoelles, MD, SM (November, 2008). “Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Bariatric Surgery for Pediatric Obesity”, Annals of Surgery, Volume 248, No. 5.
Landro, Laura. “For Patients, a List of Hospital Hazards”, The Wall Street Journal, December 23, 2008, page D2, Retrieved May 26, 2009.
Smith, Virginia A., Inquirer Staff Writer, “Confronting Bulimia”, The Philadelphia Inquirer, February 27, 2006, FEATURES MAGAZINE, page E01.
CKKocherecri (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- In practice, it would help to have links. But I am almost certain that most of them are articles merely mentioning the center , or studies where the center played a role, not about the center. The most likely is the JAMA article, & I'll check DGG (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
An AfD for this article, which you participated in, was recently closed as "no consensus." I have request a deletion review here [11].Bali ultimate (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
List of digital library projects
This is just a quick note that the a page you've commented on before List of digital library projects is undergoing discussion over a rewrite at Talk:List_of_digital_library_projects. The rewrite is at [12] Stuartyeates (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am not sure how much it is going to help. I am not even sure that this should not be an exception to not being to some extent a web directory. DGG (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I started a conversation at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Universities#Naming conventions and heard that you might already have some experience with the Serampore article. Care to join? I'd love to hear more about your past work. It looks like your merge proposal disappeared via this edit. The editor who removed the template didn't bother to mention that in the summary. King of the Arverni (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am delighted to have the chance to go back and add to the confusion. I knew this would come back and haunt me. DGG (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm terribly sorry if this is an inconvenience to you but I, for one, am glad to have your input. It was actually quite fun to read your contribution to the discussion. I started the conversation because it seemed that the parenthetical title was inappropriate, but I'm not experienced enough to have encountered many of these cases. Might you have an opinion on that particular matter? I know it's not quite what you'd focused on before, but I'd still consider your thoughts on the matter to be rather invaluable. King of the Arverni (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am delighted to have the chance to go back and add to the confusion. I knew this would come back and haunt me. DGG (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
"There is no human institution where the accidents of history are preserved in more peculiar ways than higher education." Very true. Thank you for taking so much time and care to explain in this case. Pointillist (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC) |
Heads Up
You are mentioned as part of the discussion at WP:ANI#User:DreamGuy and User:174.0.39.30 68.146.162.11 (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
DreamGuy is bitting a newby with a huge assumption of bad faith
I am bring this to your attention as an administrator. DreamGuy's comments to User:Granite thump are, in my opinion, way out of line in his final comments here. For his past acts DreamGuy has been placed on Wikipedia:Editing restrictions and (it says) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked. I personally think he has made a huge assumption of bad faith against User:Granite thump, but I am not an administrator. I trust your judgment. Varbas (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am far too much involved with DG to get involved in something like this as an administrator. Perhaps though I can offer you the advice, that some challenged articles are worth defending, and some are not. And of those worth defending, only some are worth getting really involved in. If you want to make a stand, pick a good place for it. DGG (talk) 04:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_DreamGuy_2 - See this request for clarification regarding DreamGuy «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Since you are aware of this deletion discussion, asking you for advice about this AfD won't be perceived as canvassing. Do you think Andy Wisne can be saved? The subject passes WP:GNG, but the voters are all voting delete because of the COI and neutrality issues. I'm willing to rewrite this article, but will it be futile? Cunard (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, I do not think he's notable. I do not think the college career is important enough; I think the unfortunate accident may make him a subject of temporary newspaper interest, but no more. The movie career hasn't started yet. What else is there? For those who think all division IA players notable, he's notable as that, & that could be emphasized. I think the point is not clear. He probably would not have had a major trophy had he played the season, nor was Notre Dame the champion that year. The question is really one's personal sympathy for him--he might have had it, but as you say, the excesses there backfired. This article shows the problem of the GNG: it does not really settle anything, because one then argues about significant coverage, and whether it was tabloid type human relations only. Try to argue for a non-consensus on the ground of the contamination of the discussion by pathos. DGG (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. I agree that he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:ENTERTAINER, but I disagree that the sources are tabloid-like — they are neutrally-written and are from credible newspapers, including the LA Times. Anyway, the AfD looks like it's going to be closed as no consensus. Best, Cunard (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- The longer I'm here, themore I look for significance over human interest. DGG (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. I agree that he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:ENTERTAINER, but I disagree that the sources are tabloid-like — they are neutrally-written and are from credible newspapers, including the LA Times. Anyway, the AfD looks like it's going to be closed as no consensus. Best, Cunard (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, I do not think he's notable. I do not think the college career is important enough; I think the unfortunate accident may make him a subject of temporary newspaper interest, but no more. The movie career hasn't started yet. What else is there? For those who think all division IA players notable, he's notable as that, & that could be emphasized. I think the point is not clear. He probably would not have had a major trophy had he played the season, nor was Notre Dame the champion that year. The question is really one's personal sympathy for him--he might have had it, but as you say, the excesses there backfired. This article shows the problem of the GNG: it does not really settle anything, because one then argues about significant coverage, and whether it was tabloid type human relations only. Try to argue for a non-consensus on the ground of the contamination of the discussion by pathos. DGG (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
ECRI again
ECRI Institute is a research institute that is very well-respected in the medical community, known for its evidenced-based research on healthcare, health devices and protocols, and patient safety issues. The content on the journal articles are primarily ECRI research (not mere mention.)
Here is the link to our research study in the BMC journal:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/6/52
- again you do not understand. What is needed is articles not where you make studies, but where some other group discusses your importance. DGG (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Please check again - False Hope book is good one to check. I can attached an assortment of newspaper articles, but your email doesn't seem to be set up for attachments? CKKocherecri (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
.Email me from here, and I will reply from my regular account. You list a few pp. in the book. copies of them, perhaps? DGG (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I will email. I am being pressured to get the page up and as I am new in this job, I don't want to disappoint. We were initially very excited to join WIkipedia, but it's becoming more complicated than we thought. Here is a link:
https://www.ecri.org/Press/Pages/In_The_News.aspx
to many, many third party news articles about us (Not written by us, but by Phila Inquirer, Wall Street Journal). If I can have our librarian scan pages from the False Hope book, I will. In the meantime, I am emailing you some copies of articles where our doctors are quoted and interviewed, or where some of our break through research is highlighted, particularly in bulimia and hospital fire safety. I'll try to repost the entry with some of these references (before I get fired.!!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kocherecri (talk • contribs) 16:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- tell them that they have no business pressuring you, because it is not under your control. We are not an advertising medium where the end result depend upon your diligence. What you have said about getting paid on the basis of your success in getting the article in wikipedia is a clear indication that you ought not to have written the article in the first place--see WP:Conflict of Interest Anyone paid to put entries in Wikipedia who is paid by results is inevitably going to be disappointed; we almost always remove such articles. Nor do organizations "join" wikipedia; rather, individuals edit on topics that interest them. Whether or not you have a page, and what it says, does not depend upon you, but upon the community. Once I get the material, and if I think it will support an article, I will do what I can, because I think you might well be notable--but that won't help unless there are sources to show it according to our rules, because I am not the one to decide if the article gets kept, nor is anything kept because someone thinks it is notable. I will work on it in a week or two, not immediately; I have my own priorities. I don't get paid for this, you know--none of us do. I am willing to write the article from scratch, nonetheless, because I think it will help the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- sorry, DGG - I was kidding about the being fired - humor doesn't transfer well online. We absolutely are not hoping to be on Wikipedia for business purposes, but we truly believe that we are notable and interesting, and worth folks knowing about. You certainly seem to have a lot to handle. I went back to the content and compared to like organizations (AHRQ and Advisory Board Company.]
- tell them that they have no business pressuring you, because it is not under your control. We are not an advertising medium where the end result depend upon your diligence. What you have said about getting paid on the basis of your success in getting the article in wikipedia is a clear indication that you ought not to have written the article in the first place--see WP:Conflict of Interest Anyone paid to put entries in Wikipedia who is paid by results is inevitably going to be disappointed; we almost always remove such articles. Nor do organizations "join" wikipedia; rather, individuals edit on topics that interest them. Whether or not you have a page, and what it says, does not depend upon you, but upon the community. Once I get the material, and if I think it will support an article, I will do what I can, because I think you might well be notable--but that won't help unless there are sources to show it according to our rules, because I am not the one to decide if the article gets kept, nor is anything kept because someone thinks it is notable. I will work on it in a week or two, not immediately; I have my own priorities. I don't get paid for this, you know--none of us do. I am willing to write the article from scratch, nonetheless, because I think it will help the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I have rewritten the article and removed promotional copy, added the proper references as per directions for citations in Wiki: Your First Article. Can you view my user page and see how it looks now, or can I post it somewhere temporarily for your review? I am unable to repost,obviously. Thanks! CKKocherecri (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- I continue to see no sources about the organization, just some reports it has issued; the article still appears mainly promotional. I removed some of the worst of it, unsuitable even for user space. As I have no COI, & as it might be notable, when I have a chance in a week or two I may try to write an article about it. Anyone else without COI is welcome to try , of course, and I certainly would encourage them to do so. End of discussion here, please. DGG (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
ECRI Institute Hi Dave - A strange thing happened today at ECRI. Our forensic scientist and on of our vice presidents received a google alert today as he tracks instances of ECRI Institute on the Web. The Google Alert gave him my most up-to-date User Page from last night, complete with the references you asked for. I had rewritten it to take out all promotional verbage.
I will send you the link because it may help you to see if I am getting closer to being publishable on Wikipedia. He was happy to see we are attempting to have a mention there, as we are truly notable.
I would like to email you the link he received today with all my user page content. He of course if we were in fact on Wikipedia? He saw that we had been deleted and was concerned.
The message he got, with the link to my WIki user page, was:
Google Web Alert for: "ECRI Institute" UserKocherecri Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
ECRI Institute is a nonprofit organization that uses the discipline of applied ... ECRI Institute publishes hazard reports and alerts journals resource ...
I didn't know that my user page could be out there for the public to view in such a way. CKKocherecri (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- If you can view other people's, they can view yours'. What you mean, I suspect, is that you did not know that google indexes it. They do. I don't think they should, and we could prevent it by technical means, but the consensus here so far as been otherwise. DGG (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- I hope you don't mind me interrupting your conversation, but there is a technique for preventing draft material in your sandbox from being indexed in future (it won't eliminate any existing index/cache/link). Just add the next line to the top of each sandbox page. The second "caution" line aims to reduce liability if someone finds your draft anyway. - Pointillist (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- {{NOINDEX |visible = yes}}
- {{caution|This is not a Wikipedia article. It may contain unverified draft material that is unsupported, incomplete, out of date, biased or simply false. Don't use anything on this page for any purpose. }}
- yes, this works, but, Pointillist, this was on the main user page, not a subp. Can one use that? there also.?DGG (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it is effective on a User: page. As I understand it, the template expands to __NOINDEX__[[category:Wikipedia noindex pages]]{{#ifeq:yes|yes|This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.}} There are already quite a few users who "__NOINDEX__" on their User page, e.g. Plrk added it to User:Plrk on 8 Sept 08 (this diff), and added "misunderstood genius" two edits later. If __NOINDEX__ had been effective on a User: page, Googling for Plrk "misunderstood genius" would fail. So you have to do your drafting in a "sandbox" sub-page.
- There's another point I should have mentioned. My sandbox contains the phrase "Clive Labovitch (1932-1994) was an entrepreneuial British publisher" (note the typo). If you search for that string via google, my sandbox won't be found because I've it tagged with {{NOINDEX}}, but the entire page has been scraped by another site and using this very specific search, complete with typo, does return the copy of the page held on the other site. That's not generally a problem (e.g. in my example if you Google for Clive Labovitch there are many pages of results before you hit the screen-scraped sandbox page) but you should be aware of it. - Pointillist (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, we can unfortunately do nothing practical about this. We do not control the way other sites work, nor do we control Google. This is one of the reasons for the immediate deletion of certain material. It doesn't prevent this,but it does minimize the effect. DGG (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
full-out phishing expedition
Please, I need you to be involved. DreamGuy and MuZemike have started a complaint about me, once again, claiming that I am a sockpuppet here. This is the 2nd taime is a week. It looks like a full-out phishing expedition this time. They have also thrown the relative newbie User:Granite thump into their complaint. This is a huge assumption of bad faith. MuZemike and DreamGuy's accusations, the approval of a CheckUser, and no notification to either myself or User:Granite thump, is completely against wikipolicy (as I understand it). You are an admin. It is part of your role to enforce the rules and policy. Is there anything you can do to help control the harassment we are now be subjected to? And also, can you explain to me why the WP:AE review of DreamGuy’s behaviour was so suddenly aborted by User:KillerChihuahua, with no sanctions against DG? That was just strange. If you are not able/willing to get involved, can you point me to someone who is not afraid of DG? Varbas (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Kindly send me an email from this page. I need to ask you some questions . Running checkuser is according to the discretion of the checkusers. I remind you again that I will never be able to do anything as an administrator here in anything involving Dream Guy. You must try one of the i admins who has not had run ins with him previously (there still are some). DGG (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- I do not give out my e-mail address. If you have questions to ask of me, then please ask them. Varbas (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- then you can hardly expect help from me in something of this sort. You surely are aware of how to set up a throw-away email account. How can I ask you the obvious and necessary questions without possibly prejudicing the case against you? You want me to ask them in public, I'll do it at the AN/I. You chose to come here and ask for help, remember! DGG (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- I do not give out my e-mail address. If you have questions to ask of me, then please ask them. Varbas (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Regional vocabularies of American English
As you probably know, following AfD discussion the consensus was to keep and clean up Regional vocabularies of American English. This will require adding references where possible, and removing large amounts of unreferenced material. I have begun this process; your help would be greatly appreciated. Cnilep (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Rugrats characters - Please reconsider!
There's no way Rugrats is of more importance than SpongeBob SquarePants. All of the SpongeBob SquarePants characters' articles have been merged into the list of characters pages. And SpongeBob SquarePants and The Fairly OddParents are also major works. If the decision is not to delete, I will restore articles to individual SpongeBob and Fairly OddParents characters. Marcus2 (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- We may want to try to undelete some other character pages also, and probably expand the content of the sections in many combination articles. The central figure of a show is important enough for an article of its own. For most shows, most other characters are not..DGG (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Archive?
Have you considered archiving your page? It is too long...---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Akll I can say is that it's been much worse in the past. As you know, I favor gradual improvements. DGG (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
ECRI Institute
DGG - Help!! On May 24 on your talk page, you had offered to rewrite the ECRI Institute article. I have provided everything I can to help you in terms of references, and rewrote the page myself on my User page. I don't know what to do next. Is there someone else that can help me? Carol ~~
- Kindly email me the text of the JAMA article, which is the only one that might possibly prove notability. It is not available on line that I can determine. DGG (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
ECRI Institute
DGG - Happy to scan JAMA article for you - can I add it to your talk page as an attachment somehow, or should I email it to you? THanks for your help. Carol~~
- I have emailed you. DGG (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I just scanned and emailed NYTimes and JAMA articles for you. CK~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kocherecri (talk • contribs) 21:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do tonight or tomorrow. DGG (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, David - I really appreciate it and good luck!! June 3, 2009 CK~~
Mediation at WP:FICT
I'm suggesting we ask for mediation to help build teh guidance at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). What I propose is that a mediator be the only person to edit the project page itself and be the one to guide discussion and discern consensus. I've proposed it at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Mediation. As a past participant in the lengthy debates, I'd appreciate your input and hopefully your agreement. Hiding T 10:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- I will support it, if it includes NOT PLOT and all related policies and guidelines, including those on subarticles. Unfortunately, I think it would only succeed in settling the issue if we had binding mediation. DGG (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Is every little peer notable enough for their own article, even if they don't do anything of note? Maybe my republicanism is showing, but I didn't think that was the case. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- "little" peers such as baronets are not. Major peerage , such as earls, usually have been considered to be. For right reasons or wrong, they have usually been important enough for there to be sources. English major peers until very recently have also always been members of the legislature. , which unquestionably counts. DGG (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I see your point. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- According to Hansard's database, he spoke in the the Lords three times: once in 1966, twice in 1967; I assume he must have attended more often than that. I reckon that puts him at least on a par of notability with the typical member of, say, the New Hampshire House of Representatives (all 400 of them). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, NH is interesting. The proportion to population is 1:3000. Assuming most members are re-elected once, then 1:300 adults there are notable. As you might expect, my conclusion is to use that ratio worldwide. Given 3 billion living adults, that's 10 million BLPs. If 100 billion is the total number of humans who have ever lived then the number would be higher, but since nowhere near as many lived to be adults or lived as long once they became adults, I'll estimate we should have 100 million articles about people. Maybe half, if NH people are more interesting than the average.
- According to Hansard's database, he spoke in the the Lords three times: once in 1966, twice in 1967; I assume he must have attended more often than that. I reckon that puts him at least on a par of notability with the typical member of, say, the New Hampshire House of Representatives (all 400 of them). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I see your point. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- "little" peers such as baronets are not. Major peerage , such as earls, usually have been considered to be. For right reasons or wrong, they have usually been important enough for there to be sources. English major peers until very recently have also always been members of the legislature. , which unquestionably counts. DGG (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
High schools
This is an interesting claim! Please point out to me all the articles on High Schools I have supposedly "repeatedly" nominated? I happen to think that many, if not most High Schools are notable. What I do not accept is arguments about how other schools are notable have any relevance about the notability of the schools under discussion at AfD, here and elsewhere. As a follow up question, if the concept of inherent notability of High Schools was developed through the outcomes of AfDs, how is it any more POINTy of me to use the same medium to point out its absurdity? Why is it now POINTy to consider that WP:N and the use of quality sources and encyclopedic material should apply across the entire encyclopedia?
I am not picking High Schools at random; articles on schools that I have nominated for deletion or commented in support of their deletion (and their have not been that many) have all failed to meet WP:N and the arguments to keep are generally circular reasoning —i.e. schools are kept because they are usualy kept—and only rarely on the merits of the actual article. If High School articles require an exemption from WP:N, then a draft guideline should be developed and consensus for this demonstrated. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have already modified my statement there. For this particular group of schools, the usual argument does not necessarily hold, & I supplemented it, & removed any comment about other nominations. My apologies for that; this was not the AfD to say it.
- But it seems you do hold the position that the practice should in fact be changed. How many afds will it take to convince you that the consensus is otherwise? I've given the argument enough times with respect to schools, so I will say it more generally: for some classes of things it is in practice convenient to adopt conventions & fixed rules, instead of deciding individually. We have to balance the harm from including articles on a few subnotable things & omitting articles on a few barely notable ones on the one hand, with the advantages of having more time and energy for article writing and sourcing rather than debate on the other. This is a big encyclopedia with a lot of topics to cover. There are hundreds of thousands of high schools in the world--over 30,000 in the US alone. There are an even greater number of primary and intermediate schools. Many of each will be unclear about notability, but if argued fully and after a careful and painstaking search, about 80 or 90% of the high schools and about 10 or 20% of the other schools will be shown notable. Rather than debate tens of thousands of articles, it is better to have the simple rule that one class get articles, and the other merges into school districts or localities. There are hundreds of thousands of little towns and villages. We could probably meet the technical requirements for 95% in the developed countries, and elsewhere as sources become available. We could fight about just which 10,000 to omit, or we could just leave them all & work on writing better articles and covering the areas left uncovered. There are as I discussed above hundreds of thousands of state-level politicians. Frankly, I doubt that that more than 80% or so are notable& it might be less-but it isn't worth the effort to remove them. It's better to get whatever verifiable information we do have, and leave the articles for beginners to work on.
- It bothers me too when there's an article on something not really worth it--but we have hugh gaps to fill. And, more important, we have tens of thousands of articles with gross puffery and spam and nonsense and error and prejudice, on notable and unnotable alike, and that sort of material is what really harms the encyclopedia. We have work to do. I like debating, and I'd gladly argue with you all night, but there's stuff to write and edit. So back I go to speedy patrol to get rid of the worst of it. DGG (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Notability of journalists
Hi DGG
I have a poser for you. The nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Theodoulou correctly pointed out that the stub doesn't really assert "WP:N"-type notability, and is unreferenced. Despite a reasonable effort to find sources (including well beyond the Internet) about the subject, I failed to turn up anything usable. Anything based on the number of articles that he has written can be reasonably considered WP:OR. I don't have a strong argument (or, necessarily, a strong view) that this sort of stub article should be kept—do you have any views?
Regards, Bongomatic 06:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Journalists have been a consistent problem. They are almost never written about, unless they win major awards. And, of course, Google is no great help in sorting out the very few articles about them from the ones that represent their writings. I do not consider counting articles to be OR--we've done this for WP:PROF for year. And you can get citations also, in Google Scholar. DGG (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Help on rewriting/editing article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lockwood_(historian)
Hello there David. I remember you told me about looking into this article and trying to do some edits. It's never a problem that it hasn't been acted upon then or yet, as I know, you're exploring hundreds of articles here. Do you think you can still help me? It's been flagged for reasons more than I expected and I'm quite uncertain about where and how to start afresh or modify it in a way that will pass your criteria. I really need to get this article posted clean without the flags. =( I'd very much appreciate your inputs/help. Thank you. Jxc5 (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- The flags will remain until people are satisfied. We use them to indicate problems or potential problems with articles, & the ones in place at the moment are justified. When you say "I really need to get this article posted clean without the flags", I wonder about the possible promotional purpose of the article, or whether you are writing for pay, with the consequent conflict of Interest. My colleague Orange Mike who has worked with this type of article at least as extensively as I has made some good suggestions, only one of which I disagree with--I commented there about what is needed. As you can see from the question immediately before this one, we often have problems with people in some professions about demonstrating notability.
- Oh, no… I have no intention of promoting my own interest, or other’s, or any of that sort. No other purpose than to see an article I put up’s been successfully considered – which I realized is not really easy to achieve until (I believe) I seek help from notable wiki-editors like you who totally know the ins and outs of Wikipedia. Sorry if I gave you a reason to doubt that. Thank you so much for the prompt reply. You’ve been truly helpful. Jxc5 (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hi again, David. As you advised, a reminder for you about adding library counts for the authorship of books? ... Many thanks. Jxc5 (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Rescued
I have added a "rescued" tag to show where in AFD debates the rescue effort has begun, previously we have been adding a tag that shows when ARS was notified, but I don't think that is useful since nothing has changed at that point.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahamas–Russia relations See here for an example that contrasts the difference in placement. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- I would suggest modifying it to include major changes by people not in the squadron. We there have no monopoly of the good editors, & it's just as important whoever does it. Additionally, I think it over-advertises the ARS. I urge you to change that template right away or we will be back at TfD.DGG (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
your comment about disruptive editing
Your comment here [14], are you then willing to block people on the basis of this, and do other admins? it's a slippery slope of saying well it's similar to an official rule so it can't be right. it's like saying manslaughter should be punished like murder. LibStar (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- there are many ways of being disruptive. My idea of how to deal with disruption, is informal advice, and then if necessary calling it to the attention of the community, in the hope that others will see it for what it is. I don't block for anything short of downright vandalism. that is either repeated after warning or so drastic as to require immediate action. Formal disciplinary action is a last resort, just like deletion.
- as for slippery slopes, what I do not like are precipices: tolerating improper and risky behavior until someone actually falls of the cliff. The point of even blocking is not to punish according to one's sins, but to prevent people from continuing to do things wrong. Thus I restate from the place you referenced,
- there are several allied improper behaviors: tag-teaming, where several editors combine to force through changes they would not be able to otherwise because of 3RR; piling on, adding identical votes because someone else has voted, whether or not you have specifically been requested to; meat-puppetry, acting essentially as a proxy for another editor whether by explicit or implicit agreement; and also of course canvassing, whether during an AfD or in preparation for one. All 4 are disruptive. The technicalities are not important, the effect is what we should pay attention to. DGG (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletes
Can you give me some examples of article I mis-tagged? So I can look to see what I did wrong. Thanks. Cheers :) Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
[15], [16], [17]. I think these were some of yours. Not that they are necessarily supportable articles, just that they should not be summarily deleted without giving them a chance to improve. DGG (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- If you like, we can take this over to my talk page. The two articles show little to no news or google hits. I struck the one (Lock More) that I didn't tag. Cheers :) Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Having no references to show notability is not the standard deletion. Even for afd, the standard is being unsourceable, having no references after a search, not merely lacking references at present. For speedy, all that is needed is indication that it might be notable. DGG (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Um, few Secondary Sources discussing it as the primary subject is a reason for deletion. (Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. - WP:NOTE). Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- First: it does not have to be the "primary" subject to pass WP:N, the wording is "directly". Nor does it take more than a "few" reliable sources--two or even one really good one are enough. Check WP:N but not via speedy. Second, please check WP:CSD and WP:Deletion policy . Speedy is for deletion under limited circumstances only,where it is clear to any reasonable person that further work would not be at all likely to show acceptability. Passing speedy requires much much less than what is sufficient to pass WP:N--just some indication of notability. The tag for claims to notability, but not being sourced adequately, are {{notability}} and {{improvereferences}} . The tag for some claims to notability, but not notable enough, are either prod or AfD; The procedure for looking like being notable, but not having sources to show it, is either a tag for {{unsourced}}, or a nomination for Prod or AfD after following the advice in WP:BEFORE. It has once in a while been suggested that unreferenced be subject to speedy deletion, but that proposal has always been soundly rejected by the community. The author has the primary responsibility for sourcing, nut if he fails, every editor who wants to improve the encyclopedia has a secondary responsibility DGG (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Having no references to show notability is not the standard deletion. Even for afd, the standard is being unsourceable, having no references after a search, not merely lacking references at present. For speedy, all that is needed is indication that it might be notable. DGG (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Very well. I couldn't see any of those pages being notable (ever), but it's moot. I've AfD'd them to get community input on them. Cheers :) Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- yes, that's the way to go. just for the record, I never said they were notable. I am not one of those admins who speedies everything I think un-notable. I'll check at the afd. DGG (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Images at TV
Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 4 has the MASH images up for deletion and are holding them to a much higher standard than any episode of South Park. They are requiring that image to be mentioned in news sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Nicholas Beale
Could you please look over my edits to Nicholas Beale to make sure I haven't harmed the subject's already very slim chances of passing the AFD? I realize it might be a bit late now. I obviously thought my edits were improving the article, and almost all delete arguments were stated before I made the most significant trimming. Still, I would really appreciate if someone could relieve me of the guilt and have a look at it. Maybe my edits should be reverted as I have removed quite a lot of stuff, some of it about his positions, maybe that was not at good idea? Vesal (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Do not revert your changes at this point; I do not think it will help. What will help is if you can find book book reviews or reviews of the program. What will unequivocally help is if the subject publishes a good book as a sole author that gets multiple reviews. That will certainly do it, even if it is deleted this time, but you will need to go through deletion review in that case.
- one minor point: You need exact publication information for "R&D Short Termism DGG (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I've started a little infernal voting thing to get a clearer view of how people stand and if we've got consensus either way. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I assume you are talking about the UK House of Lords? I don't think you should have started yet--I think it needs a good deal wider participation first. I'm reluctant to do canvassing, but the proposal that member of the HoL were never inherently notable as members of a legislature , even before the reform in 1999, is in clear contradiction of historical fact, and an example of recentism run amok. Traditional topics remain notable. If I were to make a joke about that, I could see it as a clear attempt to get me diverted from defending fiction and bilateral relations, in order to tempt me to individually defend each of the thousands of these. WP, the encyclopedia that made not only present, but past aristocracy obsolete by its own fiat. DGG (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- We've advertised it wide and far - if people aren't interested in participating, that's there problem. The rule on legislative members was put there for a reason - notability is built on references, and the idea is that the actions requires for someone to become a member of a national legislative body are important enough that the attention of newspapers, journals, other RSs will be drawn to them. The achievement of getting born, however? Not so much. If these people have done something notable (actually attending would be a good start for many of them) then references will be available. I'm not engaging in recentism; take a look at my created articles and see if I think old things are less important than new things. My FA? About a dead man. My GAs? About several dead men, one of them for over two hundred years, and cases started and operated in by dead men. The rule on members of a legislature inherently passing WP:BIO was put there for a reason. Members of the House of Lords who never took their seats, never showed any interest in politics and in one case died so soon after getting the title that he couldn't have gone to the Lords without a bullet train clash with that reason. Please explain, if you will, how a figure who gained his role in the Lords through the death of his father and no notable achievements of his own and died before he could even physically have attended counts as a politician? He was a member of a house that he never attended, and through no achievement of his own. Ironholds (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I assume you are talking about the UK House of Lords? I don't think you should have started yet--I think it needs a good deal wider participation first. I'm reluctant to do canvassing, but the proposal that member of the HoL were never inherently notable as members of a legislature , even before the reform in 1999, is in clear contradiction of historical fact, and an example of recentism run amok. Traditional topics remain notable. If I were to make a joke about that, I could see it as a clear attempt to get me diverted from defending fiction and bilateral relations, in order to tempt me to individually defend each of the thousands of these. WP, the encyclopedia that made not only present, but past aristocracy obsolete by its own fiat. DGG (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Continuous Repayment Mortgage
Hello Dave
As regards the above article, the only authoritative source my research has been able to find is Prof Hackman's online course notes which contain the core equations of the 'continuous repayment' model.
However the mathematical methods employed may be verified in any number of Maths/Science/Engineering textbooks.
Neil Parker (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- My personal advice is that we will consider it as original research, and not suitable for an article here. But you are of course welcome to try. DGG (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC).
Your call as editing team I guess. But personally I don't think I have done any more than what I have done with some contributions on the page on Ptolemy's Theorem and Diophantus II.VIII. Namely expand a little on already well established mathematical theory. I would be most flattered by - but altogether undeserving of - the 'original research' label!
Neil Parker (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- you are welcome to try. I am not making the decision, but just giving you my advice on what I think the decision will be, & I am not always right--things here can be unpredictable. . I agree that the material is not a sensational mathematical discovery, but if it has never been expressed this way before, it meets what we call OR. Another person to consult would be User:AdamSmithee DGG (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure exactly what has 'never been expressed this way before'. In respect of mortgages, there is a clearly defined linear differential equation which has a clearly defined solution. One sets up the equation and then solves it using the well established 'magic' of Pierre Simon Laplace. Of course there are different techniques for solving LDEs and my reference source uses a method which I am not personally familiar with. But the core LDE and the resultant solution are the same in both cases. I would not expect to see any other mode of expression arriving at anything different. So where precisely is the OR ??
Neil Parker (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
change of emphasis
See my comments at ANI , and on the underlying matter at Deletion Review. I shall clear up some things I promised people, and I intend otherwise to concentrate on urging Shoemaker's Holiday to return to us-- see my comment to him at [18], and then, with his help, dealing with the various issues that gave rise to this. I'd appreciate people not asking me for assistance on other matters meanwhile. I am not experienced with arb com, but if someone does the mechanics, I'll help with the arguments for removing Stifle--not that I anticipate that much of an argument will be needed. DGG (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC) (due to personal matters, I may be inactive altogether for the next 24 hours or so. And my experience at staying away from computers while on a short holiday was sufficient beneficial to my feeling of balance, that I shall be repeating it rather frequently. If I hadn't done that, I would have followed Shoemaker out the door today.)DGG (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Need help explaining WikiCup proposal
I posted a proposal to add outlines to next year's WikiCup, and nobody there seems to understand outlines.
Help.
The Transhumanist 04:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
your comments on bilateral AfDs
with regard to your comment, are you seriously suggesting we need 20,000 of these, including the most non notable of non notables like Nauru-Monaco, Tuvalu-Ivory Coast, Bahamas-Liechtenstein? Some of the less notable have been nicely merged. the central test is [[WP:N}}, we don't keep articles for the sake of them, as per WP:NOHARM, you will see in each of these AfDs, people feverishly do google searches to find something that proves notable relations which is what keep voters should do. but plain and simple, if they don't meet WP:N, they shouldn't be on Wikipedia. thanks LibStar (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
So you're older than me?
Wow, I thought only Bishonen could come close to my age -- & that now she's gone I felt a bit like I was the Last of the Mohicans. So, would you be interested in forming an "Old Farts Cabal" & maybe terrorizing newbies into supplying us with Geritol? :-) llywrch (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- the NYC user group covers the complete range, as far as I know. DGG (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Bilateral relations articles
I'm aware of your lack of confidence in my continuation as a sysop, and I don't think I can (or should attempt to) sway you on that. However, on a separate matter, the last couple of weeks have convinced me that the continuing poisonous atmosphere of AFDs, DRVs, and other discussions on the subject of bilateral relations articles should be considered harmful. Do you think there is a (good) way to freeze all new creations and deletion discussions of these articles in favour of calm discussion before the matter goes completely out of control? If not, I can see this ending up as a trainwreck in the style of the Macedonia dispute. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Stifle, sorry I didn't answer earlier, but I was out most of the day & am just catching up. I never give up, and i would be delighted to resume or begin cooperation. I apologize for sounding snarky, but at the time I got into it, things were indeed, as you say, descending into the lower levels. I didn't even at first notice you willingness to revert. Had this been spotted earlier and your good proposal accepted, things would not have gotten to where I saw them. For an admin when challenged to be willing to fix or reconsider or let someone else take over restores a good deal of confidence; the problem is when people are stubborn. Take it as a measure of my general frustration that i implied otherwise.
I altogether agree that if one wanted to keep all the articles, the current situation is absurd, and ditto if delete, and ditto if anything in between. The only reason for continuing as we have been doing is a preference for having a random group of articles than to possibly lose one's preferred position, and that is never a good idea no matter what one's preference is--this, or fiction, or schools, or roads, or anywhere. We should argue about where to draw the line; drawing one anywhere is better than chaos.
I too have been reading Macedonia, and we can do not need a repeat. Perhaps though their hint to appoint an outside mediator and follow what is said regardless of whether one likes it is the way to go on these if absolutely necessary/. But for this question, I think we do not need that--I think we can still find a compromise. It's a new issue and positions have not yet hardened as they have on some others.
Freezing AfD has been suggested before, Proposed text:
Stifle and DGG want to jointly suggest that it would be a good idea to freeze all AfDs and related actions on these articles, and defer creating new ones. This does is not meant to inhibit adding new information to existing articles, working on deleted articles in userspace, discussing existing articles on their talk page, and discussing policy at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force We urge an uninvolved administrator to enforce this.
Post it anywhere. We can jointly spread the word. DGG (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I propose to post this on AN this evening (around 21:00 UTC, give or take). Feel free to edit. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I support your proposed post, DGG, and myself agree to neither create any new bilateral relations articles nor start any AfDs on them. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Posted; I see no reason for further delay. I plan to advertise the AN discussion at appropriate noticeboards, AFDs, and user talk pages, but will be away from my computer for a few hours. Stifle (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
subtopic
- surely you need WP:SANCTIONS to do this. correct me if I'm wrong, but if what you're proposing is based on 2 admins getting an uninvolved admin to agree, is that standard procedure? LibStar (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- IAR, my friend. toxic situations need to be stopped. People who oppose stopping them will be thought of as they deserve. Stifle and I completely disagree on this and many topics, but have a common interest in preserving Wikipedia. Do you share it? . DGG (talk)
- then bring it up for WP:SANCTIONS if you feel so strongly about it? Are you going to enforce this by using blocks because 3 admins agree?...I don't think such a path is wise. get wider community consensus first. LibStar (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I hear your advice, but will follow my own judgment about what will be most effective. Any uninvolved admin may act in an emergency, and any fair procedure is justified to protect WP. I am involved, & therefore have no intention whatsoever using admin powers on anything on this topic, and i am sure stifle realizes that also. If anyone blocks you, it won't be me. End of subtopic. DGG (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- hardly an emergency, why are you reluctant to take it to WP:SANCTIONS? Wikipedia works by established process and procedure and consensus. In effect, there is no current sanction or guideline regarding nomination of deletion of bilateral AfDs, so an admin would be pushing a fine line in using a block without any consensus or backing from arbitration committee. "If anyone blocks you" that almost sounds like a threat, such language is not appreciated especially from an admin. LibStar (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please see my comments to Stifle [19], his proposal is much more mature and sensible than what you suggested earlier today, this is not an emergency, no one is injured, a child hasn't gone missing, the hot water hasn't stopped running. Wikipedia is not life and death. the only thing here is maybe some bruised pride. I am against say an administrator Z effectively acting unilaterally because admins X and Y want that. that would produce quite a backlash. Consensus is best. LibStar (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- hardly an emergency, why are you reluctant to take it to WP:SANCTIONS? Wikipedia works by established process and procedure and consensus. In effect, there is no current sanction or guideline regarding nomination of deletion of bilateral AfDs, so an admin would be pushing a fine line in using a block without any consensus or backing from arbitration committee. "If anyone blocks you" that almost sounds like a threat, such language is not appreciated especially from an admin. LibStar (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I hear your advice, but will follow my own judgment about what will be most effective. Any uninvolved admin may act in an emergency, and any fair procedure is justified to protect WP. I am involved, & therefore have no intention whatsoever using admin powers on anything on this topic, and i am sure stifle realizes that also. If anyone blocks you, it won't be me. End of subtopic. DGG (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Your comment at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction) - well said
Just saw your comment on 08:51, 29 May 2009 - excellent! Thanks for taking out precious time to deal with this depressing situation, that a number of editors are so keen on purging fiction articles from Wikipedia. I can sure understand and fully respect if they find the fiction articles to be of such minor importance that they opt not read the articles themselves; but why they so persistently insist on deletion, hindering other people in reading the articles, is a mystery. A sincere appreciation of your work. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Lockwood edits
I saw the changes/edits you've made on my article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charles_Lockwood_(historian). Quite a big help! Thank you for dedicating some time to it, though I know it still needs some citations. I'm still working on it. As regards to omitting the subject descriptor along with his name, I'm afraid I had to keep it that way as Lockwood doesn't use a middle initial. I actually would like to request if it can be renamed to Charles Lockwood (Sustainability Authority)as it better matches his current field? Jxc5 (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that "historian" is not ideal, but we use the most generic brief form possible. Since others are an admiral and a surgeon, try "author." or "writer". You can move the page yourself. DGG (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Your message on my talk page
When I nominate academics for deletion, I use the prod-nn template for convenience. I attempt to follow WP:PROF. I will ask you not to deprod or make keep arguments based on some sort of WP:books-are-super-good-reasons-to-keep-academics rules known to and understood by you alone. Abductive (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- The template is only relevant for WP:BIO and the GNG; it is therefore not irrelevant for anyone, but it is incomplete in these cases, for it does not help with WP:PROF; the use of WP:PROF is not unique to me, but rather firm consensus asa guideline. I think I will follow my own judgment about what arguments are relevant at AfD:--the publication of books by respected academic presses shows an influence on the field and will meet WP:PROF. As for deprodding, anyone can deprod for any reason at all, & I consistently deprod any article on any subject where i think AfD is more suitable, regardless of my own opinion of whether it will pass AfD or whether it ought to. You may notice that i consider many of your prods perfectly reasonable. I do not think AfD necessary for assistant professors, once I confirm the fact of few publications or citations. It would of course help if you did that, and said so, per WP:BEFORE. At the moment, people are permitted to ignore BEFORE, but I certainly hope policy will change in this respect, and that nobody will be able to nominate for deletion unless they have made a full reasonable try, and failed. G is only the first step. DGG (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- I guess I was a little touchy about certain previous material on my talk page. However, I will point out that other people are arguing with you about using the publisher of the book (as opposed to the WorldCat holdings of the book) as evidence. For example, I think that just about every single university press is notable and respected (supposedly there are only 129 of them in the US). WP:PROF doesn't say anything about books the way that you do (there is mention in there about books needing secondary sources such as reviews to be considered under Criterion 1; see notes 4, 12 and 15 in the examples and footnotes 3 and 4) Especially note that footnote 4 says "The meaning of "substantial number of publications" and "high citation rates" is to be interpreted in line with the interpretations used by major research institutions in the awarding of tenure". Of course it is great if one gets a book out, but who else is going to publish these except the university presses? You will note that I don't contest all your deprods :) Abductive (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- The template is only relevant for WP:BIO and the GNG; it is therefore not irrelevant for anyone, but it is incomplete in these cases, for it does not help with WP:PROF; the use of WP:PROF is not unique to me, but rather firm consensus asa guideline. I think I will follow my own judgment about what arguments are relevant at AfD:--the publication of books by respected academic presses shows an influence on the field and will meet WP:PROF. As for deprodding, anyone can deprod for any reason at all, & I consistently deprod any article on any subject where i think AfD is more suitable, regardless of my own opinion of whether it will pass AfD or whether it ought to. You may notice that i consider many of your prods perfectly reasonable. I do not think AfD necessary for assistant professors, once I confirm the fact of few publications or citations. It would of course help if you did that, and said so, per WP:BEFORE. At the moment, people are permitted to ignore BEFORE, but I certainly hope policy will change in this respect, and that nobody will be able to nominate for deletion unless they have made a full reasonable try, and failed. G is only the first step. DGG (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
To expand on footnote 4. The other publishers of academic books of similar reputation are Elsevier, the academic side of Wiley/springer, the many professional societies such as the American Chemical society, the many learned european publishers such as Brill, and all the specialist publishers in art and music and some other areas. I do not consider all University presses equal, either. We tend to weigh the major presses more highly, just as the academic world does. People will often say, for example, that a single widely-held book by OUP or MIT or Princeton or Harvard is definitive proof of N. The distinction is between an academic research-level book, and a popular one, or a textbook. A popular bio, for example, will generally not make someone notable as a researcher, though it might as an author. University presses publish popular books also, particularly about the home state. It serves only as a rough screen. Note that the publishing of academic books in the humanities is so dramatically unprofitable that no press does it without multiple peer reviews, usually three at least. The importance of a book can to some extent be determined by reviews--though they tend to come a year or two or three afterwards, and also by whether libraries buy it (normally with faculty recommendation or approval), which is faster, since they do during the first year or never. These are both done by qualified people estimating the merit of the work. Ultimately, the importance is judged by the citations, but in the humanities this can take decades. We have to judge meanwhile by what objective information we have about what people in the field think notable. The sciences and the social sciences that publish in a similar fashion in journals, are very much simpler. We can judge as all academics do, by the quality of the journal published in , and the citations count. DGG (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- So, if a guy has a couple of books that are published by the best university presses, but is still an assistant prof, would it not be probable that his tenure committee did not view that as enough? How long after the book is out do we have to wait? On top of that; shouldn't very recently having published a book (without any reviews or other RS, of course) be a case of "not notable yet" and require the deletion of the article without prejudice? Abductive (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- If he did, he would immediately get promoted to associate, or leave. At research universities, one cannot remain an assistant professor more than 7 years. There are a few universities, like Harvard, which have in the past given tenure to almost nobody, but hired their associate professors from elsewhere. An assistant professor there publishes 2 books, and then gets a job at an equally good university as associate professor. Or , if he only publishes 1, a job as assistant professor elsewhere or , more usually, associate professor at a lower level university. Berkeley & Princeton, to name two I know well, usually give tenure to anyone productive enough. Sometimes they dont, for one reason or another, and the person then gets a tenured or sometimes untenured job elsewhere just like after Harvard. As you go down the scale, things get much less stringent. In many cases, the book does not have to be actually published, just accepted--a tenure committee can be friendly or difficult about this as they please--its the place where there is flexibility. Post publication reviews in the humanities tend to be very eccentric, as they are usually written to prove that the reviewer is smarter than the author. . The critical reviews are the 3 or more referees reviews and --often--competition for a subsidy--to get the book published in the first place. Where all this is discussed in great detail are in the issues of the magazines Chronicle of Higher Education, and Academe.
- Less formally, the question at tenure decision in any subject, not just the humanities, is whether the person has proven himself sufficiently that he will be an asset to the department for the rest of his career, and continue to attract graduate students and postdoctoral fellows and junior faculty. An associate professor is someone whose colleagues are reasonably confident will do so. Anyone who actually follows through on that becomes a full professor after a few years., An appointment as assistant professor in the first place is a reasonable hope that the persona will rise to the tenured level. We could rationally put the cutoff at any of the three. (and remember that this is all at first rate places. At a community college, to take the other extreme , only a fw of even the distinguished full professors are likely to be notable. Other places fit somewhere in the middle.
- My understanding of the present consensus is that full professors at good places almost always in practice get held notable, though the arguments vary. There are sometimes exceptions for fields where people here have a prejudice rightly or wrongly that they are not very demanding. I would personally support extending the same arguments to associates, on the ground that in other professions one does not have to be a star to be notable. Even the members of a state legislature are notable., though they are not political stars. That this is not recognized here is I think the bias against the formal academic world held by many WPedians. I've omitted the really difficult part--what counts as a first-rate place? Not all research universities are the least bit equal. In practice we've usually had some high degree of consensus about that here. Whether I would extend this to assistant professors as an routine matter is something i have, frankly, not myself decided. Nor will I press that, because we would need to establish the associate professors first. .DGG (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think we should have a cutoff anywhere. There are a few assistant profs who are notable, some associate profs who are notable, and a more than few full profs who are not notable. Since it takes very well informed tenure committees a few hours at least to decide on these things, how are we to be able to, being pressed for time and not experts in the field? That's why we should rely on Reliable Sources. For example, if a review article says Dr Wonka is has "revolutionized our understanding of" anything, I would take that as a lock for notability.
- According to this there are 1.7 million postsecondary teachers in the US, with an expected growth of another 0.524 million by 2014. (I know that these are not all college profs, but there must be hundreds of thousands of them, just in the US.] According to professors in the United States 29.5% for US profs are full profs. Again, this gets into the hundreds of thousands range for the worlds profs. Abductive (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- 29.5% of US profs are not full profs in major research universities. Those last three words are the key, because that's where important researchers are mostly found. Judged as a researcher, an assistant professor at Stanford is much more likely to be a notable researcher than the most distinguished person at most 4 year colleges. But you have it right about tenure committees--they are they ones to judge. We accept their judgements. Myself, i like clean categorical decisions that don't require individual debate about hundreds of thousands of entries. DGG (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
ECRI Institute
DGG-I'm sorry to hear you are encountering problems. ANything that I can help you with? Please let me know. CKKocherecri (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
AfD hell
I'm normally on the side of Delete, but of late I'm seeing AfDs brought up ridiculously early and on an earlier AfD for Ellis Watson, I saw that you had backed up my comment on that. Can you take a look at the AfDs for FACT Software International Pte Ltd, Replay Solutions and Global Adjustments. The first was created within a minute of the article, the second within five minutes, the third is a non-reason nomination, and all three were created within ten minutes by the same user. It could very well be good faith errors, but I'd like to see what you think. These AfDs have made me move from searching for articles to delete to trying to save articles on AfD! -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- this is an individual inexperienced person, and several people are joining in to teach him. The opinion of colleagues can be very persuasive. Actually, it's relative rare to see this at AfD, but much more common to do this at Speedy Deletion.--extensive discussions in the archives of its talk page, WT:CSD. It's of course much more dangerous there, since articles tagged for speedy are usually deleted within a few minutes. Some administrators,even, will delete articles that are rather obviously still in the first stages of being written. There have been various proposals for a built-in delay, but there are so many that must really be speedily deleted that its hard to balance that with catching them all. But as for AfD, the obvious solution, and one that has often been proposed on its talk page, is to require the use of WP:BEFORE when the question is notability. so far, these proposals have been always blocked by a few regular users who are accustomed to the present ways, or perhaps, are reluctant to put any impediments in the way of deletion. You might want to keep track of discussions there. Improvements are not totally impossible--we did get a switch form 5 to 7 days -- after at least 2 years of asking.
- as for your conversion, experience with a few really bad nominations does do that. I started off rather deletionist, until I encountered an almost successful deletion request for a member of the National Academy of Sciences. I was rather deletionist about fiction, also, until I saw the successful deletion of the article on the main female chanracter of War and Peace. DGG (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Toon Zone (3rd nomination)
Do you really think that less-than-one-sentence mentions are "significant third party coverage", or are you just being a rabid inclusionist again? :-P Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- discuss it at the AfD. The community will decide. As for rabid, i've done a count, and my keeps/deletes=3:1; Rabid by my book is 50:1. (And my ratio would by 2:1 except for bilateral relations). DGG (talk)
- Sorry for the accusatory tone, but it seems like almost every day I'm running into an AFD where you're the only person !voting "keep". At least you're not saying "Speedy keep, it clearly exists, nothing else matters". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- What I am basically saying, is do not delete this without careful thought, without answering possible objections, and without a chance to see if anyone else comes to speak for it.If you encounter me doing it once a day, that is less than 1:100, which is in my view a pretty moderate effort to prevent pile-on deletion. My experience here is that after several people have spoken for deletion, it sometimes takes an unusually self-confident person to say otherwise. It's not surprising that I am sometimes not supported; in articles where I know I will be supported by the community, I don't usually bother any more, but concentrate on the most difficult ones. To some extent I work as an advocate: I will say what can be said for an article. (I sometimes wonder whether we should not have someone assigned to say that for every nominated article --sometimes the author does, but xe often does that very poorly.) As such, I cannot know whether I am right or wrong until others have spoken. Considering the high proportion of articles that are nominated for deletion without thought or searching, someone is needed to check whether there might be any possible defense for them. DGG (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, the Rabies#Symptoms article confirms DGG's ratio test. The good news, TPH, is that if he really is a rabid inclusionist, you can expect him to become inactive in "two to ten days". Bongomatic 17:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Remarkable, that you and I came up with that 50:1 independently. Glad we agree on something DGG (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- What I am basically saying, is do not delete this without careful thought, without answering possible objections, and without a chance to see if anyone else comes to speak for it.If you encounter me doing it once a day, that is less than 1:100, which is in my view a pretty moderate effort to prevent pile-on deletion. My experience here is that after several people have spoken for deletion, it sometimes takes an unusually self-confident person to say otherwise. It's not surprising that I am sometimes not supported; in articles where I know I will be supported by the community, I don't usually bother any more, but concentrate on the most difficult ones. To some extent I work as an advocate: I will say what can be said for an article. (I sometimes wonder whether we should not have someone assigned to say that for every nominated article --sometimes the author does, but xe often does that very poorly.) As such, I cannot know whether I am right or wrong until others have spoken. Considering the high proportion of articles that are nominated for deletion without thought or searching, someone is needed to check whether there might be any possible defense for them. DGG (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for the accusatory tone, but it seems like almost every day I'm running into an AFD where you're the only person !voting "keep". At least you're not saying "Speedy keep, it clearly exists, nothing else matters". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
GHits in an article?
I hate asking a 2nd question like this, but I would have reverted that Wiseman edit on principle. Are you sure about its inclusion? Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- it's a hack in place of a proper expansion to show the ones that are pertinent, which are about half. It is however enough to overcome the argument there nobody refers to him, which is a proper use.
- I see, but surely all of those authors might have been calling his works rubbish, or supporting him and saying that he proves that aliens built the pyramids. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Right, it needs to be expanded with the actual citations. Anyhow, something which many scholars go to the trouble of citing the work as rubbish is notable. (a much more difficult problem is the fringe theory so weird that scholars simply ignore, and we can find no 3rd party references for). And the sources there show that the citing people cannot be all cranks. DGG (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- I see, but surely all of those authors might have been calling his works rubbish, or supporting him and saying that he proves that aliens built the pyramids. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- it's a hack in place of a proper expansion to show the ones that are pertinent, which are about half. It is however enough to overcome the argument there nobody refers to him, which is a proper use.
ECRI Institute
David - You recommended yesterday that I try again to write my ECRI Institute article with the references you found acceptable. However, when I go to Create an Article, I get a message "Unauthorized" and "This page is currently protected and can be edited or moved only by administrators." As an administrator, can you help me to go back in?
Also, we are referenced on the AHRQ website http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/epc/ecriepc.htm. It's a full page about ECRI being an Evidence-Based Practice Center (EPC). AHRQ is actually an article on Wikipedia.
Another good reference to add to JAMA and NYTimes is http://www.the-scientist.com/2008/01/01/s18/2/ Article about ECRI Institute in The Scientist.
I could really use some help with my next steps as I am happy to try again at this, as you recommended. It seems like you are really, really overloaded. Is there any other administrator who might be able to help me? Thanks, DGG 6-16-09 carolKocherecri (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- any editor can do this. it does not take an administrator. DGG (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Lockwood's Books
Hello there, David. Thank you so much for helping me fix/edit my article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lockwood_(author). I just learned that you left out the "Green Books" section? My reasons for doing that's because those books (green) are so much different from Lockwood's earlier books on architectural and urban history. Second is, 25 years has passed since the publication of his architectural history book. If this is not acceptable, I think I'll just go re-order the books so the most recent comes first and the oldest book last? Thank you. Jxc5 (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I responded on the article talk page. Please remember that anyone can edit an article, not just you and me. When I edit, I do so not an administrator with any special authority, but just an editor of some experience in knowing what will make an article that the community will consider acceptable. DGG (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Standstill
The bilateral relations standstill is in effect. Unfortunately I am busy in real life (and away for the weekend). If you want to kick off something as discussed in our emails (whether at Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Notability criteria or elsewhere), please do. If not, I'll look at it on Sunday evening. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC) I will do a draft, under a sub page Stifle-DGG Questions. Three parallel lines: A/. What sort of relationships does it cover. B/. Whether special considerations of geography and history matter, and the main issue, approached from both ends, C/. How much in the way of relationships counts/does not count. with the side issue of what sort of sources count. DGG (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I would appreciate being informed if & when these discussions begin. Thanks. Yilloslime TC 18:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Everyone will be informed. DGG (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
International Journal of General Systems
Hi DGG,
I have always kept my doubts about your removal of to the journal related scientists on the International Journal of General Systems article. Now I have raised a question about this on the articles talk page (here) and at the WikiProject Academic Journals (here). I would appreciate if your could comment there. Thank you.
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- my comment is at the Wikiproject. DGG (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thanks you. I have refraised my response, putting this rather black and white, in an attempt to get to the bottum of things. I hope you can take an other look... Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Opinion requested
Could you take a look at Brian D. Beaudreault. I de-PRODed the article because I was unsure if he ould be considered notable or not. He has some news mentions at GNews, but nothing super significant. I couldn't find any AfDs on U.S. military officers to serve as guidance, and thought you might have a better idea.
Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- the general practice seems to be that under the rank of major-general, and without very high level decorations, they are not kept unless there is some special reason for notability, such as being in charge of a really major newsworthy special operation, or of some personal distinctiveness. I do not see any of this-- he seems to not have any notability apart from his unit. Agreed, it's a notable unit. For some reason I do not understand, the articles on these MEUs do not contain a list of the successive commanders. By analogy to other organizations, I would have thought it reasonable to add them. Army units of the same size seem to have such lists, eg. 1st Cavalry Regiment (United States) DGG (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to weigh in for a moment, as the editor who prodded the article. In general, the notability requirements for biographies, and specifically military biographies, requires the individual to have some kind of recognition beyond his or her peers (for example, what makes this guy more notable than the 700 or so other Marine Colonels?). I figured it was pretty black and white: no signifcant awards, no significant events associated with him, no especially notable commands, no major contributions to any field. He could be just about any other officer.
- I do agree that MEUs are probably the most notable of Marine units. However, I don't think a reference exists that lists the names of past commanders, at least not accessible to the general public. If one were to exist, I'd be happy to edit the articles and add them. Thanks, bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- that business, notable beyond his peers, does not seem to be to be logical--a 2nd lt. needs to be notable beyond other 2nd lts, and a lt. gen. beyond other lt. gen.? The 2 groups are not comparable. To revert to my own field, it's like saying we judge the notability of asst. professors by comparing them with other assistant professors, and the top 1/2 or 1/3 or 1/10 of them are notable--in reality it's many fewer than that. You've said two different things above; you've compared to the other colonels, and to just officers. If the group is all Marines officers, then certainly only a small percentage of them are Colonels. 5% ? I tend to look at this as selecting the top rank or ranks of the profession, but we surely don't mean full generals only, or just Distinguished Professors. Numerically, it takes 2 factors: , what is the overall group (e.g. officers or career officers), and what percentage do we want of them. Non-numerically, it takes figuring out at what level it corresponds to some meaning of distinguished. I don't like to go by the GNG, because then the factor is how efficient is the publicity apparatus in the field concerned, and what level publication counts as a discriminating reliable source. At least the US military takes care of one problem for us: the availability of reliable copyright-cleared material, text and especially photos. I wish other fields had something like their standard of free published biographic information. DGG (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think you may have misunderstood; the rank comparison was just an example. The term "peers" could be as narrow or as wide as the circumstance requires, though we could alter it, to say, just include MEU commanders or widen it to officers of LtCol or higher. There are a great many officers in the United States military, and they are not all notable, even those in the upper ranks. Given that we can't reasonably have biographies on every single individual or even most individuals, we have to pick and choose whom to have articles on... thus the notability criteria. I think my point was rather that this individual has no more notability than any other average officer; and that if we were to judge him notable, we would be changing the standard of notability to include a huge number of other individuals as well. I understand that the "other articles exist" argument is considered weak by many, but at this time, I don't think it makes much sense to have seemingly random exceptions to the rule. I was in no way stating that rank makes notability, though coincidentally, the higher ranking individuals (such as generals) usually hold a post important enough to make them notable.
- Perhaps I can rephrase what I said: ...requires the individual to have some kind of recognition beyond his or her peers, adjusted for the size and importance of that peerage. If you'd like, you can take a look at the demographics and make some statistical analysis (3.55% of officers are colonels, BTW). All for grades of general are lumped together, but I happen to know that the Corps only has four four-star generals currently, all of whom have established notability; on the flip side, there are nearly 40,000 Lance Corporals, and I'd be suprised if more than a dozen have biographies. What makes a private notable above his peers may not make him notable enough for Wikipedia.
- I am in agreement with you regarding public sourcing. Like you say, publicity doesn't always equate to notability, and lack of publicity doesn't always equate lack of notability. There is one drawback to using military biographical information in Wikipedia, however, being that any given bio is likely to be a few years out of date, but with the proliferation of internet news services, you can usually find an archive of just about every minor press release on the most obscure military individual. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 08:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- We were both giving examples to try to find a way of expressing what we meant. I too do not want to greatly increase the standard for individual bios in general--we have too much filling in to do for the people who qualify--just look at all the earlier Olympic athletes without articles. I am not an inclusionist in that sense, though some people mistakenly think I am. But do you think that we should not recognize the standards of a profession, to the extent that whomever they consider suitably qualified for the highest ranks is notable? (At least in those professions that do have ranks of some sort.) IIs it really coincidental that the people at the highest formal ranks have the most important positions in an hierarchical structure?. Even when someone is promoted for reasons unrelated to competence, aren't they still given a job to correspond to the rank?). It's then a matter of picking a rank above which they are appropriate for inclusion, and saying that below it requires something special. (e.g. for business executives we certainly ought to consider a CEO of a Fortune 500 company notable, but below that, it varies, and we can use other criteria--even including that of extensive publicity, on the basis that if there is enough publicity, a user might look here to get information.)
- I'm not happy with the concept of notability being recognition outside one's specific area. (I don't think you mean peers in the sense of those of the same rank.) It depends on what one calls the specific area. Army officers known to people in the Navy? or to those who follow military affairs? or to the general public? If it's the latter, almost no one in the military or academic world or business world is notable--just politicians and actors. Where that concept does work is for local figures--a person has to be known outside their village--one place where I completely agree with the current formal standard. DGG (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- that business, notable beyond his peers, does not seem to be to be logical--a 2nd lt. needs to be notable beyond other 2nd lts, and a lt. gen. beyond other lt. gen.? The 2 groups are not comparable. To revert to my own field, it's like saying we judge the notability of asst. professors by comparing them with other assistant professors, and the top 1/2 or 1/3 or 1/10 of them are notable--in reality it's many fewer than that. You've said two different things above; you've compared to the other colonels, and to just officers. If the group is all Marines officers, then certainly only a small percentage of them are Colonels. 5% ? I tend to look at this as selecting the top rank or ranks of the profession, but we surely don't mean full generals only, or just Distinguished Professors. Numerically, it takes 2 factors: , what is the overall group (e.g. officers or career officers), and what percentage do we want of them. Non-numerically, it takes figuring out at what level it corresponds to some meaning of distinguished. I don't like to go by the GNG, because then the factor is how efficient is the publicity apparatus in the field concerned, and what level publication counts as a discriminating reliable source. At least the US military takes care of one problem for us: the availability of reliable copyright-cleared material, text and especially photos. I wish other fields had something like their standard of free published biographic information. DGG (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the detail opinions DGG & Bahamut0013. I went ahead and nominated the article for deletion with no opinion expressed myself, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_D._Beaudreault. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Recreating an article
I'd like to recreate the Devendra Prabhudesai article. It was a close AfD discussion, to the best of my recollection, and I think the wrong decision was made. But regardless, this June 7 story in the Hindu [20] and this one from April [21] certainly go a long way to establish notability. I already have the article in my userspace, but I don't want to violate GFDL by recreating without the edit history. I hope all is well with you. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I replaced your userspace article with the one carrying the history and incorporating your modifications. Next time, please ask to have it done this way in the first place, rather than copy and paste. DGG (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Okay. Will do. Roger roger. Thank you very much. As always. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I replaced your userspace article with the one carrying the history and incorporating your modifications. Next time, please ask to have it done this way in the first place, rather than copy and paste. DGG (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Happy DGG's Day!
![]() |
User:DGG has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Mazel tov! Bearian (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Can I chime in? Gefeliciteerd! Drmies (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Much deserved! --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Congrats DCG... Keep up the good work :) -- Tinu Cherian - 09:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Happy your day !!!! Pohick2 (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Congrats DCG... Keep up the good work :) -- Tinu Cherian - 09:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Care to revisit the article and advise? I cannot speak toward the other episodes as they do not all have articles, but I think I made this one a squeeker. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- good rewrite job, either way. But I have no information about the importance of the series, so it makes it hard to evaluate by the sensible criteria I want to use , Masem's 3-way test: importance of the overall work, importance of the part or element or episode, and sources. . DGG (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
MIT Journal for consideration
Hi, me again. I understand that one of your specialties is on scientific journal. Please take a look at this one http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0022-2526, which ranks very high, and is sponsored by MIT, thus with solid backing. See if you may want to include it in WP. --EJohn59 (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)EJohn
- Sure, just write the article after the pattern of the other journal articles. I'll take a look that you get it right. Let me know when ready. DGG (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please see draft on my talk page. I saw somewhere about the name change, but cannot find the ref now. Maybe you can help, or I'll write to the editor.--EJohn59 (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)EJohn
- It's enough to show notability, because of the ISI rank. If you can find the previous editors, add them all. See if they have WP articles yet, and link. DGG (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- OK, David, I put it up. See Studies in Applied Mathematics. It turns out there has been only one Editor since 1969, when the Journal adopted the new name, as confirmed on the MIT Math Dept web site. My friend wrote to them and is still waiting for their response on the Founding Editor in its previous incarnation, ie, MIT J. of Math & Phys.--EJohn59 (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)EJohn
- now do the proper journal infobox--copy the format from another journal. The journal cover is an acceptable illustration, but add it with the same copyright justification as used for other journal covers. DGG (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- infobox added but sorry I don't know how to add image.--EJohn59 (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)EJohn
A Treasure Trove
First, thanks for your assistence at Catherine Hakim. The author is a friend and he is on his Honeymoon. The threatened speedy delete would have been a dissapointment I'm sure. (While Im a member of the Article Rescue Squad, I do my best to stay out of the fray that surrounds deleting/improving) Second, I plan on "ingesting" your talk pages. What little I have read are lessons on sane wikiediting. Thank you for sharing yourself with us.--Buster7 (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- you might then in particular want to see my topical archives listed at the start of the page, where I have pulled out some discussions of some recurring subjects. I support your approach , that it is more important to improve what is improvable (while deleting the junk) than to argue about them. DGG (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The same guy nominated this for speedy after you declined. I declined and cleaned it up, removing blank links (like he could have done rather than tag it, argh). Any way, you may want to keep an eye on it to see if he goes for a third-time's-a-charm approach. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to draw your attention...
... to WP:SJ, a rather old essay of mine that I decided was ready to move to mainspace.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- WP space, you mean. I suggest you add some references to the discussions at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals the relevant parts of WP:RS, & the great many discussions at WT:RS and the RS and FRINGE noticeboards. . I assume you've seen the key problem areas at pseudoscience, controversies over psychiatric & psychiatric medicines, and ethnic controversies. Do you intend this as a revision of guidelines, or an explanation of them? I'll take a further look in a day or two. DGG (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, WP space.
With contributions only from me and Drmies, it's not ready to be a revision of guidelines. All it can be at this stage is a counterpoint.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, WP space.
- WP space, you mean. I suggest you add some references to the discussions at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals the relevant parts of WP:RS, & the great many discussions at WT:RS and the RS and FRINGE noticeboards. . I assume you've seen the key problem areas at pseudoscience, controversies over psychiatric & psychiatric medicines, and ethnic controversies. Do you intend this as a revision of guidelines, or an explanation of them? I'll take a further look in a day or two. DGG (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Asteroid stubs
I was told:
Please do not re-add speedy deletion tags to articles where they have been removed by a neutral editor as you did with 7528 Huskvarna. If you think the article should be deleted, nominate it at WP:AFD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
where it will undoubtedly be kept, like the several thousand other such asteroids in Category:Asteroid stubs. DGG (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Before I start the AfD, could someone tell me why a robot was allowed to run amuck and create what appears to be several thousand totally useless articles? Are we letting robots write the encyclopedia now? Does anyone care about these? Does anyone other than robots read these articles? What possible benefit is it to the encyclopedia to clone data that was safely buried in an on-line database and fan it out into inefficient text? Why aren't these merged into the equally useless List of asteroids? What's next, stub aticles for every licence plate going past someone's window? A link to the last AfD nomination for these stubs would be very illuminating. Junk like this I think adversely impacts the credibility of the Wikipedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- If I may butt in.. the goal of the project is to provide a free summary of all notable human knowledge. Many things (esp. scientific topics) are notable even if very few people care about them. Not being popular/well-known isn't the same thing as not being notable. In can reasonably be argued that all astrological bodies fit into this automatically notable category. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I was not saying that itwas my opinion that the asteroid stubs should be kept, I was rather telling you on the basis of experience and previous challenges to them that they undoubtedly will be--I would strongly advise you to read the arguments in other discussions both for individual ones and some of the lists. If anything, I think consensus is even stronger for this than in previous discussions. I would give you this advice regardless of my own views on the matter--I try to give the most accurate advice I can based on what I think is likely to happen here. If someone asks me what policy or practice here is , I tell them what it is, not what I want it to be. Anything else would be irresponsible. This is not a robot running amok, which has happened, but a well-considered, well-planned, and accepted project.
- if you want to know my own views on the matter, I think that all named astronomical objects are important, and should be considered here as notable-- though I admit there may be a problem when it comes to galaxies and individual starts in all of them, especially if the number is in fact infinite. (Even so, there will never be an infinite number with names and identities.) This is an encyclopedia of both the real world and the world of human imagination. The objects of astronomy are basic to the real universe. And a considerable number of people care about them, and have cared about them since the dawn of history & probably before. Even now, astronomy is a major hobby in most countries. Probably 90% of the encyclopedia is of no actual interest to me. And so it will be for any one individual. Our success is as a group project. DGG (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- There's a discussion on this at WT:ASTRO (currently taking up most of the talk page) 76.66.203.200 (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Call for opinion on a neutrality accusation in a human genetics related article
As a fellow member of the WikiProject HGH may I ask for opinions on this accusation?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi David, you can check your email for some recent developments on this. Thanks!--Pharos (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for saving the article about Christopher Martenson from deletion! --Лъчезар (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG; I don't think I'm hallucinating...the text is an almost exact transcription of the two web sites noted in the speedy deletion nomination. Thanks for your attention, JNW (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- sorry, I only saw the first of the two sites. Thanks for correcting me. It's gone now. DGG (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. It's back up again, apparently in identical form... JNW (talk) 03:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've now protected the article against re-creation under the same name. It might be useful to check the users other contributions, since they seem to be on the same general subject. While we don't want to lose a specialist contributor, if he's adding copyvio, he has to be stopped. DGG (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. It's back up again, apparently in identical form... JNW (talk) 03:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- sorry, I only saw the first of the two sites. Thanks for correcting me. It's gone now. DGG (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
DGG/JNW, This content I am adding is not just copy and paste. The web site http://mohapsa.tripod.com/rpmohapatra is the web site developed and maintened by my self. I thought it would be easier for me to add things in stead of writing it again. I am currently adding stuff and put the hangon tag on top so that you guys show enough courtsey till I finish. He was a very notable archaeologist whose contribution is very significant for Orissan Archaeology, Art, Culture and History. I am fully aware of the and believe on copy right violation on Wiki. So definitely I will not add any thing that is in-appropriate.
Trust this will give you enough reason. Thanks in advance for your co-operation.
- Please see WP:COPYRIGHT. The easiest way of handling this is to put a license for GFDL and CC-BY 2.0 on the web page. Copyrighht is one of the things where we have to follow the rules. Let me know when you;ve done that, and i will restore the article. DGG (talk) 04:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
DGG can you please let me know how I can put a license for GFDL and CC-BY 2.0 on the web page. Once I got to know how I can do that I will put the request right away.
Appreciate your help on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikoo s (talk • contribs) 14:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I have already sent an e-mail and placed a licence for GFDL and CC-BY-SA CC-BY 2.0 on my webpage http://mohapsa.tripod.com/rpmohapatra. Can you please restore my page on Dr. Ramesh Prasad Mohapatra at the earliest.
Thanks in advance..--Tikoo s (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
DGG I have been waiting for your action on my article. Please let me know when that can be taken care of.--Tikoo s (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
No issue just let me know when you do it!!--Tikoo s (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Too long, but you read it anyway
Thank you for your very courteous comment of support at WP:RFC/PAID#Statement by TheGrappler. It's extremely reassuring to find that somebody actually spent the time to read through the "tldr" section, cogitated upon it, and found it worthy of comment (and indeed praise, though for the time I invested in writing it, I would have been pleased even to receive a criticism!). Rather like you, I'm a reasonable person with a studiously considered (but hopefully open-minded) approach to Wikipedia; unfortunately I'm not so good at expressing that approach concisely! I've long admired your tactful and intelligent contributions, so your words were especially appreciated. Regards, TheGrappler (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
You objected, so go look at what I did with the consensus section and let me know what you think. If we can work forward from here rather than just reverting to what it was, I think that would be best. Gigs (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- it's difficult to express the necessary caveats concisely. I made a qualification to the citation index section, but I despair sometimes of any way to word exactly what is after all a matter of judgment, requiring both knowledge of a subject and experience with the literature. My preferred approach to the general matter is that there are relative degrees of reliability, not two classes. I'll look more. Let's think of it not as reversion, but successive approximation.DGG (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
World Policy Journal
Hey DGG, saw that you made some edits to the Journal's page and I was wondering if you could just read through these edits and let me know what you think! Thanks!
In the Fall of 2008, World Policy Journal celebrated its 25th anniversary under newly appointed editor David Andelman. The Journal acts as the flagship quarterly publication of the World Policy Institute, a non-partisan, progressive global think tank. By identifying and promoting new ideas and voices from countries around the world, World Policy Journal aims to educate the public and policy makers about the importance of an internationalist perspective; about the human impact of international policies; and about policy options rooted in equity, social justice, and broad civil society participation.
With readership among opinion leaders, media, and policy makers, World Policy Journal seeks to elevate the debate on critical shared global issues including migration, climate change, technology, economic development, human rights, and counter-terrorism. These issues require fresh thinking that transcends the traditional foreign-versus-domestic divide, is rooted in an embrace of shared self-interest, and brings to bear diverse global perspectives.
Its audience includes senior policy makers, members of the media, scholars, and other opinion leaders. In a 2002 article, The New York Times described World Policy Journal as "one of the voices of dissent in how the United States carries out the war on terror abroad." James F. Hoge Jr., the editor of Foreign Affairs, which publishes articles by more mainstream political figures, said, "The World Policy Journal has little of the money or reach of Foreign Affairs, its august rival uptown. But it has a place. It is a thoughtful journal.” He continued: "It makes an effort to get views that may not find a home in more established publications like ours."
In June 2008, World Policy Journal named veteran foreign correspondent, author and editor David A. Andelman as its fourth editor. Through a new blog, RSS feed, additional visual media, better use of archival content to impact current affairs debates, and cross-linking and content exchanges with a network of like-minded institutions around the world, The Journal is exploring better and easier ways to reach out to readers. A forthcoming grant from the MacArthur Foundation will support the upgrade and redesign of www.worldpolicy.org toward these ends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pltom (talk • contribs) 20:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- This is exactly the material I removed or rewrote a day or two ago, because it was promotional. Let's go sentence by sentence. The name of the editor is already there. That it's the 25th anniversary in 08 is obvious from the date it started. That he's a new ed. is obvious fro the dates also. The journal's high aims are not encyclopedic content: what the journals has done that is notable is encyclopedic content. The 2nd paragraph is thus irrelevant promotional language. That it reaches scholars and opinion makes is normally just a promotional statement also, unless you have published statistical evidence from 3rd party sources that it does it particularly well-- that might be worth considering. . The NYT reference is already in the article. It's a good one. What Hoge said to the NYT is already in the article. It's a very good quote indeed, and few journals could have something as useful as that to cite. I highlighted it in the article at the top of a section. The way to get Adelman's experience discussed is to write an article on him. As editor of this journal, he's notable. That the journal has a blog and RSS feed is no longer the least distinctive, though I put the blog in as an external link, and could add the feed somewhere. That it has a grant is notable, when you have gotten it and it gets announced in some other published source than your journal.
- There's some more material needed: the exact ref to the CRS article, and a list of all 9 of the notable articles it cites, with full bibliographic references for each of them. To show off your archive, there can & should be links to where each of them is on your site. That's factual, and much better than merely saying you have a good archive. Very few journals have such a sourced list--it provides useful & interesting information and can be used to support other articles also. And we need bio articles of the earlier editors also. All the bios should include that they were editors of this journal, and have a link to this article.
- Presumably you have some experience in public relations or advertising. But the style that uis accepted there does not work in an encyclopedia. What you wrote is puffery: self-praise, and vague generalities, and lofty ambitions, full of adjectives, repeating the full name of the journal frequently, and with elegant sentences. Those all the hall-marks of bad writing for an encyclopedia. If readers see these, they'll recognize the style immediately and think, "oh, just another advertisement," which does not help you and greatly harms us. We shouldn't have the puffery, and we need plain factual informative writing. This is not a place to publicize your journal. It's a place to have information about it, because it's important. The information if presented plainly will show why it's important, This is a different medium. Learn to use it. And for further advice see our FAQ about businesses, other organisations, and articles like this. It was written mainly by Durova , who understands very well how to do these things here, and who taught me and many of us here a great deal about what makes effective encyclopedia articles about organizations. You can learn from her also. DGG (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the quick response and very helpful advise! I'll be sure to keep all this in mind when re-writing it. Again thanks for your time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.115.253.186 (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Wiki-Conference New York Update: 3 weeks to go
For those of you who signed up early, Wiki-Conference New York has been confirmed for the weekend of July 25-26 at New York University, and we have Jimmy Wales signed on as a keynote speaker.
There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Drafted an essay, feel free to tinker. I've announced it at the pump, added it to WP:N, will mention it on the mailing list and ask signpost to mention it. I'll whack it on cent, and then I think I'm out of here for a while. It's too exhausting. Hiding T 10:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I did tinker, as you can see. The main change is to specify clearly that WP:N is a guideline, and the GNG is only one part of it, while IAR is policy. Guidelines already intrinsically not only admit of exception, but are written with the intention of there being exceptions. I'm divided between making it a general statement for all articles , or making it specific to fiction--I may try for a combination. Now, I've long known that I ought to do my own, but for some peculiarity I find it easier to rewrite formal statements than to write them from scratch. So I really thanks you for this. If I have expressed something radically different from what you want to say, just revert, and I will move my version to a separate essay. I would like to add a paragraph of alternatives to deletion such as merging--but here I may perhaps diverge from what you want to say, because I've lately become a mergest for many of these smaller topics. When I do write my own, it will be from the standpoint of inclusion of content, not of articles. DGG (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Tinker to your heart's content. Masem has already been in and tinkered too, but you should feel free to add or remove whatever you want; I'm a fundamental believer in revising rather than reverting. I doubt you'll diverge too far from me, at heart I've always been a mergist with inclusionist leanings, which I think is not too far from your approach to cause us severe problems. I'll doubt I'll make many more edits to the page; consider it yours to do with what you want, even to the extent of ignoring it to finally write up your own thoughts. I'd truly love to see that, and perhaps even tinker with it if the mood catches me. Saying that, I'm feeling burnt out again, so I'll probably relax and recharge. Hiding T 15:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I did tinker, as you can see. The main change is to specify clearly that WP:N is a guideline, and the GNG is only one part of it, while IAR is policy. Guidelines already intrinsically not only admit of exception, but are written with the intention of there being exceptions. I'm divided between making it a general statement for all articles , or making it specific to fiction--I may try for a combination. Now, I've long known that I ought to do my own, but for some peculiarity I find it easier to rewrite formal statements than to write them from scratch. So I really thanks you for this. If I have expressed something radically different from what you want to say, just revert, and I will move my version to a separate essay. I would like to add a paragraph of alternatives to deletion such as merging--but here I may perhaps diverge from what you want to say, because I've lately become a mergest for many of these smaller topics. When I do write my own, it will be from the standpoint of inclusion of content, not of articles. DGG (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
List of authors ...
DGG. I'm sorry if my "lists are evil" opinion has rubbed you the wrong way. However I fail to see how this list is anything like the non-controversial and readily verified lists the encyclopedia does maintain. A very tiny minority of author/literature lists I can see include the type of politicized components this one does. The ones that do are direct in categorizing authors as part of an identifiable movement -- "ecofeminist" and "feminist" being the obvious examples I can find. This list is in reference to a politicized stance that does not have this amount of definition and is rather purposefully not identified with a movement of any kind -- simply those "opposing cults". What definition of "cult"? Which groups can accurately be included in the category? Is it if fair to imply a general opposition to all groups in the category even if the opposition is to a very specific group? In terms of the last question, if we start making notes about specifics as you suggest then we are consciously engaging in the kind WP:OR I am opposing because we are saying ... well Burroughs was opposed to Scientology but in our view Scientology is a cult hence this is included. Anyway, I hope you are not arguing only with my dumb general opinion about lists. As you correctly point out the AFD is about a specific list. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I also want to point out that I am going to disengage on the AfD page completely whether or not you respond there. I have a tendency to argue ad infinitum ... one of the many reasons I should just stay retired. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I acknowledged your changes at the AfD page. I recognize that this list is more problematic than most. The 2 articles I checked had sourced quotations for "anti-cult". We necessarily do OR every time we need to give a single defining phrase or characterization, and a great many list and category problems come from this--nationalities, religions, sexuality. But those lists and categories are useful nonetheless, and useful is a valid criterion for a list. (in general I agree that a lot of lame arguments come over just what defining phrase to use--e.g "pseudoscience". In defining anything contentious, in practice we necessarily use OR, because there are almost always multiple definitions available. so it's accepted that one can use OR to discuss and justify what article content should be, & on talk pages. NOR applies only to the content of articles. Even so, we cannot wholly avoid OR in writing such articles, even if we rely entirely on sourced quotations, because there is always the need to select whom to quote. And in discussion we use OR every time we discuss whether references for something are reliable, or give significant coverage. I'm not writing this out as a quarrel, but as an explanation of my view. DGG (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes there are a lot of gradations of OR going on all the time all over the encyclopedia and they are clearly necessary to get things done. Clearly we rely on our own abilities to interpret a variety of sources for a variety of reasons. However, as you allude to above, this becomes an issue when dealing with contentious subjects. In terms of the content of this particular list I have been maintaining for years that our most reliable sources are heavily weighted against the utility of the term "cult" when used in this capacity -- out there in culture it is inconsistently used, it is usually a pejorative, it has lost its initial sociological meaning, it is often associated with false and/or exaggerated attributes, etc. Even scholars who would like to rescue the term acknowledge what has become of it over the past few decades. From this perspective it is not a "useful" defining attribute for a list, and the most reliable sources on the topic tell us so. So why do we have a list like this one if it is based on such a shaky and biased category for inclusion? Because editors with an agenda like to WP:COATRACK whatever benefits their POV. "Cult" and NRM related editing here at Wikipedia is some of the worst all around - right up there with nationalist crankery. The unfortunate difference is in the value given to scholarship in these two arenas. "Neutral" editors and administrators supporting the "scholarly" perspective are usually respected as expressing the academic POV in nationalist skirmishes. Also, both real sides of the POV war are seen for what they are. In the NRM arena very little respect is given to anyone who supports a "scholarly" POV. "Cult critics" lump scholars who don't agree with them in with "group members", just as any nationalist would lump scholars who don't agree with them in with their political enemy. The difference is that in the NRM arena no one questions this logic. Two sides emerge (instead of three), and most scholarship ends up on the side of the fence that is most heavily identified with an obvious COI -- the adherent side. In the end it becomes completely impossible for the third voice to mediate a thing. In fact the third voice is hampered by the fact that while two POV sides are identified one is watched with much more suspicion than the other ... and this is the side scholarship is often associated with (the adherent side). In my humble view this arena of editing is perhaps one the most anti-intellectual we have. The encyclopedia should vigilantly defend its credibility against COI editing by NRM group members, but it needs to equally defend itself against their critics. When it doesn't we end up with lists like this one. Note: I am likewise writing this as an explanation of my views ... or at least providing some context for them.PelleSmith (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- I acknowledged your changes at the AfD page. I recognize that this list is more problematic than most. The 2 articles I checked had sourced quotations for "anti-cult". We necessarily do OR every time we need to give a single defining phrase or characterization, and a great many list and category problems come from this--nationalities, religions, sexuality. But those lists and categories are useful nonetheless, and useful is a valid criterion for a list. (in general I agree that a lot of lame arguments come over just what defining phrase to use--e.g "pseudoscience". In defining anything contentious, in practice we necessarily use OR, because there are almost always multiple definitions available. so it's accepted that one can use OR to discuss and justify what article content should be, & on talk pages. NOR applies only to the content of articles. Even so, we cannot wholly avoid OR in writing such articles, even if we rely entirely on sourced quotations, because there is always the need to select whom to quote. And in discussion we use OR every time we discuss whether references for something are reliable, or give significant coverage. I'm not writing this out as a quarrel, but as an explanation of my view. DGG (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Journals
Hi David, I'm wondering if there are particular notability criteria that apply to journals, and think you might know the answer, (or at least have a view). I'm concerned about a brewing edit-squabble at Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. pablohablo. 19:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi David I was going to update the Seduction Community article with the new things happening within the seduction community but the page is protected due to excessive spamming. I don't know what the situation was with spamming but if you could unprotect it that would be great, though I understand it is necessary to keep the money-grabbing dirty spammers out of Wikipedia. Anyway the content I wanted to add dealt with Johnny Soporno and his radical theories on equality and relationships, and his unusual porn slant which he is introducing into pickup and the general ties to pornography that have been established recently (Hoobie of RSD's porn and pickup hybrid website is an example of this trend). Also Adam Lyons' new theories on social proof and their application to club game, as well as his curious formula for attraction that he has developed. I also wanted to add information about the trend of recording pickups on video and the online culture behind this. There is also the trend of hiring female trainers now pioneered largely by PUATraining. Anyway I hope you consider unprotecting the page, in case you feel it is better to keep it shut I'll have a read up on the {editprotected} thing. Thanks for your time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DRosin (talk • contribs) 00:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- If there are a few distinct blocks of text, then the thing to do is to put them on the talk page. If there are a number of little changes, then thats not as effective, obviously.
do you have reliable sources for all of these? It would be good to see them on the page there, because, not being part of the community, I can not otherwise tell what is or isn't spam. DGG (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
socionics AN/I discussion
you may wish to comment on the newly created administrator's noticeboard incident discussion regarding the conduct of User:Tcaudilllg and User:Rmcnew in relation to the page socionics, located here. Thanks. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
You had asked a question about the searches, on this AfD, I've responded, you can take a look at the AfD. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Socionics AfD
I noted your comment on ANI - I was actually going to close it as Keep but I thought that given the amount of friction on the AfD - there were actually quite a few Deletes and Merges - that N/C was probably a less contentious close :) It's undoubtedly notable, though. Black Kite 23:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Seduction community- added content to talk page for review
I've added some proposed content to the talk page of seduction community like you recommended. I've tried to find good references, it would be interesting to see what you think of the content. Thanks for reading and I happy 4th of July! DRosin (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
User awards
Hi, David, I'm looking for some admin guidance on giving a user award. A few users went out of their way to be kind and helpful to me in a contretemps at AN this morning, and I wanted to express gratitude to them. Can I, as an individual user and of my own initiative, bestow one of the awards listed at Wikipedia:Personal user awards/General PUA on a user, or is there some kind of process? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- they are purely personal expressions. you may award anything to anyone, except the few people who have specified in advance they do not want them. DGG (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thankyou! :) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Tayzen ban proposal
You may want to complete the second comment you made here. MER-C 05:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- replied by emailDGG (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Roman K. Kovalev
If this gets nommed for deletion review, can you let me know? I don't think this should have been deleted. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. But I wouldn't go to deletion review -- it could be said he just went by the !votes, and not enough people who would have wanted to keep participated --which can be interpreted to mean they did not care enough or feel strongly enough. There is a better way: What I think is needed is to find some references to his work by looking in likely books, though this may take a while. Then it escapes G4. I find there is a distinct misunderstanding here about Central Asia--I have been unable to successfully defend articles about scholars working on it, or journals in that field, because there are so few scholars and consequently so few references--and the literature is in large part in languages & most people here can barely read, such as Russian, or cannot read at all, such as Turkish & Persian & probably Chinese & Urdu. (perhaps that need for languages explains why there are so few people in the field!). The needis to get it recognized that in the more obscure fields a half-dozen good articles & a book are notability, references or not. DGG (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- and there's an interesting alternative: Citizendium, which has no notability policy: Cz Topic Choice. Do you want a copy of the article to put there? Or maybe I will. The licenses are now compatible. DGG (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't use Citizendum and am busy enough with wikipedia! :) I suspect the reasons you gave and the status of the school and the way the article looked like a cv made this academic's article vulnerable. He's one of those scholars who hasn't got to the stage of their career where they have written monographs (which will come in time), but is producing shorter detailed works (articles) on small topics. He is however the editor of Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, which can't be that bad because Thomas Noonan -- a famous scholar of the topic-- has contributed too. Certainly beats, say, Michael Simmons (author) in terms of notability. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Your comments on sourcing
Could you revisit your remarks on sourcing in Dave's recent RfA? You seem to confuse oversourcing, which you rightly complain about, with supplying sources that do not support the claims in the text. The latter is very bad. A footnote is like a seal of quality control. Many people do not read them, but note their existence and feel reassured of the quality and reliability and verifiability of what they are reading because of it. To supply notes that actually do not support the claim is very bad. Please rethink (perhaps I have misunderstood your point, of course). Peter Damian (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Agree; I'd come here to make a similar point. My issue isn't with unsourced statements – which are acceptable, providing a source can be provided if requested – but with adding sources which don't actually say what they're claimed to say, which is a completely different matter and IMO betrays a misunderstanding of core policies (much the same situation as the FlyingToaster situation a couple of months ago). – iridescent 10:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- changed to weak support, on the basis of relative inexperience. I will consider further. DGG (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have checked what I think the most serious accusation; see my comment there. [22]. DGG (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- changed to weak support, on the basis of relative inexperience. I will consider further. DGG (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Up an running :) Jeepday (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
World War 3
I just started it. The other day I made a casual attempt to salvage a minor article of no great importance, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lebanon–Uruguay relations! Think I will just close the door and tiptoe away. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- well, see the reasons I gave there for not trying to find a compromise, though I will agree to any reasonable compromise that has significant support. One way of establishing policy is by accepted example, and I thin people might accept this article. DGG (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Saw your comment, and agree - although I can't feel strongly about this particular article. I think there are in fact only about 4,000 significant pairings - maybe 15 per country on average - based on slogging through all the "Foreign relations of" articles and most of the "X-Y relations" articles trying to start cleaning them up. Some countries, such as the USA or Russia, have relations with most of the other 200. But a lot of the smaller countries simply can't justify the cost of embassies, treaties etc. and deal with each other through supranational bodies like the WTO, African Union etc. It is a bit depressing to see how poor many of the articles are. A lot of bias and a lot of gaps.
I had stayed away from AfD discussions for a while, so this one came as a shock to me. So much passion! To me, in AfD you should just apply the normal criteria - verifiable, notable, balanced etc. Weed out the unsourced articles on truly trivial subjects and biased ones that could do harm, and leave the rest. Oh well. -( Aymatth2 (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- The reason the articles are so poor is that they were all foolishly introduced by one particular editor, who apparently did them mechanically from a database, and contained only the minimum information. To try to improve that many articles quickly is beyond us--to do it slowly is something we are capable of. The problem is exacerbated by most of the relevant material being in the languages of the countries involved , and rarely on the web. It therefore requires serious work, and not that many here are able & willing to do it. I could, but I do not think it as important as other things I could do with similar work. Had they been written more slowly and carefully, it could have been handled. Bot production of articles has worked in a few cases, but not always. Anyone proposing to write a large number of similar articles, mechanically or manually, should test the water, and use the feedback from the first few, and as the work progresses.
- As for the number of articles, it wouldn't be literally 200 × 200 ÷ 2 = 20,000, but more a case of (20 × 200) + (150 × 100) + (30 × 10) = 12 or 15,000, removing the duplicates. In other words, the major states with everyone, the middle important with the ones not totally outside their range of interest, and the mini-states with their neighbors. DGG (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
On numbers, my guess is lower. Doesn't matter - time will tell. On quality, I don't entirely agree.
- The typical mechanical stubs are, in a sense, not too bad. They give basic standardized information: dates and embassy locations. Nothing like proper coverage, but at least not really objectionable.
- I dislike many of the "X-United States relations" article, which tend to say (pompously) only how the US perceives and deals with the target country, but nothing about the view from the other side. "The United States regards the status quo on Cyprus as unacceptable.". "Chile is noted as being a valuable ally of the United States in the Southern Hemisphere." See United States foreign relations for a list.
- yes even where the are major relationships, and a little news digging would find them, it hasn't been done. Cyprus and the US is an interesting story--they need major allies for defense, the US needs to avoid inflaming the middle east further & wants to keep them defended but quiet. DGG (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- To quote an article in full: "Russia has an embassy in The Hague, and the Netherlands have an embassy in Moscow, a consulate in Saint Petersburg, and an honorary consulate in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk. Peter the Great studied in Holland. During the Cold War, all the Dutch consecutive governments perceived the Warsaw pact including the Soviet Union and Russia as a threat to its safety."
- ditto. they did perceive it as a threat, and they made statements about it, & they can all be referenced. DGG (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- I search in vain for Democratic Republic of the Congo–Rwanda relations, despite the fact that not so long ago millions of people died in wars between the two countries, and the issues have still not been settled.
- wonder how that got missed by the bot. We may need to do some manual work in making articles -- & there's enough in the Wikipedia pages on the conflict & the obvious refs. to do it easily enough.. DGG (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The articles really do need a lot of work. I am not being very helpful with minor ones like Lebanon–Uruguay relations - should work on more serious subjects. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- my point is that an incomplete article that is not harmful and can be expanded, and is about a subject which is probably notable when expanded, should not be deleted, no matter how unfinished, and that essentially all of these have the real possibility of being notable. DGG (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
We are not disagreeing at all, but I do see a huge amount to be done. On the US ones, I would like two rules: 1) no quotes from government sources are allowed and 2) sources from independent publications originating in both countries should be given equal weight. That sounds drastic, and is obviously not enforceable, but would certainly help to balance the articles. As they are, this whole set is just plain embarrassing - totally one-sided. Imagine writing the Cyprus-US one in the same style but from the point of view of the Cypriots. "Cyprus welcomes the USA's reduced emphasis on military interventionism ... Cyprus encourages the US to deal with their narcotics problem, which continues to destabilize ..." On the others, I would be tempted to ignore the rich world, which will typically have many interested editors, and focus on developing countries. I would look first at relationships with their neighbors and with former colonial powers, then see what other ones turn up. When I made a first pass on Foreign relations of the Democratic Republic of the Congo I added redlinks to obvious articles - check it. The same could be done with most of the poorer countries. But cleaning this up is a massive job, and full of potential for political soap box wars. See Kosovo, Armenia etc. Don't know how much energy I have. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- We are certainly not arguing, but exchanging ideass about the possibilities. Your last point is certainly true--but this will affect every article on these countries. I had noticed the redlinks at the congo, and I think those are very much what people should be doing. I see nothing wrong with government sources for description; for controversy, one uses material from both sides and says where it's from. What he successive governments of the US and of country X think about US relations with X is relevant, and clarifies things a good deal,when used critically. The problem sometimes is finding material from X. DGG (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
In general, I have no problem either with government quotes, used in moderation. Just that some of these articles seem to be lifted in their entirety from a State Department website (public domain). Honduras – United States relations is a typical example. Is this is a fair and balanced view? Check the headings. Missing are "Honduras Policy towards the US", "Business opportunities in the US", "Principal Honduras embassy officials". For that matter, where is the evidence of notability? I know, if I don't like it, fix it. Just grumbling. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- That's a particularly horrible case, e.g. "U.S. policy toward Honduras is aimed at consolidating democracy, protecting human rights, and promoting the rule of law" I've refrained from improving it, so as to use the article as an example. I think an article based on such US sources only isn't a good one, and some Honduran sources should be findable easily enough. Of course you are right about this. And I further have a general view that our practice of inserting PD sources intact is generally an extremely poor one, and should not be allowed. At the least, the article MUST indicate just what portions have been taken, not the vague word "incorporates" -- even if it's the whole article, later edits will be added & must be distinguished. I apply that to all subjects. Sometimes the sources can be used complete, being written in a suitable manner for us as well as the original purpose, (some USDA sources come to mind), but it still needs to be indicated--for the material will gradually become outdated. DGG (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
There are many of these one-sided articles listed in United States foreign relations. See Guatemala – United States relations where I have added/improved headings and noted the source of all content. This at least puts "gaps" into the article where information from other sources can be inserted. See also Bolivia – United States relations, where I took the same approach but then interleaved content from other sources. Probably still far from free of bias, but at least a bit livelier and more complete. It can be done, but that took about 3 hours and there are how many of them? Aymatth2 (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you take a second look at this AfD, as I believe you made a mistake. I have uncovered an additional 15 book (actually there were more, but I stopped) that talk about the subject. Only one is available for preview at Google, but that source spends about a page talking about one of his works - which I would think certainly isn't trivial coverage. Presumably, at least some of the other 14 also go into sufficient depth.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- very good work. DGG (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have a somewhat related question. How does one go about properly determining the notability of "local" subjects? I mean I know there is no consensus and thus no guidelines on this, but what do you think? Specifically, one of the many things I've considered doing on Wikipedia is creating articles for subjects of historical importance to Columbus, Ohio. This would be based on information from several Columbus history books I have. Now, these wouldn't books mostly aren't very academic or discriminative in nature, so I 'd essentially have to decide what subjects they cover are Wikipedia notable and which aren't. Any advice you have would be appreciated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- very good work. DGG (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- As you say, this has never really been resolved. The following is my interpretation of current practice, best expressed by the essay at WP:LOCAL. There are three possible principles: 1. that the encyclopedia include only material that is likely to be of interest to those outside a local community 2.that the encyclopedia contain information about anything likely to be of interest beyond the subject's immediate neighbors or associates. 3. That the encyclopedia contain everything verifiable, and that there be some way of filtering out the ones of general interest. Rule 3 is currently rejected, and remains a possible future objective. The practical rule varies between 1. and 2., depending on topic. Most people go by the existence of Reliable sources, as with the General Notability Guideline, but in practice this is modified by saying that many local newspapers or genealogically based histories or small-scale local histories are not necessary discriminating in what the include, and are therefore not sufficient for notability. For example, a map is a secondary source, and one can find every 1867-1970 building in US cities on the Sanborn maps, and they are considered utterly reliable, but they do not prove notability because they include every building. (FWIW, G-maps map view is a secondary source, prepared by editing,but satellite view and street view are primary)for a large city such as Columbus, the key question in using the above rules 1. and 2. is to decide what is the local community. Is it the whole city, or the particular neighborhood? Opinions on this vary.
- My own view is that the GNG should be deprecated to the status of a next-to last resort, (IAR is the last resort), in cases where there is no rational criteria, or for making exceptions to rules that would otherwise exclude. We should have fixed rules of what gets included and what doesn't, but be willing to make exceptions. This will limit the discussions to the cases where someone thinks we ought to make an exception, and others disagree. I would much rather spend my time elsewhere than at AfD, debating the same issues over and over again.
- What specifically I think ought to be the fixed rules, is not necessarily relevant except in the topics for which I have some expertise. Locally: I originally was reluctant to admit the notability of all high schools, but now I do as a better choice than debating them. Branch libraries, fire stations, etc, should be combined into a general article on the department--and I think everyone agrees with that. Anyone who was ever a state representative from Cleveland justifies an article by present rules. Ditto for Mayor--I think city council might be borderline, though I'd support it.
- As an interesting contrast, see the Citizendium guidelines for inclusion: [23] and [24].
- I think you have identified the key specific factors: considering the books under the OCLC heading Columbus, Ohio--History [25]--many of them deal with specific small neighborhoods. I'd also look to see what is covered in general state histories, as an indication of notability. And there is one source that should solve a lot of problems: The AIA guide to Columbus (2008) [26]. Every building with an actual article in it should be notable.
- What sort of articles had you in mind? (I see an Ohio wikiProject of which you are not yet a member, and a Cleveland Portal. I also see a Meetup in Columbus on July 10 that you have not yet signed up for. These are all good ways to coordinate work & exchange views on such things.--especially the meetups if you are in the area.) DGG (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the excellent advice. I will definitely take several of the steps you recommend when I am ready to start actually writing Ohio articles - at this point it is little more than something I've thought about, and article writing probably isn't imminent. That said, some things I would consider writing about include the Columbus Fire Department, Camp Willis, "The Old Post Office" (a building of historical significance that hasn't actually been a post office for like 50 years), the Desler Hotel, Scioto Valley Traction Company, etc. I am glad to see that we at least have a pretty good article about Olentangy Park, although pretty much unsourced - I might like to bring that one up to GA standard, as it is one of the most important historical aspects of the city. Same goes for LeVeque Tower - a very important aspect of the city with a decent article but no real sourcing. Probably the first thing I would do is re-focus or split Columbus Streetcar. The article is well written but has the completely wrong focus; that is on the rather insignificant proposal to bring back the street cars as a tourism gimmick rather than the notable 80 year history of actual streetcars. (Although the article probably wouldn't exists at all if not for the recent proposal, so I can't complain too much.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Request for comment regarding conduct of User:Frei Hans
I have requested comment on the conduct of User:Frei Hans. As you have been involved in this dispute to some extent, I would appreciate it if you could comment. Papa November (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- I do not think it necessary, as all I did was comment at the AfD. DGG (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Mr Taz's redirects
Fair enough, some of them don't fall directly in that category I guess, but if you had the misfortune to be familiar with Mr Taz's "contributions" you'd appreciate the frustration felt by myself and other editors at his constant stream of nonsense. A couple of months ago I had about eighty (80) of his spurious and mischievous redirects speedily deleted. Please also take a look at his Talk page - not a pretty sight! Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- all the more reason for using a definitive process like RfD where you will probably get a firm consensus--and get an opinion about a longer block, also, which will prevent further problems for a while. DGG (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Logical. It really is about time something was done about the situation. Don't think I don't appreciate your position; I was just trying to avoid unnecessary work for myself! Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- I wonder if you would know what the procedure is when a contributor deliberately recreates one of his previously deleted redirects? Mr Taz's redirect England Government was speedily deleted yesterday and another redirect took its place today. Furthermore this is not the first time this contributor has acted in this way (see his Talk Page for an earlier reprimand). I'm not an admin here on English wikipedia or I would take action myself. At the very least he should be warned not to do this again. Your advice and assistance, and hopefully action, would be appreciated. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Logical. It really is about time something was done about the situation. Don't think I don't appreciate your position; I was just trying to avoid unnecessary work for myself! Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- that particular one is implausible enough that I can protect against re-creation after I delete it, and I did. As for the others, RfD should deal with them. It is a lot surer enforcing a RfD decision than an individual administrator's speedy. First concentrate on the edits. If , after that, there are problems, then is the time to discuss the editor. DGG (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Discussion started here. Your input would be appreciated. Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- all the more reason for using a definitive process like RfD where you will probably get a firm consensus--and get an opinion about a longer block, also, which will prevent further problems for a while. DGG (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
What do you make of this list article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- needs expansion and improvement.DGG (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Given the discussion about the inclusion of Editorial Board members above, you may want to have a look at this article. --Crusio (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- removed, and am addingjustification on the talk p. will watch-list. DGG (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
DRV for James P Barker
Hi DGG
Now that the above DRV has been closed (and I've had a discussion with the closer, by the way--he's agreed to make some amendments to his closing statement), my thoughts have turned to your suggestion (on my talk page) that we should ask Arbcom to clarify their position. I agree, and I wonder whether you're familiar with the procedure?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- the closer in the end quite properly supported the key proposition, that BLP1E and similar reasons that do not amount to defamation is not a reason for speedy. I see no need to go to arb com to establish it. I think the close can even be be cited next time anyone challenges this. The close was essentially on the basis that the article would have been rejected anyway, which it would. Personally, i think it is generally wrong to close on that basis. ever. When an admin does a n erroneous speedy deletion, it should be reversed, and the correct procedure followed, or we'll never get admins to do it right. It essentially says: The criterion for speedy deletion is if an admin thinks it ought to be deleted, and he thinks people will not be willing to reverse him. This then leads to 1600 speedy deletion policies, meaning the effective overall policy is that what gets deleted depends on who gets hold first of the article. This is where the critical issue should be, but each time it is proposed, it is rejected by a immediate outcry from those admins who want to continue to have the liberty to do whatever they think they can get away with. DGG (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Comment
Hi, I wonder if you think this is a correct statement? Badagnani (talk) 07:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have no way of knowing. I said already what I think, that he has a general feeling that categories related to ethnicity are harmful. Myself, I consider such difference between people one of the things that gives needed variety and interest to the world, and can be a positive force in human affairs. I am not an homogenized american. Until I see my clear proofs that someone is dishonest, what can I do but assume that they are? My advice to you would be to lay off this line, which will not gather friends. Nobody wants to get into to that sort of fight. It would take much more extreme things to get me to support a crusade on this issue. DGG (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
This character is not a character from a book, or comic book, or TV series, or movie, or video game. So what article do you suggest moving him to? Edward321 (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- thanks--I seem to have been going too fast--I changed what I said; DGG (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Youth United
Hi, I request you to please see to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_July_1 for Youth United, I have made some contribution to this discussion. Regards Maihunggogoi (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Wiki-Conference New York panel
It would also be good if you folks could make some preparations among yourselves about how best to work together on the Quality and Governance panel. I'll be sending you all an e-mail on this soon.--Pharos (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
ANI
I did notify Bucket. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Any idea what should be done with this user? He clearly needs a clue-bat, and mine's not awake right now. He just said "the malls in my opnion are not notable" and is clearly ignoring WP policy, and calling me a troll when I call him out on it. Please clue-bat accordingly. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is uncalled for. He might be headed towards an incivility block. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps if the above user would take a little time to calm down and clear his head this would seem a lot more trivial then it does right now. I'm a little miffed so I'm not being as civil as I could be but the pointless and baseless accusation makes him look off kelter. I'm not saying that I'm not in the wrong as the community is showing that I am, just trying to explain my motives. Ten Pound hammer is either refusing or unable to understand it. The issue has been closed by admin and the Afd's were closed, I was wrong. Why continue trolling and stoking a fire? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is uncalled for. He might be headed towards an incivility block. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Might I suggest reading wp:stick? Thats why I said he was trolling.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, TPH, compared to a lot of things we have both seen that was pretty tepid. HB, everyone will simply simply judge by what you do in the future--the way all of us are judged, myself and TPH included. DGG (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I contested PROD on a one liner page and expanded. Can you take a look? I'd asked ThaddeusB to take a look and he suggested I check with you. I think the subject would pass WP:PROF #3 and #6, but I'm not sure about pages of academics, and was wondering if I might have missed something. Thx. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Director of any the established campuses of IIT, such as this one, is in my opinion equiv. to a university president of a first-rate research university, & therefore notable. (There is some question about the relative quality of the new ones, but certainly I would consider them as universities & their directors would fall under WP:PROF also. . Fellow, Indian National Academy of Engineering probably is also always notable under WP:PROF. DGG (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- probably notable, look for sources a/c WP:BEFORE[27]
Hey, DGG. I see you de-prodded my "notability, unsourced" explanation. Perhaps I should have phrased this as "Not notable in the primary literature, no sources found"? I prodded this after looking for information about it. The term is simply not in use by anyone. Whether or not "20.0% of the Hawaiian population claim having Filipino origin" is not in question. In any case, the creator of the article was indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of User:Usman Hashmi and has a history of creating problematic articles. For now, I've redirected the article to Filipino American. Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Beloved (novel) characters
While it is of course perfectly allright to remove the prod from Beloved (novel) characters, I think you misunderstood my rationale. You say "if you want a merge propose a merge, not a deletion." But I don't want a merge, I don't think anything in this list of characters needs merging into the main article: the list is completely unnnecessary and cn (and should) go. I may take it to AfD, I haven't decided yet, but I am well aware that if I want a merge, I should not propose the article for deletion. Fram (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Fram, since there was no characters section in the article on the novel at all, and our coverage of novels does generally include a list of characters somewhere, I seem to have assumed that was what you intended, though I see now that you apparently meant that the mentions of the principal characters in the plot section of the main article was sufficient. In this particular case the overall coverage of this famous important novel is defective in most respects. In that article , the plot section is not very clearly written; the theme section needs references; the legacy section needs much additional material on the immense influence of the novel; there is no section on the references to the novel in major later fictional works; there is no section on historical accuracy; there is very insufficient information on the publishing history. All of this belongs, both the fictional and the external aspects. And in this case, where the same characters appear also in a previous play, and a subsequent movie--and in a real life case, I think there could certainly be justified articles on each of the major ones also. As one would expect, t here is quite a lot of criticism available, about 200 books,--some of them devoted entirely to this novel including serious academic works as well as student guides--not counting the equal number of theses [28] and the hundreds of articles. If there ever was a case where expansion of a fictional topic rather than deletion is the way to go, it's here. How we arrange the necessary extended coverage into articles is a less important problem. DGG (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Rescue
![]() |
The Article Rescue Barnstar | |
For tirelessly rescuing articles from deletion discussions. Also, for giving me a new outlook on how to view inclusions/deletions. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC) |
Deeply appreciated. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Great work - I admit it was late and I was tired (and lazy) when I tagged it for speedy. I hope I have redeemed myself somewhat by further tweaking. – ukexpat (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- & thanks for the cleanup I too was working too fast to do it properly.DGG (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
We're cleaning this up.
What else needs to be done to it?
Please answer at Talk:List of topics related to Black and African people#Clean up.
Thank you.
The Transhumanist 23:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- commented there. DGG (talk) 06:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
declined speedy
Stifle, I would unhesitatingly deleted File:Flag of Communist California.jpeg as vandalism -- clearly intended to do harm to the encyclopedia. Or possibly as G10, defamatory purpose.Perhaps you should take another look/ (and yes, I know the background at AN/I) DGG (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- I still don't see how this is vandalism. Being >4500 miles away may be a contributor to that, but I would say that speedy deletion only applies for vandalism when anyone in the world could tell it is inappropriate. I won't consider it wheel warring or otherwise inappropriate for you or anyone else to delete it. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- as is, I don't want to inflame the situation, and maybe by now I'm thinking of it just as a joke. Since it would be challenged though, if I do it i'll do it at IfD.~ DGG (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Parente (2nd nomination). Thank you. Alchaenist (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})
What is it? Character from Mahabharata? Play? Is there a different spelling? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Lockwood's
Hi there, David. Can you please take a look at this article again? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lockwood_(author)) I've removed the "News and Media Appearances" section & added more references - as you suggested the last time. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. Jxc5 (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- It will stand, with some clean up-- more concise wording, no duplicate internal citations (I added a few suitable one's that you hadn't spoted). I will do it in stages. I notice that there is no reference supporting the following:
- (most importantly, the phrase "Corporate Sustainability Strategist" -- can you suggest a less jargony one?
- "consulting services to architectural firms such as Skidmore Owings and Merrill, real estate companies such as the Irvine Company, and international professional services firms such as PricewaterhouseCoopers. "
- "advised clients on corporate sustainability and green real estate" -- the references are just articles he has written.
- It will stand, with some clean up-- more concise wording, no duplicate internal citations (I added a few suitable one's that you hadn't spoted). I will do it in stages. I notice that there is no reference supporting the following:
I am still not certain how to express the articles, and will probably do some sharp trimming there--the choice is between references, and a list. I also marked two statements of being the "first" or "only" work that need actual evidence. DGG (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Barbados–Germany relations
You've !voted twice in this AfD. You may want to strike out one of those Keeps. Deor (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- adjusted. Sorry. DGG (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
I want to thank you. In the past week, several people had an opportunity to show the true content of their character. Your conduct was an inspiration. When several others were loosing their heads, you conducted yourself with the highest standard of integrity and dignity.Dave (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC) P.S. I'm well aware that among the chaos were some legitimate issues. Rest assured I will do my best to fix them.
AfD nomination of Juice Ortiz
An article that you have been involved in editing, Juice Ortiz, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juice Ortiz. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Magioladitis (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
ACPD pages created
I've created two initial pages for the ACPD:
- Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development
- Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development/Forum
Please add them to your watchlist, stop by, and so forth. The latter page has a couple of logistical issues that we should discuss sooner rather than later, so I'd appreciate if you could find some time to comment on them.
Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Please have look at article and its discussion page. Am trying to build out list of county routes in Hudson County, New Jersey, not so much that that article is my concern but, it does give support to the greater Hudson County, New Jersey series. ThanksDjflem (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note that I contested the PROD. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- and it has been very sensible renamed as Union Turnpike (New Jersey) -- which usefully shows it is not a purely local road--there is considerable opposition to local roads--one cannot count on keeping them at AfD unless there is sufficient content and sourcing. Since many of the NJ roads will have been in place for long periods of time, there should be historical secondary sources available, for the construction, improvement, etc. Any article with enough sources of that sort will survive, as it should. For further suggestions , see the Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey State and County Routes a very good group of people--and you will probably want to join. If you;re in the NYC area, you;'ll meet some of them at our meetups. [[29]] DGG (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Normally a road named "turnpike" would have been an 1800s turnpike, but I'm not sure about this one. I know the Hackensack and Paterson Plank Roads were turnpikes, and this may have been built by one of them as a spur. --NE2 20:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Even 20th c. history would do. The original (and sometimes still-existing) paving of these roads were major projects in the early 20th century. Given the nature of Hudson county, there are bound to be some court cases in this connection. DGG (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I tried and failed to find more information, though I couldn't get the full text of several possibly useful laws: "An act to incorporate a company to extend the Paterson and Hamburgh Turnpike, to the Hudson river" (1816) and "An act to incorporate the Paterson and New York Plank Road Company" (1851). All I found is that it's old (19th century) and has also been called, perhaps informally, Paterson Turnpike. I hope someone does find more, because this could be an interesting little article. --NE2 01:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
My comments
Please note that I have only commented on your perspective having no counterbalance, and that it is reinforced by Casliber, not that there is anything inherently evil in your nomination or malignant about your intentions. I suspect that were I serving on such a committee, you would be eager to see someone more inclusionist on it to balance me out, and would be a bit taken aback if it me and say, Gavin Collins, were sitting on it together.—Kww(talk) 00:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Of course I understand that--but it still bothers me a little when people think this is my main concern, let alone my only concern, as they tend to, ever since it came up as an issue at my RfA. I never thought of inclusion/exclusion as even relevant to what the committee would be talking about. The suggested first topic is BLP, & I know my views here will be considerably at variance to the some of the others. I expect another one will be copyright, and I'd guess here also. There are a lot of other people there besides me and cas & I don't know the inclusionist/exclusionist views of most of them. I wouldn't be happy if the committee consisted only of you & Gavin but I wouldn't feel the same in a group of 30 other random good people?
- I sympathise, since I suffer from the same problem. I'm the poster-boy anti-fiction deletionist, and people don't seem to note that I essentially don't edit fiction articles, and rarely comment at their AFDs anymore. Fair or not, it's our cross to bear. If it were the "BLP policy advisory group", I wouldn't have worried about it. It seems to me that the best way to do these things would be to throw together truly ad-hoc groups based on the topic at hand. That way, the composition of each group could be balanced against a particular topic. A balanced group over BLPs may or may not be a balanced group over copyrights.—Kww(talk) 01:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well,I've noticed that you don't any more & from my point of view, I'd much rather discuss things with you than with some of those currently arguing that position. As for overall balance, someone might do an analysis. I suppose they will, if there ends up being an election. DGG (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- I sympathise, since I suffer from the same problem. I'm the poster-boy anti-fiction deletionist, and people don't seem to note that I essentially don't edit fiction articles, and rarely comment at their AFDs anymore. Fair or not, it's our cross to bear. If it were the "BLP policy advisory group", I wouldn't have worried about it. It seems to me that the best way to do these things would be to throw together truly ad-hoc groups based on the topic at hand. That way, the composition of each group could be balanced against a particular topic. A balanced group over BLPs may or may not be a balanced group over copyrights.—Kww(talk) 01:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Of course I understand that--but it still bothers me a little when people think this is my main concern, let alone my only concern, as they tend to, ever since it came up as an issue at my RfA. I never thought of inclusion/exclusion as even relevant to what the committee would be talking about. The suggested first topic is BLP, & I know my views here will be considerably at variance to the some of the others. I expect another one will be copyright, and I'd guess here also. There are a lot of other people there besides me and cas & I don't know the inclusionist/exclusionist views of most of them. I wouldn't be happy if the committee consisted only of you & Gavin but I wouldn't feel the same in a group of 30 other random good people?
The Man Who Would be Queen
I've added an update to your post in discussion and I'm interested in your participation in this article. I think you will find it fascinating.DarlieB (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- when it gets as convoluted as this, further argument of this sort is unhelpful. A posting like you made there manages to besmirch everybody on all sides. I am going to remove it & protect the talk p. for a few hours. I advise you to stop at this point. DGG (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Convoluted ? I gave you a question on the actual edits and not on a personal attacks. In fact I removed MY OWN TEXT that could be considered less than neutral as a concession . How is co-operating and trying to clean up my own issues with the posters convoluted ? YOU REVERTED IT EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK AND HAD TO DO DIRECTLY WITH CONTENT ! So are you blocking me based on a personal bias ? It must be because there was nothing inflammitory or bias. Now I am going to revert that discussion edit and I'd appreciate an answer since it has to do with content .DarlieB (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- I did not block you; I protected the talk page of the article to give people a chance to think before resuming attacks on each other. The protection ended a while ago, and the comments since have proven helpful. I'm about as neutral in this as you;re going to find, but if there are further problems there, I will ask someone else to take a look. DGG (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Just know that if you are truly neutral I would welcome your input if you get time , frankly this discussion needs a neutral moderator so I am in agreement with oversight . I think I am getting to emotional based on the constant attacks by Dr Baileys co-workers ( I only know this because individuals like Dr Cantor have said so and their collaborations are documented ). I've kept myself off the article for a few weeks because I knew I was losing my neutrality. I would rather press the issues of clarity , brevity and neutrality . I am trans so I have a perspective that does not fit in with Dr Baileys collaborators editing the article. WhatAmIDoing has been constantly trying to introduce a conspiracy theory concocted by Dr Alice Dreger that three prominent trans academics "conspired" to get Dr Bailey fired . Bailey himself said the controversy had nothing to do with him resigning as head of the department and no evidence has ever surfaced that this was any kind of a collaboration so why is that allowed at all ? If you had read the first edits they not only named them but, using Dregers paper as some odd verification though it was entirely an assumption on her part. This has been a long , long road to getting to any kind of neutrality in the article. It is better than last year but it is still bias.
One thing people constantly lose sight of is this is not Dr Baileys biography and so it cannot be a personal defense beyond the issues concerning the book. This is entirely about the book and it's theories. I personally do not even agree with the allegations of sexual misconduct against Bailey being brought up beyond the words of his subjects about misrepresentation of the individuals concerned . How that relates to the books. This article needs help badly .DarlieB (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Why do we have WP:PROF if any passing professor meets the requirements, per your reasoning? And please note that I didn't nominate the Talk page for deletion. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Which of the criteria listed in the numbered section of WP:PROF does George Boyer meet? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- "any passing professor" is not quite the same as a full professor George Boyer at one of the highest ranking research universities in the word, Cornell. The usual result is that all of them are found notable, because of the influence of their publications--in this case it will be the reviews of his book, and their wide presence in academic libraries. The criterion is no.1 in the guideline, and that its how it is shown. (actually the others are almost never necessary but sometimes convenient) Then ones who are usually found non-notable are Assistant Professors, and generally Associate Professors, and faculty at lesser colleges. I've reminded the author of the article that some more documentation is needed. If he doesn't provide it in a few days, I will. You could help most by looking for the book reviews yourself. DGG (talk) 06:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to be difficult. I do respect your views on deletion, though we frequently disagree. But what independent reliable sources demonstrate that his research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Impact is proven by primarily by citations to the articles & the books. I have not yet done that analysis; But I think it will certainly prove to be high because of the secondary indications of impact I will mention in the next paragraph. Citations to one's work is exactly what is meant by the term impact or influence in the academic context. It's the key basis on which academics are judged, promoted, get awards, get grants. It's what the whole system of scholarly publication is mostly based on--though there are other factors also. (& yes there are oodles of refs to that effect). Technically, it can be argued that such citations fulfill the requirements for RSs; since this would give much too low a standard, the WP:PROF rules were adopted not primarily to increase the number of academics included, but to judge by appropriate criteria.
- It can also be judged by multiple publications in first rate journals, because almost invariably it is only papers in such journals that get heavily cited. Further, such publication is in most fields extremely carefully regulated by peer review, so only important work is included as judged by the other specialists,, thus showing they think it important. It is shown by books from first-rate academic publishers--such publications go through a very rigorous peer review process--more so than journal articles, since books are very expensive to produce. The importance of the books is further shown by reviews, just as for other books. It is also shown by the wide distribution of the books in scholarly libraries (There's an excellent new paper to that effect by an expert, JASIS 60:1083 which I will comment on more extensively later.) It is also to a considerable degree shown by appointment to a professorship in a major research university, as this requires the decision by the department colleagues, who do not appoint undistinguished people to such positions. I trust their judgment more than ours'. The people are notable whom the experts in the field consider notable. You are welcome to disagree. DGG (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- But what I'm seeing from what you're saying is that any academic who writes a lot automatically qualifies, even if their books are nonsense. There's no reliable commentary as to the notability or impact of his writing. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- It depends where they write. There are first-rate journals--and the criterion for this is that the papers in them are highly cited. And it isn't automatic, because it correlates extremely well with all the other indications. People who have published multiple books with first rate university presses tend to become full professors at major universities very quickly. it's a special case of the general rule that people who do great work win prizes. The prizes here are the appointments at the top of the ladder. The impact is the reviews and the citations. In another, it's the appointments, which at that level are what is earned by doing widely recognized work. A full professor at a first-rate university is expected to be good enough and well-known enough to attract graduate student and post-docs and junior faculty to work there. (An assistant professor is someone who they think might reach that level, an Associate professor with tenure, someone they are pretty sure will). "They" is the true peers, the established full professors in the department, the ones who give the rewards. That's the theory: the applicability to any particular individual has some degree of variation. DGG (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- But what I'm seeing from what you're saying is that any academic who writes a lot automatically qualifies, even if their books are nonsense. There's no reliable commentary as to the notability or impact of his writing. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to be difficult. I do respect your views on deletion, though we frequently disagree. But what independent reliable sources demonstrate that his research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- "any passing professor" is not quite the same as a full professor George Boyer at one of the highest ranking research universities in the word, Cornell. The usual result is that all of them are found notable, because of the influence of their publications--in this case it will be the reviews of his book, and their wide presence in academic libraries. The criterion is no.1 in the guideline, and that its how it is shown. (actually the others are almost never necessary but sometimes convenient) Then ones who are usually found non-notable are Assistant Professors, and generally Associate Professors, and faculty at lesser colleges. I've reminded the author of the article that some more documentation is needed. If he doesn't provide it in a few days, I will. You could help most by looking for the book reviews yourself. DGG (talk) 06:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you take a look at this?
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Epstein (law professor) The closing statement by the nominator (nom withdrawn) is rather derogatory and isn't related to the discussion of the AfD. I'd rather an admin take a look and correct it than do so myself. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- I found an way to reword it. I'm thinking about a courtesy blanking. DGG (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Michael B Bearwalf
Hey DGG,
The reason I had added the A7 speedy deletion tag on the Michael B Bearwalf was because it just appears to be a few videos on Youtube and a Facebook page. Does A7 not apply because the article is about the fictional character and not the videos? I'm just trying to understand the policy better. Thanks for your help. [mad pierrot][t c] 07:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- actually you are right -- I carelessly didn't see that it appeared anywhere are all. People have written fiction and submitted it as Wikipedia articles., & we do therm by prod because there isn't enough to be worth a special rule. I would probably have done it right it if you had used the more specific tag "db-web" As is it clearly as hopelessly non-notable as one can get, I speedied it. DGG (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
RfC on merger of Bristol Indymedia with Independent Media Center
User:Simon Dodd has requested comment on the proposed merger. You are being informed as you participated in the recent AfD discussion. Discussion at Talk:Bristol Indymedia Jezhotwells (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
GTD Page
I agree, there may be some refactoring necesarry but what you did pretty much trashed the entire article i.e. you deleted everything but a "core" which YOU think is the core. I would really appreciate it if you could roll-back your deletions till the ongoing discussion comes to a sane conclusion ... cutting down a not-so-bad article (there are some which are a lot worse on Wikipedia) imho is bad practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meandtheshell (talk • contribs) 10:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- you are right, i got impatient. (I was so impatient I forgot to remove the speedy tag & someone else had to do it). I've restored the full version, and then made a more careful cut at what seems a reasonable level of detail, and some other edits. You were free to restore it, you know, and you are free to edit further. Please see WP:BRD--sometimes an article needs a bold move to get revision started -- I tried to explain that in making the edit I was not acting as an administrator, as administrators have no special control over content, and can be reverted just like anyone else. We don't get angry at it--well, at least almost all of us don't get angry at it. DGG (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Why PROD spam?
Hi. You changed my speedy deletions on Best Engineering Colleges in Orissa and Best 20 Engineering Colleges in Orissa into PRODs. I was wondering why? The articles have no encyclopaedic information and, by the use of the word "best" in the title, they seek to promote the institutions listed. They also include contact details. Clearly the intention is to solicit customers for these institutions. Isn't this unambiguous spamming? --DanielRigal (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- I do not consider them promotional for anything in particular, just the concept of engineering education in Orissa. I removed the speedy you placed on the one at AfD as well. OR is not a reason for speedy, just a reason for regular deletion. I agree there is some interpretation involved, but the articles will be gone soon enough. DGG (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
George Boyer
Your recent edit to George Boyer [30] introduced some odd typos. I tried to figure out what your intent was, but couldn't quite get it. Could you take another look? Thanks.—C45207 | Talk 16:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- the problem seems to be with the template "American historians". I removed it, but it needs checking--I see what they were trying to do, but I need to see how tit works on other articles. I fixed one other. If I missed any, please fix them or let me know. DGG (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sure thing.—C45207 | Talk 16:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Russian cultural register
- See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Russian cultural register. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
pause
To give me a chance to think about what ? Is this how you treat all editors ? Protect it from what ? While I admit that WAID got under my skin with his constant badgering, insults and personal attacks in the past I have been picture perfect today . I have been off wiki for just the same reason, because I knew I was getting frustrated but there is nothing of that sort today . If there is something to do with an article or statement point it out but don't leave these vague mysterious notes like I'm gong to have a clue what you are talking about .DarlieB (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Useful cooperative editing seems to have resumed today on the talk page there. That twas my purpose, and it wad achieved. DGG (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
This is close to getting listed at BLPN. Perhaps you could look at the discussion and comment? What is notable, what is not, and what may be potentially slanderous/irrelevant here? PS. Please consider archiving your talk page, it is so big it is difficult to edit :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think you have a good way of handling it , & I said so there. DGG (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Could you comment on the notability of his case, discussed at the very bottom of the article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
rescue tags
Sometimes you can get through to him: while discussing this, can you discuss the deceptive tags he puts on the edits as well? "Added" is just kind of pathetic, but this and this cross a line.—Kww(talk) 00:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- looks to me that he was copyediting, and then decided to put up a rescue tag as well. It can be difficult to choose what is worth the effort when there are so many things that need improvement. I can see someone getting impatient with the number of deletions to contend with, just as I can see you getting impatient with the number of hopeless inappropriate articles that need deletion, and I get impatient over spending time on this when a simple consensus to merge to combination articles in almost all cases would save us all the trouble. DGG (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- If this was the only instance, I'd be inclined to agree. Unfortunately, this is just the latest in a long, long stream of examples of him using edit summaries that are intended to make his edits harder to track, rather than explain them. It's been an old problem. Anyone that mentioned it had his edits erased from A Nobody's editor review. Deor's edits to follow up on the recent problems were silently removed from the talk page. My efforts to follow up on that were silently removed, then erased, while a top notice was placed on the page declaring me unwelcome, followed by an edit summary accusing me of hypocrisy and personal attacks. I can go through the RFC process, but it would be best if you were to help him understand that this is an important issue and it must stop. Getting an RFC certified would be easy, but given A Nobody's normal response to criticism, it's likely to be exhausting and unpleasant all around.—Kww(talk) 03:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- yes, misleading tags is a very common and very pernicious practice by no means limited to him. It has the advantage it doesn't leave traces on the actual p. or talk p., but it can be very confusing at best--I doubt it really deceives anyone experienced, though. We all I hope know to check the edits themselves. I think these postings here might get the message across at least to him that it is not ok. Remember as well, that if anyone deletes something from their talk p, its good evidence they read it. DGG (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- If this was the only instance, I'd be inclined to agree. Unfortunately, this is just the latest in a long, long stream of examples of him using edit summaries that are intended to make his edits harder to track, rather than explain them. It's been an old problem. Anyone that mentioned it had his edits erased from A Nobody's editor review. Deor's edits to follow up on the recent problems were silently removed from the talk page. My efforts to follow up on that were silently removed, then erased, while a top notice was placed on the page declaring me unwelcome, followed by an edit summary accusing me of hypocrisy and personal attacks. I can go through the RFC process, but it would be best if you were to help him understand that this is an important issue and it must stop. Getting an RFC certified would be easy, but given A Nobody's normal response to criticism, it's likely to be exhausting and unpleasant all around.—Kww(talk) 03:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
NYPL
How did the first class go? Do I need to know anything other than that I need to be at the library by 6:30 on Tuesday? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- First class, on using Wikipedia went find--a varied audience--18 people, their capacity, some with almost no web experience, some with considerable, up to the point of trying to do Cyrillic searches in our search box, (I showed her how). Next one is editing and possibly writing articles. DGG (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I sent you an e-mail. Talk to you tomorrow! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
NPA
I've placed your NPA message at SpacemanSpiff. It seems that you put it on my page by mistake. I looked over my edits and I can't find any attacks made by me. However, just after I closed an AFD, Spaceman added a comment on an AFD calling me an idiot. Therefore, I think you put your friendly reminder on the wrong talk page. Amthernandez (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Huh? Where did I call you an idiot? I just refuted your claim that the subject was an idiot. I've also reverted your entry to my talk page. -SpacemanSpiff { Calvin Hobbes 04:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Since you asked where.....here....
In addition, the arguments at this AfD have shown that he isn't the idiot. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Please also refrain from telling un-truths. I did not say the subject was an idiot. He is probably not an idiot. What I did say was that being named to an endowed chair does not always reflect merit. In some universities, lots of donors give lots of money so they have several faculty positions which are named after the donors, like the John Smith Chair of Sociology and the Mary Jones Chair of Social Psychology. Then the chairman picks some faculty members to occupy the job. Wikipedia has made a mistake of saying that anyone holding a named chair is notable. That's probably because the author of the guideline didn't understand academics! Amthernandez (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- If you're going to post comments, post the full comment, not a section of it. An incorrect article because I decided to close the sentence early and didn't go back to correct it is not a personal attack. My replies end here. -SpacemanSpiff { Calvin Hobbes 05:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- please both of you go fight somewhere else, not my talk p, not anywhere in Wikipedia. Better yet, don't fight at all. Amthernandez , the reminder was in respect to the way you worded the close at [31]. It was fully justified. Most admins would have called it a warning. DGG (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Arguing against redirects?
Any idea why all the sudden several editors are taking the unusual stance of insisting fictional characters can't even get redirects? I mean, I am sure it is probably coincidence, but it is rather annoying having to waste my time arguing for redirects. Surely there is strong consensus that these type of redirects are complete appropriate and they cost almost nothing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I think I do know why:
- They are afraid the articles will be re-created using the existing information
- They are even afraid that if the article is deleted (to remove the history) and then the redirect created, that something like that will be restored anyway.
- They no longer even ask for merges, because with a merge it is not permitted to remove the history: there is no such thing as merge, delete history , & redirect, because it violates the terms of the license
- In a few instances, they may simply want to remove as much information about fiction as possible. I checked the 18th c Éncyclopedie yesterday on this very point, and their article about novels simply mentions the names of a dozen French authors and a few works, without talking about any of them elsewhere. That's the sort of encyclopedia some people want.
- Now, I myself would be extremely happy if some genres of fiction had never been devised in the first place, but, astoundingly, in many cases the people wanting to remove material are fans of the series or the work. They apparently feel that they are wasting time with things that aren't worth talking about in general company. DGG (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I just made a question along these lines at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavilan ElessedilDGG (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Points 1 and 2 are good ones. It is unfair (and a waste of time, ThaddeusB) to rely on people checking their watchlists to find reversions of redirects, which occur all too regularly. There should be a mechanism to prevent this without a new consensus.
- Otherwise I give a lengthy explanation of my rational in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lokar which I would like your opinion on, either there or (preferably) here. I like to think that if I am in the wrong, I, like DGG, can see my position evolve. Abductive (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying on Lokar, but I still thing a "redirect" through disambiguation is better than nothing. In any case, Lokar is the exception - normally these character names only have one possible target. In general, a redirect is better than deletion for several reasons:
- I just made a question along these lines at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavilan ElessedilDGG (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously someone was looking for the material or the page would have never been created
- Pointing new editors directly to a place where the content exists encourages them to edit there and/or spend their time on something else rather than recreating material that exists somewhere
- Yes, redirecting makes it easier for experienced editors to undo the redirect, but experienced editors are far less likely to do so against consensus than a new editor is to recreate against consensus
- Additionally, have one's first page deleted is probably the #1 way to scare someone off. Better that they not create the worthless page rather than be crushed when it is immediately deleted/nominated for deletion.
- Adding a page to your watch list costs essentially nothing in terms of time or effort. Additionally, if you wanted to insure the page wasn't recreated the blank page after deletion you'd have to watch list the non-existent page or otherwise keep an eye on it.
- I have merged and/or redirected more than 100 articles in the last couple months and only 2 or 3 were undone by anyone (and none went through AfD prior to my redirect). If people aren't undoing my BOLD redirect, I really don't think people undoing consensus redirects is a serious problem.
- If a particular redirect is becoming a problem, it can always be protected just like any other page
- Redirects
cancan't be hit by "Random article" so there is no risk of someone being pointed to one by accident.
- That generally makes sense. Three things; I do find that monitoring my watchlist takes time, a few minutes each time, and over many times it adds up. A reversion rate of 1 or 2 percent per month is 12 to 24 percent per year. And, are you sure that redirects are found by Random article? Abductive (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have been more clear. Of course monitoring a watch list takes time, but (at least for me) almost none of that time comes from changes to slow moving articles (or redirects). I have ~1000 articles on my list and probably 90% of the changes come from noticeboards and swine flu articles, as all the rest of my list is slow moving articles - in many cases I am probably the only active editor watching.
- My results are perhaps not typical but take at Patrick Star. Even this very prominent redirect has only been undone less than once a month on average. If the page was repeatedly deleted (and not protected) rather redirected, I can quite confidently say it would be recreated more than once a month.
- Finally, I meant "can't" that was an unfortunate typo. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Now is the end of the world if some fictional character doesn't have a redirect? Of course not, but neither should it bother you or anyone else that a redirect exists. It is just sitting there doing no one any harm and if it is helpful to a few people a year, then that is enough to keep it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- What do would you guys think if a new popular work of fiction along the lines of Twilight came out, and a user created all the redirects prophylactically? Abductive (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- I personally would be fine with that as long as the characters are mentioned by name in the target article. The redirect could always be overwritten if needed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- What do would you guys think if a new popular work of fiction along the lines of Twilight came out, and a user created all the redirects prophylactically? Abductive (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- You are probably correct. I think this sort of attitude is a real shame. While I personally care very little about fiction, I do think that for a large percentage of our readers fictional topics are of great interest. It would be a great disservice to remove fictional topics altogether and would surely be a net negative for Wikipedia. I know you are a strong advocate for merging fictional topics in the "characters of"/"places of"/etc type article and I am on the same page entirely. If the information can be covered in one article there is no need for 5, 10, or even 20 stubs with little more than a basic character description. At the same time, there is no reason to delete information that is of interest to our readers just because it doesn't need its own article.
- I think the majority (or at least plurality) of editors agree that merging is usually best, but there are far too many (on both sides) that simply refuse to compromise and I don't really understand why. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- and of course in our system such people can prevent consensus indefinitely. The basic problem which affects every topic lies in our not having a mechanism to get reasonably consistent and stable decisions on content. (There are techniques though for handling very large watchlists, by looking for related changes. What is lacking is some way of filtering so only changes above a certain size are listed. ) But I see many changes in the other direction also--stable agreements to keep content, destroyed by someone going in and changing everything to redirects, or removing large amounts of content from a combination article. The main reason I still support keeping many articles intact even if perhaps better combined is to discourage that. We each think the other side is doing the worse, and it doesn't matter, because both are wrong. A first step would be a rule that BRD cannot be used for redirects and merges--that non-obvious ones MUST be discussed first, with full notice, and consensus. I suppose in equity that should apply to splits also.
- Thaddus, the reason why people reject compromise is very simple. Rather than get a situation that consistently gives a result they can accept but do not really like, they prefer a situation where they will get what they want some of the time, even if they will lose others. They prefer chaos to a decision that does not satisfy them. I've heard people say as much in AfD in other topics entirely--their reason for deciding case by case instead of precedent , is that they can at least keep a certain percentage of the articles like X in--or out--even if its a random selection. This general way of thinking is characteristic of young children before they learn how to interact in groups in kindergarten. There's a large number of editors here who never learned. DGG (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- I would be curious as to what kind of articles tend to suffer was this later deletion of merged material. I personally do a lot of merges, but they are mostly all from 6+ day old PRODs where article being merged is either pretty unlikely to be notable or has very little content (2 sentences or less). I figure it is better to PRESERVE what I can than just let it disappear. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- I hope I'm not like that. Abductive (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- You might want to check your current argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavilan Elessedil, [32] DGG (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Since nobody looks at the article, and there are only 42 Google hits, and the search bar and the user's brain will take tham to the article on the novel, I would still prefer outright deletion. What if somebody created an article on a village that the characters visited, but it was not important to the plot or an encyclopedic discussion of the work? How about a stew with a unique name that the characters ate once in the novel? Should Wikipedia have an article, disambig or redirect on every named thing in every fictional work? Abductive (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is very hard to define the concept of "important" to the plot. In literature worth the attention, every place named there, even in passing, is included and discussed in works on the subject. There is always a reason for authors writing what they wrote; in good literature it is worth tracing the reasons--it adds depth to the story--the reader, or at least the careful reader, is much intended to make the associations. There has for example, been very extensive work done with Austen's names for people, places, and houses; similarly with Faulkner, or Joyce, or Hardy. Nothing is too trivial for a good writer. I remind you of the extraordinary care that Tolkien gave to this--he constructed a complete legendary history behind ever single name, and discussed it either in the works themselves, or his notebooks. Or the considerable less complicated but still meaningful names in Rowling.
- As a librarian, I have learned to assume nothing about users' brains in searching; if they used them the entire profession would be much less necessary. The goal is to set it up so the users will find directly exactly what they no matter how stupidly they go about it. DGG (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you, but point out that the metric from importance is mention in secondary sources. I've read Tolkien, Rawlings and Brooks, and recall thinking that Brooks was a pale imitation. The paucity of secondary sources on him and his works suggests that his treatment on Wikipedia needs to be scaled back; it seems especially unfair given that minor characters in the Harry Potter series are playing by the rules on their page. Abductive (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Since nobody looks at the article, and there are only 42 Google hits, and the search bar and the user's brain will take tham to the article on the novel, I would still prefer outright deletion. What if somebody created an article on a village that the characters visited, but it was not important to the plot or an encyclopedic discussion of the work? How about a stew with a unique name that the characters ate once in the novel? Should Wikipedia have an article, disambig or redirect on every named thing in every fictional work? Abductive (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- You might want to check your current argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavilan Elessedil, [32] DGG (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Dealing with List of Nazi ideologues
This thing isn't getting any better. I see today we're going to have a fight over whether to include Charles Darwin. Personally, I think the thing needs to be deleted entirely, since it seems to be an exercise in guilt by association. If we can't manage that (and I suspect we won't) we need to come up with some name that isn't so flatly, uh, wrong, not to mention pejorative. Mangoe (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- There's also Plato. We need rather for sensible people to get rid of the ownership of the article. There at the very least needs to be a change in title, to people whose ideas were used by the nazis. There could be a separate list of actual Nazi Ideologues. I'll start there. DGG (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- The problem seems to be one particular established editor. DGG (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- So I see. I've suggested moving the most problematic material over to the section on origins, at the least. Mangoe (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- The problem seems to be one particular established editor. DGG (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- There's also Plato. We need rather for sensible people to get rid of the ownership of the article. There at the very least needs to be a change in title, to people whose ideas were used by the nazis. There could be a separate list of actual Nazi Ideologues. I'll start there. DGG (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
NYPL outline
See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ssilvers#NYPL -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help
Thanks for the help on my talk page, I'm still new to WP (though learning quickly on a steep curve!) so the step by step instructions are much appreciated! Frmatt (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Since you have placed your tag and notes on this article, we have revised with advise from you. I was hopeful if you could review and advise if we revised to a point that you could remove your tags. If not, can you please offer some more guidance so that we can make this article meet the expectations of the community. I am new and am learning, but am very interested in maintaining standards and helping grow...Docbb1 (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I did a little editing. it's basically OK now, in my opinion. That does not necessarily mean that others will agree with me, but let me know if there are problems.01:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi...thanks for the updates and the advise. We will continue to work at making this article informative and beneficial to the community while refraining from any type of language that would consider it in violation of the guidelines. On the next round of additions, I may ask for your thoughts (and appreciate everything to date).Docbb1 (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks, I am not directly involved in AngioSplice but will pass on your kind sentiments. (BradKeely) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradkeely (talk • contribs) 07:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Optional request for opinion
After dipping my toe in again, I noticed some unfortunate things about what seems to be casual application of the rescue tag, and on clicking through today's AfD discussions I see a pattern which I don't understand: This, this, this, this, and this page subject each appear to be created as autobiographical or self-promotional, and of the group I'd only keep the library as notable. Does the AfD process commonly ignore self-promotion as a factor in keep or delete closes? In only one case of the five was the self-promotional aspect mentioned in the nom. How should this weigh in the closing admin's decision? BusterD (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- nothing common in the article history, and 4 promotional articles in one day is under the usual quota--there are many thousands of equally bad ones here. (That's why I regret the effort in fighting over whether to merge character articles and similar obvious things--there is real work that needs doing). The library page is a copyvio,by the way--pages that read like that usually are. They will all 4 probably go, unless the motorcycle art is actually notable. The problem is the use of the rescue tag by different editors as a matter of course when the articles come up for deletion. It should not really be used for lost causes, but it's hard to tell what's a lost cause until we look for references--some amazing rescues have been pulled off, typically where a very bad article is written about something where there are actually references for notability--sometimes excellent references for major notability. Ideally, each article on AfD should get attention, and receive a careful look for the possibility of doing something with it. Ideally every new article should get a careful look for the very likely need of improving it and making a strong article out of it. In fact, all the old articles too should individually get the kind of concentrated attention a potential FA gets, to update and strengthen it. We are approaching 3 million articles. Another 100,000 active careful skilled editors are what we most need. If they each revised one a week, we could reedit the encyclopedia properly in 7 months. Or 5,000 people as active as the best people here, who could devote considerable time to it and do one a day. DGG (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- All this gives me more respect for those of you admins who take on "drinking from the firehose" directly. I feel I just help with splatters. There's only so much one can see without doing RC patrol a bunch. Thanks again for offering your view. I may come back around to this again. BusterD (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- we in turn rely on you and all the other sharp-eyed editor to spot these problems. Do not be reluctant to follow up. Never hesitate about letting someone know if you have doubts about something. DGG (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- If you're not already reading this, I'd appreciate eyes (but please hold your comments). I've been reading some of the previous discussions on this subject, and sampling actual tagged processes, and it's not pretty. I'm going to perform a more formal examination as soon as I figure exactly how I'm going to set it up. BusterD (talk) 03:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Members of the project things in different ways--I'm a member myself. What would be an interesting analysis is the % of time the tagging got the article kept by consensus. If it is very low, taggers are not being selective, or not improving it sufficiently, or there is a prejudice against them. If it is very high, then either they are very successful, or there is a prejudice for articles they work on. I expect something in the range of 30% to 70%, which I think is an acceptable range. What I think the ideal range should be is 60%-80%. Let's see how the evidence matches my guess. DGG (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Would you care to suggest a sample size? BusterD (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Members of the project things in different ways--I'm a member myself. What would be an interesting analysis is the % of time the tagging got the article kept by consensus. If it is very low, taggers are not being selective, or not improving it sufficiently, or there is a prejudice against them. If it is very high, then either they are very successful, or there is a prejudice for articles they work on. I expect something in the range of 30% to 70%, which I think is an acceptable range. What I think the ideal range should be is 60%-80%. Let's see how the evidence matches my guess. DGG (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- If you're not already reading this, I'd appreciate eyes (but please hold your comments). I've been reading some of the previous discussions on this subject, and sampling actual tagged processes, and it's not pretty. I'm going to perform a more formal examination as soon as I figure exactly how I'm going to set it up. BusterD (talk) 03:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- we in turn rely on you and all the other sharp-eyed editor to spot these problems. Do not be reluctant to follow up. Never hesitate about letting someone know if you have doubts about something. DGG (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- All this gives me more respect for those of you admins who take on "drinking from the firehose" directly. I feel I just help with splatters. There's only so much one can see without doing RC patrol a bunch. Thanks again for offering your view. I may come back around to this again. BusterD (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- nothing common in the article history, and 4 promotional articles in one day is under the usual quota--there are many thousands of equally bad ones here. (That's why I regret the effort in fighting over whether to merge character articles and similar obvious things--there is real work that needs doing). The library page is a copyvio,by the way--pages that read like that usually are. They will all 4 probably go, unless the motorcycle art is actually notable. The problem is the use of the rescue tag by different editors as a matter of course when the articles come up for deletion. It should not really be used for lost causes, but it's hard to tell what's a lost cause until we look for references--some amazing rescues have been pulled off, typically where a very bad article is written about something where there are actually references for notability--sometimes excellent references for major notability. Ideally, each article on AfD should get attention, and receive a careful look for the possibility of doing something with it. Ideally every new article should get a careful look for the very likely need of improving it and making a strong article out of it. In fact, all the old articles too should individually get the kind of concentrated attention a potential FA gets, to update and strengthen it. We are approaching 3 million articles. Another 100,000 active careful skilled editors are what we most need. If they each revised one a week, we could reedit the encyclopedia properly in 7 months. Or 5,000 people as active as the best people here, who could devote considerable time to it and do one a day. DGG (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
adding references
Happy Bastille Day!
Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not! :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Possible sock?
Are you, qua an admin, able to easily see the IP address from which contributions have been added? If so, I'm wondering if that whence user:Lambchop2008 (an SPA, it seems) has contributed to Talk: Sarah Palin today matches the IP address of anyone else contributing to it in the last few days?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- no I am not able to do this . Only a very few people are, the ones with WP:Checkuser can do that. You can contact directly one of the checkusers as explained on that page, or make a request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations DGG (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks - I didn't realize it was such a big deal as it appears to be from the notes at WP:SPI. I don't have any evidence of sock puppetry, just vague suspicion, which is more or less what SPI says isn't enough. For now I'll just keep an eye on that user's contributions. Thanks again,- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- no I am not able to do this . Only a very few people are, the ones with WP:Checkuser can do that. You can contact directly one of the checkusers as explained on that page, or make a request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations DGG (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Speedy Deletion Request- Muqarnas (architecture)
The aforementioned page was erroneously created in service to disambiguation; the related disambiguation and redirect have been deleted, and the page content returned to Muqarnas. A hat note appears at head of the Muqarnas page.Mavigogun (talk) 05:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I think I figured it out. I changed the page to redirect to Muqarnas, but the page itself cannot be deleted because the history of the article is there, and we must preserve the entire earlier history of the article. If this does not do what you intended, let me know. DGG (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Still waiting
Still waiting for your comments at Talk:Rafał_A._Ziemkiewicz#lawsuit_and_apology. Please archive your page, it is becoming impossible to edit it properly. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- try edit the sections, or use the add new section tab at the top. But you are right, I have gotten behind in many things. And if you want me to follow up on a comment do ask, like now because i usually don't watchlist them or I would really go under. DGG (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Event Photographer Society
I think you misunderstood my comments about the Event Photographer Society entry, the page here was not set up to provide a balance, it was the site itself which is now the most authorative site for event photographers in the UK. The American SEP society has approx 1000 members whereas EPS has already gained 300 members in its short existance(population wise a far greater percentage). It is well known amongst event photographers in the UK - it certainly was not the intention to seek publicity here, as was stated you already have similar organisations listed which have no more authorative or informative links. If the short history of the article is examined an ongoing process of editing was being carried out which now can not be finished. I would appreciate the opportunity to finish the article which can then be properly assessed. I would appreciate answers on my account.
EventPS (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- are there 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? I'll restore the article,place an "under construction" tag on it, which should keep it for a few days, and then you can add them. Be sure to write the article in such as way as to show what the organisation actually has accomplished. If it has sponsored shows, for example, are there published reviews of them? If it has published something, what it? It's not a matter of balance--each group stands or its own merits.
- Please do not write it in the future tense: "The Society will function ...." is the sort of wording that tends to be judged as promotional, Similarly, material explaining the benefits to a photographer for joining is also likely to be considered promotional. Similarly, this is not the place to describe the profession in general, or the basic functions of professional societies in general. It;'s about this particular society. And, most important, do not copy material from your web site or other previously published material unless you carry out the full formal procedure of explicitly licensing the rights to the material according to our licensing using the CC-BY-SA and the GNU licenses, as explained in WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:Donating copyrighted materials-- Otherwise, such material must be rewritten. DGG (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Deletion by dated prod template
Am I correct that an article tagged with the {{dated prod|concern = Orphan, no context.}} template will not be deleted by an Admin if there is opposition on the talk page? Yes, I know that an AfD may well follow if the earlier deletion attempt is denied. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- the usual course in objecting to a prod tag is to remove the prod tag, and explain why it has been removed on the talk page. It is possible that if the deletion was objected to on the talk page and the tag not removed, an admin working quickly to clear all the things out that need to be cleared might not have seen it. (This is different from speedy, where the author does not remove the speedy tag, but adds a hangon tag, and explains on the talk page.) Articles deleted merely by prod will normally be restored on request, however--what article is it? You should first ask the admin- he might have a good explanation--or might be able to make clear why the article might not be suitable, and an AfD certain to delete the article. DGG (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- The article is one of a set, Samples of Script typefaces and the article is still there, but the seven days have expired. I let that happen without removing the template, mostly to learn the processes involved. I will remove the dated prod template, and see what happens next. I also put the whole article in my sandbox, so I can improve it. There are other articles in the set which have not yet reached the seven days point. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- The instructions for PROD specifically tell the deleting admin to check the talk page for objections, but that doesn't always actually happen. It is much simpler just to remove the template if you object to it, using the edit summary to explain why. PRODs can be contested at any time, including after deletion, so removing a tag after 7 days have technically passed is not an issue at all. As an aside, being useful isn't actually a valid reason to keep something. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info
Thanks for the info on speedy deletion. The speedy deletion template is preferred over the wp:merge template because there is nothing I wish to merge over. I plan to delete and redirect. Huo Xin (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- about which article is this? DGG (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Lithuania–Romania relations
Did you have time to help add references to Lithuania–Romania relations? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Wrong
I am very curious how it is that you have the ability to determine when something is important enough to be shared with the world? The article created about Little Italy's that you deleted earlier today was just as relevant as the page on mcdonalds. or the page on jon bon jovi. simply deleting an article because it's frame of reference is not within the scope of yourself is far from ethical or sensible. the notability guidelines state that the subject matter covered must have secondary sources and be documented. there are numerous documentation for the restaurant as well as it is listed and discussed in one of the most awarded student run campus papers in the midwest, the volante. It is because of this that i am highly questionable of you and your seemingly biased practices. please feel free to explain. Blstormo (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- I do not. I only have the ability to determine that something makes no claims to importance whatsoever. a listing of a college town restaurant in a college paper is utterly trivial. And it's not just me-- another administrator had previous deleted the identical article 2 hours earlier. A few hours before that, you article about the restaurant's Little Italy's Pizza Challenge has been deleted twice, by two other administrators than myself. So that makes 3 of us; we might all 3 be wrong, but since we act completely independently, it's highly unlikely. I will frequently restore an article on request if there's a chance of it being worked on to show it's notable and not primarily publicity-=-there's an example a few entries up on this very page. Not for this. If you can persuade someone else to restore it, or take it to deletion review, the community will decide in a discussion, but my advice is that it's wildly unlikely to succeed. No reflection on your pizza. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a restaurant directory. We do not serve for publicity--nor need we, because the lack of an entry here does not prevent the world from knowing about your restaurant--there are multitudes of other web sites to post your information, all of them equally available to anyone in the world. DGG (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
It is not my pizza, and i do not understand that statement at all. If this restaurant listing is "trivial" what makes mcdonalds any more important? why is it that godfather's gets it's page when someone posts it, and yet this restaurant operates in the same way with roughly the same business plan and yet it is removed for being meaningless? as for the little italy's pizza challenge, if you will look further into it i did not create that article it was created by someone else obviously from this area. How does this make no claim to importance? simply because you have not heard of the restaurant, surely that does not constitute as its lack of importance? And as the article was just created is it not asking alot for every relative reference be immediately placed in it? The listing and repeated mention in the college newspaper did nothing more than to prove the challenges existence, not the restaurant. I am very confused how it is an encyclopedia and yet mcdonalds, burger king, fox's pizza den, and the other thousands of restaurants that are reflected within wikipedia's pages are any different other than their scale and influence. At what point does something go from an informative article to what you describe as advertisement? I think it is rather naive and ignorant for one person to declare that while the history of an establishment is not important to them, it is somehow not important or relevant to any other portion of the population. Is it not wikipedia's reputation as having information not contained in the Britannica or other encyclopedia that has granted it such wild success? I am not here to advertise anything or promote any ideas that would go against facts. I am simply attempting to create a historic and accurate article for anyone and everyone that will be in the area and is curious about the restaurants past. there are thousands of citizens and even larger amounts of alumni that are aware of this establishment and to deny them any form of accurate information is akin to censorship and goes against all that free knowledge has come to represent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blstormo (talk • contribs) 03:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Because they have multiple references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online. "Scale and influence" do tend to have a great deal to do with it. A RS is one that is , among other things, selective, and local newspapers, college and otherwise, normally cover every restaurant in the vicinity. When someone tries to tell me that a local eatery deserves an article because BK has a article, it does not help convince me.. I've told you 2 ways to go: if you can find any admin to undelete it, I have no objection, tho I will certainly list it for AfD and the community will decide. If you list it at Deletion Review, the community will decide there. That two other admins have decided just as I have confirms my view of it. Enough has been said here. DGG (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
DGG, I blame you...
...for ruining my evening, which I spent hypothesizing Repetitive song rather than simply propose List of repetitive songs for deletion and reading a book to my kid.
Need a refresher? Here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of repetitive songs. You mentioned that a real article would be a better than a bad list or deletion, so I decided to give it a shot (thinking also that, if I nominated the list for deletion, you would come by and sink my deletion ship...). I think I'm skating on thin ice, getting a bit close to synthesis (I could easily write this as an essay, but that's for a different forum), but anyway, I gave it a try. Please have a look at User:Drmies/Sandbox; I appreciate any help you can give. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, that's a good start: What i suggest is to move the existing article to Repetitive song, and add your material. The existing list will then serve nicely as a section on examples. Alternatively, move your article into mainspace, and merge with a redirect , to maintain the attribution. I'm sure people will find some more of them. I'll take a look also. How did you happen to be looking at 2 year old AfDs? Don't you know AfDs are addictive? 200 AfDs to close today; Close one, and there's 199 AfD's to close today; Close one , and there's 198 to close today; Close one ........ Close them all, and there's 200 AfDs to close tomorrow..... DGG (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)