User talk:DGG/Archive 21 Oct. 2008

Topical Archives: Deletion reform, Speedies, Notability , IPC & Fiction, WP:Academic things & people, Journals
General Archives: Sep08, ..., Nov08, Nov08, Jan09, Feb09, Mar09,

Shenkou

Ah, I missed that. I just saw that the vandal was also the page's creator, hence the speedy. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

--thiswas a complicated one, I missed that too at first--it still needs checking even tho it was fixed by another ed. DGG (talk) 10:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

IMOD

• The scholarly sourced link "Dangerous medicines: Unproven AIDS cures and counterfeit antiretroviral drugs." is exactly what the the article on "IMOD" needs worked into it. It is a great addition. Thanks for finding it. The Scythian 15:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

BBC Radio AfDs

Since I know you manage to keep your watchlist manageable, just a heads up that I answered you. I answered in all three so people didn't have to Afd-hop to see an answer. See one example here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/After Eden (2nd nomination). Looking forward to your thoughts. TravellingCari 19:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

actually, not manageable--quite the opposite--usually a day behind. DGG (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well more manageable then some. I forget how many articles you said you had on yours at the June meet -up. I just put mine on a diet. Still need to do some trimming. I just figured there was no way you watchlisted all AfDs you participated in and still kept sane :) TravellingCari 20:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I've set my preferences to highlight my sig in red, & I sometimes scroll through the page and look. What keeps me as sane as I'm going to be, is not going back to try to rescue every debate I am about to lose :) But I look only once a day and not every day, so yes, if you want me to notice something in particular, say it here. DGG (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow, didn't know that was possible. Need to look into that. Yeah if I need input from you or have a question, I find it easier to leave a heads up here. Interestingly for me, I think I'm more inclusive now than I used to be. This just made me sad because I feel wholly unproductive of late. Then again when I sit to write, I end up in the backlog. TravellingCari 20:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Nafez Assaily

David, I know nothing of these mechanisms. Has there been a discussion on this? Once before the page was blanked I restored it. I wrote it because the Hebron page had very little mention of Palestinians: its notables were nearly all settlers, 500 odd out of 167,000 Palestinian hebronites. One page was on a 3-year old child of a settler who was killed by a Palestinian terrorist,Murder of Shalhevet Pass. Tragic but not notable as a wikipage. I have never pushed for its deletion. If this is 'notable', and Nafez Assaily is not (because he is alive, and a well-known spokesmen for peace, at least in Italy where he is well-known), then the deletion of the latter page inevitably causes problems, like raising the issue of systemic bias.

At the same time I began to work on examining contemporary Hebron figures, who haven't much exposure in the Western press, yet who are 'notable'. To be a pacifist in Palestine is notable. To set up a library on pacifism in the midst of one of the most conflicted cities in the middle east is notable. Nafez has been invited several times to France and Italy for conferences, not well reported. I have found one book, one Italian newspaper article, and another web ref., so far. He is a follower of a very well known Gandhian theorist expelled for his pacifist activism by Israel in 1988. He has his Hebron farmland under assault from settlers. Now he has the one notice in wikipedia of himself as that rare thing, a Gandhian activist in a bitterly conflicted Middle eastern city, up for deletion by User:Einsteindonut, who is a newby, openly proclaimed on his entry into Wiki that he viewed with contempt Wikipedia, as a hive of anti-Jewish/Israeli bias, and has clashed with me on my talk page. Out of the blue he appears to have checked my edits, and seized on this one for deletion. It seems to me therefore politically inspired, and poorly motivated, in that its deletion removes one of the few 'notables' (David Wilder, a Hebronite settler, to me is not 'notable' in any serious sense, he preaches racist war. I have never tried to contest that page. He has far more press outlets to make him appear notable. Therefore this is an issue of some delicacy. I hope you can spare some time to advise me here. I certainly am willing to improve the article, but this sort of notability (regional) is hard to document, and requires some patience. regards Nishidani (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

we go by the sources. It's not intrinsic notability, it's how much they get written about. For better or worse, it is in fact the press that makes people notable for the purposes of Wikipedia--it's our basic rule, see WP:BIO. This can produce a certain bias, of course. And notability isn't done by comparison either, for this is not a place where it is possible to have any consistency, because there is no real authority. (Are there sources in Arabic? --and add the GBooks stuff JohnZ spotted)

Another ed. removed the prod tags, but I think I would have done so myself. At the very least, its not uncontroversial and therefore not suitable for prod. In preparing to defend the article, watch out for some sentences that are using it as a way to talk about Palestinian rights, which, however tempting, is subject to challenge. The place to do that most appropriately is in the quote that you already have. Good luck with it. DGG (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice.Nishidani (talk) 09:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In retrospect I'm glad the 'prod' was made, and that you registered it. I've been very lazy there, and slack in my obligations to see the page up to minimum snuff. Thanks again then Nishidani (talk) 07:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sanjay Pandey

Hi DGG. I found after a more detailed review of the hits that while there were many for "Sanjay Pandey", almost none referred to the subject of the article. Bongomatic (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

what did you find that was for him--add them to the article or the talk page. But if the print sources are real, and is is the ed in chief, and the newspaper is impt, I think he might nonetheless be notable. Print sources from that area are not something that can be researched adequately in the US.DGG (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Proxy User (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Kabbalah or Cabala?

A user has suggested that the Kabbalah article be moved [1], with the intention of creating a new article called Kabbalah that would include all groups and individuals using that name. I think that will result in a problematic synthesis of Jewish and Hermetic Kabbalah. But I suggested that, if an article could be written that is all inclusive, the name of the article should be spelled Cabala, because that is the preferred choice of librarian catalogers [2]. But, since that is outside my expertise, I would appreciate it if you comment on that (and, of course on the RfC). Thanks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am no authority on spelling, in any subject. :) I do however doubt there would be utility in a general article, & I commented there DGG (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Shanah Tovah! Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you please have a look

Hello Mr. Goodman. I'm still new to WP and learning. This article still does not seem notable to me despite the added "refs." I noticed you endorsed my original proposal for deletion. Is it much better now, really? Thanks for your perspective on the matter. --Einsteindonut (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

its not great. but see Google News Archive, [3]. i added a ref. from there. Myself, I would keep it, but I don't know if the consensus will. DGG (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

y

Severed

Inre THIS. Thanks for saying so. I can respect those who read the letter of WP:RS, but feel impelled to point out that WP:RS must be applied to each article in context to the information being sourced. Severed may likely be deleted, but I hate for documented notability to be ignored for the wrong reasons. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(mountain biker)]]

Hello again, DGG ... I'd like a second opinion from Some Other Editor about:

• Sean Daley (mountain biker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thnx! — 72.75.98.105 (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

if the qy is the notability of his accomplishments, it is not my subject--but I cannot really tell what your concern is at this point. Tell me there. DGG (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought that the WP:RS was weak, but now I see that WP:ATHLETE is fairly broad ... I put some lipstick on it, and it's gotten a little better, so I think that I'll just MOVE ON ... BTW, my IP changed again. — 72.75.82.202 (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done ... FYI, Adam Craig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is no longer on the chopping block either, since Olympian satisfies WP:N for WP:ATHLETE, even if the "sources" are weak. :-) — 72.75.82.202 (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson and FAC

Hi, DGG. While I understand that the issues that occurred a month ago on the Samuel Johnson FAC may have led you to write this, the current dispute is actually unrelated to what you wrote there. Both Thatcher and you raised valid points, but may have missed the gist of the current issue. Ottava has done much better lately at dealing with conflict and working with other editors.

You may not be aware that Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a long history of edit warring (see his block log, and note that his most recent block was from a 3RR report submitted by me) and has been grinding an axe about FAC (and MOS) for all the years I've been around. His input on this particular FAC is similar to his approach to other FACs and to his input at MoS. His POV tag derails a FAC that has more than two dozen Supports and had no actionable Opposes (other than Pma's) over a sourcing concern in which Pma is mistaken about the medical sourcing. A POV tag on the article over one sentence places Raul in a very difficult position wrt closing the FAC.

The dispute is not a literary one: it resulted from Pma's lack of knowledge of the medical sources, and was complicated certainly by Ottava's edit summaries, where he referred to a fringe source or author, when more correctly he should have said that, in the case of the one disputed sentence, DeMaria (writing almost 15 years ago, which is Ancient History in Tourette syndrome (TS) research, where most current understanding dates from 1998) relied on Oliver Sacks, who is a fringe source in TS research. Sacks is basically a Committee of One with respect to some of his idiosyncratic views on TS, which are completely unsupported by reputable mainstream TS researchers or recent journal-published reviews. See Oliver Sacks#Literary work for some quotes from peers; I could privately supply some maillist posts from a widely published, recognized, reputable TS researcher, but clearly they don't meet WP:RS).

The current dispute is:

• 1) Pma inserted a sentence which is inaccurate and unsupported by current TS research,
• 2) another editor on Wiki as knowledgeable about TS research as I am (Eubulides (talk · contribs)) suggested a perfectly accurate and reasonable compromise sentence, "TS's effect on Johnson's public behavior may have led him to authorship, a relatively solitary occupation",
• 3) Ottava correctly deleted Pma's inaccurate sentence, but with an inaccurate edit summary, and
• 4) after they each escalated, rather than resolving the dispute by simply inserting the accurate sentence suggested by Eubulides, PMA added what I consider to be an unjustified POV tag (the text is fine with or without the sentence, it's certainly not POV).

The POV tag virtually assures that Raul can't promote the article in spite of more than two dozen Supports. Further, this is after a long discussion on talk explaining the issues with sourcing to Sacks.

I'm writing to you mostly to clear the record, because Ottava should know my views about posting FAC business to AN/I, and I'm truly embarrassed that a FAC that has my name on it as a nominator (added by Ottava) should appear at AN/I. Although I recognize the past issues, I think part of the issue was overlooked at ANI. I've unwatched the article and the FAC because this position is so uncomfortable for me as FAC delegate. Having experience with Pmanderson at FAC and MoS, I'm undecided if I'm going to re-engage the article or the FAC or if it will even be worth my time, but I did want you to have the full story. Certainly, it didn't help Ottava that I also let Pma push my buttons this time, because it's so wrong for a FAC to be derailed in this manner.

Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression I had written a tactful discussion of the problem, without mentioning names, and where the implication was defense of O.R. I also tried to avoid discussing content specifically, must not have been clear. I know more about SJ than about TS, and the problems with the article & the problems in the discussion of it have been not only about TS, whatever may have provoked the current incident. I continue to see it as an interpersonal problem appropriate for AN/I if tnecessary DGG (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought you did as well, but am pointing out that the specific current dispute wasn't literary per se, rather misuse or misunderstanding of the medical sourcing by Pma. I left a question on the talk page about the need for a POV tag and asking what was wrong with the sentence proposed by Eubulides. Maybe I'll wade back over there in a few days and see if Pma has reconsidered. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I commented at the article talk page, one last time. If you don't like what I said, say so there, not here. DGG (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Done, and thank you for weighing in. If anyone is still listening there, it looks good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Knowledge networking

I reviewed the changes and if anything the article got worse so I have nominated it for AFD. However I think I may have made a mistake (although I can't see what) listing it. --Snowded TALK 19:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Deaths by age

Category:Deaths by age and it's sub-categories have been nominated for deletion. Having previously expressed an opinion on this category, 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. --Pixelface (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Content

Thanks. I initially didn't realize that they were fictional characters... all I saw was the infobox and the lack of general information. I'll be more careful in future. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The WikiProject Novels Newsletter - October 2008

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 13:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melville Davisson Post

Due to your massive reasoning, am I allowed to remove it? I acknowledge that I have made a mistake in nominating the article, and apologize for that. Sam ^Blab 11:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• • all you need do is indicate at the afd that you are withdrawing it. Someone will close it. DGG (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

translators

That's just what I've read somewhere several times on here from some editors- that babelfish or whoever would not be happy with someone using their machine's translation and claiming it as their own/using it as free use, when it's not. If it's not true then I shall be very glad, as I was worried about the work I've been doing on the french wiki, where I've thought I had to tinker with everything I wrote. :) Sticky Parkin 12:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• For translating into English, where we follow basically US copyright law, I can not see how it could be copyright in it, to the creator of the machine. A dictionary company is not the holder of copyright of the works produced on it. What these devices basically are, is dictionaries. The machine has been doing no creative labor, and thus are not subject to US copyright. There is of course the copyright of the original, as for derivative works in general. It would be an interesting question whether you;'re feeding of text into the machine produces a work in which you have additional intellectual property, as you would for a manual translation. I'd argue not, on similar grounds, but of course you would if you edited it. What might be relevant, though, is patent protection. For the term of the patent, the patent holder of that device has the right to control its use, and can make it freely available, or charge for it. as he chooses. The patent holder could have chosen to insist on retaining a license and charge a royalty by the word. But of course you are not using such a machine. Most free translations are free versions of commercial devices, made available essentially as advertising. All commercial devices generally available that I know of are also sold at a flat rate, without a royalty on the product. There is no limitation on using non-free programs for preparing material on wikipedia--essentially all of us, for example, use commercial computers. Most of us use communication programs that are not open sources, either. There is a prohibition against incorporating into wikipedia foundation projects anything that is not open source--we can not for example include flash animations. We do not even include pdf files. But we do link to them.

now, I do not know French copyright. But i would be surprised if it differed here.

Another question, related: in translating from French to English, which I do a small amount of, I have found no free translator capable of producing even minimally acceptable English that does not need extensive rewriting. Not a question of poor word choice, or failure to see idioms--they have trouble getting the tenses right, especially the various French tenses used in describing past events. Sometimes it ends up in the English future. Do they work better the other way around? (In my experience Google German translations come out better and need only light editing--Google French is a particular horror.) DGG (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

They do not work better the other way round.

No text produced by Babelfish can be used without extensive editing by a human who knows both languages. This is irrespective of the Babelfish language pair used.

Jayen466 21:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Babelfish is of course a free version of a commercial translator & presumably crippled--have we any knowledge of better free alternatives? Looking at the errors BF makes, I find it hard to imagine that humans could not make a better machine. 21:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything substantially better out there, nor do I think anything can be much better given the state of the art, and the complexity of the task. See Translator#Machine_translation. What does work are Translation memory tools, but they merely help translators save time if they get the same or similar texts over and over again from a client. These tools do not actually create translations of new texts, they merely find previously translated stuff that the translator can then reuse. Jayen466 22:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Just for illustration, here is Babelfish's German translation of what I just posted above ...

I don' t denken, dass es alles gibt, das heraus dort im Wesentlichen besser ist noch ich alles kann den State-of-the-art und die Kompliziertheit der Aufgabe viel besser gegeben werden denke. Sehen Sie Translator#Machine_translation. Was arbeitet, sind Übersetzungsgedächtniswerkzeuge, aber sie helfen bloß Übersetzern sparen Zeit, wenn sie gleiche oder die ähnlichen Texte immer wieder von einem Klienten erhalten. Diese Werkzeuge nicht wirklich verursachen Übersetzungen der neuen Texte, sie finden bloß vorher übersetztes Material, das der Übersetzer dann wiederverwenden kann.

... and this is its back-translation of that German text into English:

I don' t think that there is everything, which out is there essentially better still I everything can the State OF the kind and the complexity of the task is much better given thinks. See to Translator#Machine_translation. Which works, are translation memory tools, but they help to save only translators time, if they receive same or the similar texts again and again from a client. These tools really do not cause translations of the new texts, it find only before translated material, which the translator can reuse then.

Trust me, the German above does not read any better than the English backtranslation. :-)) Jayen466 22:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

West Bank School

ditto re: doubts. I just put a prod 2. Lots of wiki mirrors, little evidence of notability and reliable source coverage. So many galleries in cities all over, so little notability beyond their block. Thanks for the heads up. TravellingCari 04:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

and the artists mentioned there? DGG (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You got a thank you card!

A Thank You Card!

Dear DGG, thank you so much for your words of support, kindness, and your trust in me. My request for Adminship has been closed, and the support the community has shown will be with me forever. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am, and all I can tell you is this: I shall try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, please tell me! :) If you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you are welcome to ask, and I shall do my very best. Please take care. G.A.S 16:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Fresh comment at Masson discussion page

DGG: This is just to let you know I've only just seen your 5 October comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeffrey_Moussaieff_Masson#how_to_proceed

I've now added a response. Esterson (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Beauty contest

It's actually not a beauty contest. I just put that in my sig as a marketing stung to get people's attention. It's meant to get people to pick which of multiple photos of the same person is of the best quality for use in articles. YellowMonkey (click here to chose Australia's next top model!) 01:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

that's exactly the point. A beauty contest. I didn't say that based on the title, but the content. I always look at the content. DGG (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliability

Your professional view on this matter would be welcome. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP issue

BLPN was notified a week ago but we have no response, and simmering revert war continues at Talk:Mikhail_Meltyukhov#General_BLP_problem. I can't recall other editors I know that commented in BLP issues previously, so... Comments appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

commented there. DGG (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. There are comments waiting.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Rfa Spam

Thank you so much for your support on my RFA, which today passed unanimously. I will do my best to make sure that I don't let any of you down. If you ever need any help with anything, feel free to ask me, i'll be happy to. Thanks again--Jac16888 (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Hoser

Hi there, I've just finished rewriting this article, could you take another look at the AfD discussion? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, did you get the right comment? diff you made earlier Tim Vickers (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

fixed. I see I've said almost everything different one can possibly say on this. :) On balance, I think you're right, though. DGG (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually heard of him before the AfD, since I'm keen on snakes myself (see my Gallery on Commons). Tim Vickers (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Some metadata discussions

Would you be interested in Wikipedia:Biographical metadata (some discussion on the talk page) and Wikipedia:Metadata? The line between data and metadata can be hard to draw sometimes, but I thought you would know a bit about this. The biographical page is obviously for biographical stuff, but are there useful things to say on the general metadata page about metadata for sources and various library stuff? I don't want to re-invent the wheel here, or overdo the page. Just a listing pointing to various places should do for now. Carcharoth (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

David J E Callaway

Hello DGG. I value your judgment and was wondering if you would look at this. I'm not convinced of the subject's notability. For references, he adds a list of his own publications. Does not seem to understand my request for third party reliable sources. I prodded; he removed. Don't know if would survive AFD, and I can't research or edit anymore today. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

See comments at the article. I don't know either, but the key information about citations was not on his web page or in the article until I added it. DGG (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

LIS & PIM

Hi DGG. You left this message on my talk page:

"You mentioned it being taught it library schools. at [4] Where? Please reply on my talk page. DGG (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)"

My reply: PIM as an area of study in LIS is primarily being taught by Dr. William Jones at the Information School of the University of Washington. See for example this course and this full-day seminar on PIM at ASIS&T 2008. Other LIS schools teach PIM but not directly labeled as such - most of it is incorporated into information behavior or information management courses. PIM is also the area of study of some LIS PhD students such as Christina Pikas see this article of hers on PIM.

Hope this answers your question.

Glendac (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Glenda

Cecil H. Moore

Hi DGG

I think you forgot to sign your comment on WP:Articles for deletion/Cecil H. Moore. Also, please note that (notwithstanding my previous misstatement in the nomination) that none of his houses was actually nominated.

Rgds Bongomatic (talk) 08:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the support, and kind rationale, in my RfA which just passed unanimously. Please let me know if I do anything wrong or break anything. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

vandal account

There is a single purpose vandal IP which has just made mass vandal changes to a page I edit (ACTDU), could you please have it blocked for 24 hours, and if it persists I'll get back to you then.JJJ999 (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• I should add that I just undid all the vandalism... the single purpose IP has not edited anything else, and begins with 145 I think...

I hope you're aware you did it not signed in, which is not a good idea in such cases. I see he left his name (I assume it's his--I', checking everywhere it appears inn WP) on the pages rather conspicuously. It would have helped to place a warning-4 template. I am doing it now, and will block at the next such edit. The address resolves to the Netherlands, which is quite unexpected considering the topic. DGG (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It was quite accidental, and I signed in after. I know who it is if they're from the Netherlands I think, just some vandal.JJJ999 (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like I've got another vandal who dislikes the page for some reason. Probably a meat puppet here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/150.101.115.53 , can you block it? CheersJJJ999 (talk) 09:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Actually, can we just lock the page, rather than bother with this as a new IP variant is tried. He'll get bored of it in a week I daresay. Some people have nothing better to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.218.27 (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Feel free to block this one too, and protect my user page and talk page since I try to avoid using it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/145.97.198.85 .122.148.218.27 (talk) 09:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism page claiming he wasn't warned, can you do something about this, given it's clearly the same person using a mild variation on their IP?JJJ999 (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

everything relevant has been blocked against ip editing for appropriate periods of time. I would also appreciate a comment about you're knowing who the vandal is, because i suspect there are some other related articles also being attacked. Email if private information.DGG (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Just 2 people from the ANU, one on exchange in the Netherlands at the moment. Seems to just be a random attack on people they vaguely know, probably because bored. I don't see further information really being helpful.JJJ999 (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsuccessful searches

No problem; I tried to stop the delete but failed. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:NFCC

Sorry to trouble you, I was just looking through some deletion reviews and noticed that during one of the discussions (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 7#Image:NewYorkYankees caplogo.svg (closed)) you refer to WP:NFCC as a guideline. Just to point out that the criteria are listed as an English Wikipedia official policy and they also act as our Exemption Doctrine Policy as required by the foundation. This was mentioned in the discussion but it wasn't clear if you were made aware. Sorry if you've been informed already or if you just accidentally added another "C" to WP:NFC which is a guideline (which incorporates WP:NFCC whilst making clear that it's a policy) it just seemed to be worth clarifying for future reference. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I see it is listed as a policy--you are right. As you may have noticed, i tend to stay away from discussions on the subject because of their utter irrationality--to have such details in a policy is simply absurd, and in my opinion a typical expression of copyright paranoia. To interpret the foundation requirement as asking for such detail is wrong; to interpret it as asking for such a restrictive policy is also wrong. The correct copyright policy in my opinion would be to include in the enWP as a NFCC exemption everything reasonable that the US law will allow and, in our case, that the Foundation will permit. I know that is not the policy here, so I don't do admin actions on the subject. Thanks for reinforcing my resolve. That point in my opinion at the deletion review, looking back, did not affect the decision, so I see no real reason to change it in a closed AfD. DGG (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really want to get into a big debate but I think that to an extent the current policy does reflect what the Foundation will permit - foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy (which according to the page may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects) requires that each project must set out the the specific circumstances in which non-free content will be allowed in a policy and that such exceptions "must be minimal". Guest9999 (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Where this gets discussed best is on the Wikipedia mailing list. My view is by no means extreme or unique. DGG (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to argue, I realise it's a divisive issue - I just think that the current policy is both a requirement and reasonable interpretation of what are effectively "orders from on high". Guest9999 (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the current policy is an livable compromise--if interpreted reasonably, as was done at that Deletion Review. DGG (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for dealing with Charlotte Salmons. I was watching it and was going to give it the axe today but you did it first. The reason I waited was because this person may be real and the author just got carried away, first writing real information then imaginary information. The other reason was that this person could start massive vandalism and if they were allowed to improve the article and remove the rubbish, it might be a better way to harness that energy.

Anyway, I was going end this nonsense now but I see you beat me to it. Chergles (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

what you did was reasonable too. Sometimes, for example, a student will write some really stupid stuff about an actually notable professor. But when the percentage of nonsense is this high, if the person is real & notable, they can start over. DGG (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, no

I didn't ask for you to "help me remember" to login, and I don't care to be patronised in that way, so I'd ask for you to undo it thanks, as it seems to be telling me that you have limited my IP. This is inconvenient, as sometimes my computer is slow and has trouble logging in (or sometimes one forgets), so I'd rather not have my time wasted in this manner. Plus others use this computer tooJJJ999 (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

you did ask my help. you specifically asked me to semi-protect your page and talk page, and as I understood it, to block the ip login is in fact rather rare to have done so to your ip account, and I thought of asking you again if you were sure. Obviously I should have done so. Sorry, but far from patronizing you, I was going beyond what I usually do to meet what I thought was your request. I've unblocked. Do you also want semi protection removed from your user talk and your user page? If you are using a shared computer, there are various programs to carry a set of browser setting on a thumb drive; when you then work with the drive in place on any computer, it uses your settings, which can include autologin. DGG (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No thanks, the semi-protection on the talk and user page is fine, I'll just login if I want to edit it.JJJ999 (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

A9

I see we now have a new CSD criteria WP:CSD#A9. All done on a consensus of about 6 people, nice. RMHED (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• All the same, I've decided not to challenge it, since the wording used is relatively limiting. Problem, as usual at CSD , is to keep it from quietly expanding, as when "companies" snuck into A7 nxt to groups a year or so ago. DGG (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I had to read it a couple of times before I entirely understood it, it won't be long before it's slapped on any album/single article regardless of the narrowly worded criteria. As I'm sure you know, there are quite a few admins who will delete regardless of whether the tag is being used correctly or not. Still it should keep DRV busy. RMHED (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there may be 1 or 2 who have been deleting such articles as speedies all along. We need a simpler way of removing selected buttons. DGG (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Never happen, you'll only ever pry those buttons from their cold dead fingers. RMHED (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Whilst going over the CSD's I spotted this gem [5], gave me a chuckle anyways. RMHED (talk) 02:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It was a bio of a clearly non-notable person (one appearance on an obscure national gameshow, minor publishing credits in Dragon and the like, appearance in a straight-to-DVD documentary, occasional mentions in local newspaper, listings in databases like The Political Graveyard, local activities in the labor movement); I deleted it as an A7. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for recovery

Hi David, please could you undelete Baleno (Hong Kong) which was prodded when I wasn't looking? I'll add this as evidence of notability. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

DoneDGG (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks as ever! - Fayenatic (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

copying pages from my userspace

Hi. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with some isolated snapshot of my sandbox existing on someone else's user page. I understand that you check the list of articles for PROD on a regular basis, and you must have had your reasons for copying it instead of deleting it. Maybe you could help me understand why you copied it before another administrator had a chance to delete it. Randomran (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I though you had some interesting ideas for possible reuse that weren't in the main part, but I've deleted it now. sorry if you were unhappy about it DGG (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey that's okay. I figure you had your reasons. I just wanted to understand. For what it's worth, most of the changes were implemented at WP:VG's guidelines, so you don't really need to keep a copy around. Anyways, thanks a lot for getting rid of it. Randomran (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright work

Re this message: by the way, I found it confusing at first: At first I thought you yourself were asserting that you were the copyright owner and were giving permission. But I found the original copy of that statement. May I suggest in future that when you do that, you provide a diff of the original? You don't need to do anything in this case; I already put a diff there. Cheers, ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

thanksDGG (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

National contractors rating bureau

How do I get all the work I did to submit later when I am notable? Can you send me the stuff I typed or make it live again for a little whiel so I can copy?

Thanks Eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eegeland (talk • contribs) 23:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

As your email is not activated, I have copied it to User:Eegeland/National Contractors Rating Bureau. If you can improve it immediately with references shoing your notability, please do so & let me know. Otherwise, copy it, and then place a line saying {{db-author}} at the top. For a guide to what is wanted for a Wikipedia article,see our Business FAQ (which also applies to non-profit organisations). DGG (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Help Regarding Deleted Article

Hello DGG,

I recently wrote a longer version of the following article and although I thought I was complying with Wikipedia's guidelines and requirements, the article was speedily deleted with a reference to A7 for failing to indicate "importance or significance of a group/band/company/etc.,"

Would it be appropriate to ask you to review the revised article and assist me regarding its re-posting?

Thank You, ZenF8 (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

re:speedies

Sorry 'bout that. Thanks for the catch. ~ Bella Swan^? 18:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I have replied to your comments on my talk page. Although you said you did not wish to pursue that matter further, I would still be grateful for your advice, if you are willing. CIreland (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

havent the least objection--my meaning was that I thought the immediate issue was moot. I've continued on your talk page. DGG (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have replied again. CIreland (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

One final short reply/query before I have to go to bed. CIreland (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Curtis Payne

Hello DGG, thank you for defending the Curtis Payne article and reverting the premature merge. Can you fix an error please, when you reverted TTN's edits you did not revert his merging of the House of Payne and Curtis Payne talk pages. Now any discussions pertaining to the nomination of deletion and controversial merge is on The House of Payne article's talk page. Just a request, thanks in advance! UniversalBread (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Brenda Biesterfeld

Hiya. Left a question for you at the AfD. Hope all is well in your world. TravellingCari 03:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Today's DRVs

Not sure why you're referring us to dispute resolution over the merger; the talk page should work just fine for that (and I've started a discussion at Talk:Belhaven College on that very matter). Stifle (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought of that a the first step in DR. Perhaps it isn't technically, but it is the first step in resolving the dispute. DGG (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your question

I posted an answer in my RfA. I think you misunderstood my answer and I think it's my fault for that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

Just wanted to say thanks for the work you're doing -- I've particularly appreciated several instances where you clearly articulated a point of view or opinion on policy/guidelines that I wish I could have stated half as succinctly and eloquently (i.e. on a couple RfAs and most recently the Spiderman History article at AfD). Cheers!JasonDUIUC (talk) 04:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Justin Swibel

Just gave it a wash and press. Could you add the awards? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Boston Medical Group

Hi, I was wondering if you would look at my revisions to this article and my comments in its AfD. I've added some reliable sources and tried to balance out the general puffery, though it could probably still use some improvement. Thanks. DHowell (talk) 03:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

good job, most of it. DGG (talk) 03:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Third Party References to Order of the Immaculate Conception of Vila Viçosa

Adding References

I would not be surprised if the references in other languages also were similar. Have you actually seen them? Before trying to find them it would be useful to know if any of them providedsignificantinformation to show the impotance.DGG (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Relating to the references, I have been fortunate to not only have seen the works and articles but have them in my library which is rather extensive. I can make these available to other scholars. Additionally, I do read Italian, Spanish, some Portuguese and French. Relating to third party references. most of the references are by leading scholars in the world of chivalry. Alas, chivalry and chivalric orders are specific and elite topics. A rather severe limitation with Wikipedia is that many 'scholars' who write on a specific area are not qualified, cannot read but English, do not possess a significant personal library on the topic and are not professors or scholars in the areas in which they write. I have taught graduate courses in Religious and Military Orders, Chivalry and Medieval History for eight years. DGG has been very helpful in assisting me in the aforementioned matter. Royalhistorian (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Prof. Carl Edwin Lindgren, DEd (UNISA), MEd (U. of Mississippi), FCP (Lond.), FCollT, FRAS, FSA Scot, Fellow, World Academy of Art and Science

Third party references include:

COMMISSIONE INTERNAZIONALE PERMANENTE PER LO STUDIO DEGLI ORDINI CAVALLERESCHI (International Commission for Orders of Chivalry), Registro degli Ordini Cavallereschi: relazione della Commissione internazionale permanente per lo studio degli Ordini Cavallereschi, Bologna, 2001-2006.

Montells y Galan, Jose Maria de and Escudero y Diaz-Madronero, Alfredo. 2006. Orden de la Immaculada Concepcion de Nuestra Senora de la Viçosa. Tesoro Ecuestre: Las Ordenes Dinasticas de Caballeria. Sociedad Heraldica Espanola, pp. 80-81.

Guy Stair Sainty. 2006. The Order of Our Lady of the Conception of Vila Viçosa. World Orders of Knighthood & Merit. Guy Stair Sainty (editor) and Rafal Heydel-Mankoo (deputy editor). United Kingdom: Burke's Peerage & Gentry. 2 Vol. (2100 pp). pp. 694-700.

Secretariado de Estado da Cultura. Tesouros Reais. Lisbon: Textype - Artes Gráficas, Ld.ª, 1992. ISBN 972-9496-12-9.

Peter Bander van Duren. 1985. Orders of Knighthood and of Merit, Gerrads Cross, Colin-Smythe.

Academic articles and works by the Vice Chancellor who is a noted scholar and writer include:

Evaristo, Carlos. "Il Reale Ordine de Nostra Signora della Concezione Immacolata di Villavicosa". degli Uberti, Pier Felice. And Maria Loredana Pinott (Eds.). Agigento 16-18 Novembre 2007. Convegno Internazionale “Storia, funzione, valori e attualita degli Ordini Cavallereschi e di Merito: I sistemi premiali nel Mondo e nell’Italia pre-unitaria sino al moderno Stato federalista.” International Commission for Orders of Chivalry (ICOC). Pp. 236-38.

Evaristo, Carlos. 'Il Reale Ordine di Nostra Signora della Concezione Immacolata di Vila Viçosa". Il Reale Ordine di San Michele dell’Ala. Sommario n° 28 - ottobre-dicembre 2007. 9Il Mondo del Cavaliere Rivista Internazionale sugli Ordini Cavallereschi. pp, 103-111.

Evaristo, Carlos. Gli Ordini Portoghesi Della Casa Di Braganza: Evoluzione Storica Ed Attualita pp 227-- 240

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Order_of_the_Immaculate_Conception_of_Vila_Vi%C3%A7osa"

This page was last modified on 24 October 2008, at 06:20. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.

Thanks

Thanks for the positive support for the page George Karakunnel. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank You again for the proper guidance. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

primal therapy article needs your input

Hello DGG. I tried to replace the criticism section of the primal therapy article, with one that uses standard citation formatting and does not include extensive excerpts for every single citation. Before doing that, I discussed the matter and achieved consensus beforehand.

Nevertheless, it appears that I have touched off an edit war, inadvertently. Another editor claims that I'm engaging in "POV pushing" and is undoing my edits.

I would appreciate it greatly if you could read the latest entry of discussion for the "primal therapy" article, and offer your opinion. Thanks, Tom W.Twerges (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

For a topic like that, reformat the citations so they do provide a cite for every concept. Why ask for problems? there are enough in that article without arguing over citations. That said, I regard the standard Wikipedia insistence of such detailed citing as in general, an inappropriate attempt to appear scholarly, No other encyclopedia or other book for general readers has ever been formatted in that manner--and neither are most modern academic works in the humanities. And that said, one of the possibly valid purposes of such formatting is to ensure the ed. who inserted the reference had at least read the book. DGG (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Questionable Articles

Hello again, DGG ... I'd like a second opinion on these articles:

• Communication Arts (magazine)/Issues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Compostmodern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Patrick Coyne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

They all appear to be recent contributions of Jlrgore (talk · contribs), apparently a WP:SPA attempting to bootstrap notability, and there may be a WP:COI.

Happy Editing! — 72.75.68.177 (talk · contribs) _{21:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)}

I have indicated it at the pages concerned, and I have also edited the article for Communication Arts (magazine). I have also left a message for the contributor.DGG (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Another approach

DGG, I respect your decision to keep Evolutionary origin of religions on the basis of the content and sourcing it now contains but G5 is also applicable. The reason it looks different is because a now banned user kept on rehabilitating it and altering it slowly each time until he was banned and then started using socks to do the work for him. He refused to work with others in the process or developing the entry in user space and engaging talk pages to reach consensus. Instead he insisted on his own personal version of the entry and exhibited ownership over it. I would suggest merging content into Origin of religion, and handling it from user space so as not to sanction the recreation of deleted content by a banned user. That's the last I'm going to deal with this. I also left a note on the talk page of the entry in question. Good luck.PelleSmith (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

actually, I hadn't noticed the part about the user. A merge is not all that simple for an article like this, though I did think about that, since I too am interested in that subject. It would mean keeping his recreated article as a redirect, and interpreting the rule as being sufficiently fulfilled by not having it appear as the article he personally rewrote. DGG (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

speedy tags

Ok, I will try to be more careful in the future. Thanks! Wysprgr2005 (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Directions to "The Johannine Comma (The Grammatical Argument)"

If you read the unchallenged article "Comma Johanneum," you'll notice that it provides information that explains why the Comma does not belong in the text. This article provides a lot of source material for its explanation. I agree that the presentation style of my article is inferior, but the information is accurate. Further, I can't provide any sources for that information other than the included quotes, because the information that I provide in that article doesn't come from external sources; I had to do the research myself. This is why I think that my article should be kept. This particular aspect (the grammar) of the subject (the Comma) is simply not discussed. The grammatical argument is presented often enough in favor of the Comma, but opponents of the Comma always base their position on the manuscript evidence. When asked about the grammar, they either ignore the question or they brush it off with an unexplained comment about the personalization of the three nouns in 1 John 5:8 (Majority Text), which is not really accurate. The information contained in my article is the only in depth explanation that I've ever seen of why the grammatical argument favoring the Comma is not valid. The only other attempt at this that I've seen came from a guy named Hudson, and his refutation of the grammatical argument had a lot of mistakes in it. He has since removed it from the Internet. I didn't just make this stuff up. I did the research. Anyone who takes the time to verify my statements regarding the cited passages and the Greek grammar will discover that the information is correct. I've been told that I cannot use redirects such as "1 John 5:7 (2)" and "Johannine Comma (2)" to help people find my article. OK. I accept that. It's been suggested that I direct people to my article through a link in the article titled "Comma Johanneum." OK. I'll do it that way then. I'll add a link to my article in the "see also" secton of "Comma Johanneum." I hope you decide to allow the my article to remain, because the information provided in that article is more important to a greater number of people than you may realize. If someone else wants to change the presentation style of my article to make it look prettier, by all means do so. I myself don't know how to do that. But the information itself is valid and correct and useful. I hope that you'll allow it to remain in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7Jim7 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

suggestions-- as i think you realise, the grammatical argument does not possibly make a page by itself. It might fit in the existing page--but the one part which would certainly fit is the sourced part about the earlier argument, the one you think incorrect. To show it's incorrect, you either have to find someone else who published something like your argument against it, or get it published yourself, which might be possible. In any case there is a major gap--I think you have probably shown that the grammatic feature does not exist in NT Greek--but what is the background for it having even been suggested--is this attraction a standard property of classic Greek? A good deal about NT Greek has of course been published over the centuries, so something about the difference might well be sourcable. Any theological library should have some of the books, as well as major universities, but the literature goes way back. But there is something you could do now: the existing article--and your proposed one -- should really also include the Greek words at issue, both in Greek letters and in transcription. We do this with other articles dealing with exact non-English wording, and we should do it here as well. I can';t do it securely enough, though, I , and most people with a scientific training, can decipher a few words of Greek if someone writes it out. DGG (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

are maps primary sources?

Hi. Since you're more familiar with the differences between primary, secondayr, and tertiary sources, I would like to get your input on an issue. On Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Keyser's Ridge – Cumberland, Maryland), there are two people who are opposing because the route description section of a highway is sourced mainly to state highway department maps. Their argument is that maps are primary sources and an article should not rely on them for a substantial portion of the article. I am not sure what alternative reference is available to describe where a highway route goes. I would have thought that maps are already secondary sources, the actual land surveys being the primary sources. Your input on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 20:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

maps are edited products prepared by authorities on the basis of survey data or aerial photographs. The raw survey data or photographs are the primary data; the maps are secondary as renderings and interpretations of that. They have high authority and can be referred to, as they universally are in geography as reliable sources. DGG (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and also for posting your thoughts on the above-mentioned FAC as well. I will try and argue that maps, particularly third party maps when used properly, are more similar to secondary sources. --Polaron | Talk 04:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The Commonwealth Medical College

David, is this article notable? Wim --Crusio (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

A medical school is notable. As a part of a university , it almost always gets a separate article if there's information available. As a free-standing one like this, it would certainly be notable, like all other institutions of higher education. Plans for one that have reached the stage of intending to admit students for Sept 09 indicate that a great deal of work and funding has already been accomplished--it's analogous to film that is well into production. That preliminary accreditation has been achieved is also highly significant. it does need references, of course, and some more information. DGG (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks! --Crusio (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the original editor TCMC has started adding text which is on the spammy side to the article. I've left him a note on his talk page asking him to either fully reference anything he adds or, preferably, stick to the talk page. Feel free to trout me if that's out of order. MadScot (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wendy Helsby (author)

Just sourced and (slightly) expanded the article. If RHMed grants that her book is notable, how can that not reflect on her notability as its author? I feel her works being used in classes get her in under WP:Creative. Maybe up your "weak"? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw those sources in my search and considered them unusable. But I went from very weak keep to weak keep. DGG (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality.

I was directed to Wikipedia neutrality and no-personal-research policies. Based on what I read, I expect my article to be deleted. Although, I suppose that I could quote Nolan and Dabney, and then I could quote Wallace in opposition, and maybe I could quote examples from the Greek New Testament in support of Wallace. Anyway, thanks for your help. 7Jim7 (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Listed buildings

Hi DGG, I saw your edit summary on Templelands, [6], stating that "all listed buildings are notable". Is this your opinion, or has there been some discussion? I'm not questioning you, just was interested in case I missed something. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, its a standard practice, check previous AfDs. For some reason we don't have a specific statement that I am aware of, but I have yet to see one deleted. Cari, if you see this, could you assist me? DGG (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, both. I'm on limited wiki time for the moment and I agree with David that we need to get more specific guidelines on this but as was discussed here, they rarely get deleted. It generally stems from the fact that if a building is listed on a given country's register of historic properties, there has been enough coverage. While there's the WP:NOTNEWS issue to deal with, it's not so much the news coverage that surrounded their listing but rather the circumstances surrounding their being listed on the appropriate register that provides notability. Because houses/properties need to meet some standards for recognition it's generally the case that these standards provide that these properties meet notability standards. I'm up for proposing a guideline at WP:NRHP or elsewhere, but I don't have the time to do this now. My goal: get this going by the end of 2008. It's a long way -- but realistically, I'm not going to get to it before then. I'm going to ping a couple of others who might at the project. ETA: Discussion here TravellingCari 02:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Cari, and DGG. I hesitate to contribute to a discussion on the NHRP, as my original question was about UK listed buildings, and I know little about the US listing system. But I shall keep an eye on what comes up, and whether any guideline can be modified to apply to UK listings. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome to chime in at wt:NRHP at any time. There is a need for a wikiproject on historic sites, world-wide, which i meant to propose but haven't and can't myself address before end of 2008 probably. In general, yes, NRHP-listed buildings (and sites and districts and objects like monuments) are always deemed wikipedia-notable, because (a) they have some significance which the national body is recognizing, and (b) extensive documentation from their nomination texts and photo documents are always available (providing for wikipedia-reliable sources), although may not be available on-line upfront. But such documents can be obtained by postal mail, so we argue successfully that any stub article on an NRHP site can be documented adequately even if they are not yet adequately documented to be a Good Article or whatever. For UK listed buildings, I am not familiar with it but presume there is equivalent documentation available. I imagine every UK-listed property is wikipedia notable and I expect that wp:NRHP members would be very supportive in any AfD or other issue about a UK-listed property. Feel free to post about UK issues there, until we can get a properly named worldwide historic sites wikiproject up. I found my way here from Travellingcari's mention at wt:NRHP. Hope this helps. doncram (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for taking time to help. Now I understand the problem. I really apreciate your competent support on this and I will rewrite the article. Best regards Swordfish2008 (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

From User:Millenniumshakespeare

Give me a break -I am trying to construct Millennium shakespeare -I need help...so I can make some links and references...Blatent advertising...Phew....here's some...It's called Patience and understanding.....—Preceding unsigned comment added by Millenniumshakespeare (talk • contribs) 18:37, 26 October 2008

User:Millenniumshakespeare?

I understand that blocking account creation is standard with a spamusername block. The offender needs to petition on their (not blocked) userpage for an unblock in order to change username, as part of which we get assurances that they understand our prohibitions on spam, COI, etc., before they are unblocked. Otherwise, they can just create a new username and after a few days respite spam away once more. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

My real concern is that I & two other eds. had already gone to some trouble trying to fix this and get him headed right, as was visible on his user p. & you should have let me follow it up. DGG (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

prod vs redirect

I was about to convert to redirects the other 3 minor characters instead of proposing a deletion. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And now the first problem. I think Cara Walker has to be redirected to Kara Walker instead of Sweet Valley High. Should I send it for RfD or something? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This now makes it necessary to change it to a short disam page, or see WP:Soft redirect -- there is no std way of handling these. It may seem unproductive to take the time to build the structure, but for most good large databases, this sort of structural maintenance takes about half the overall work. I think we tend to devote much less than the optimum here. DGG (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pyrokinesis

An article that you have been involved in editing, Pyrokinesis, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyrokinesis. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

seems headed for a speedy keep.DGG (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems that way. Guess I was wrong. Just as well. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It was not wrong to ask for a community opinion. Someone there in fact found a major way to improve the article that I had missed. DGG (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and a question

Thanks for your comment in the weedpunk deletion review, as it was the only one that was right. I hate to say it but I really can't figure out how they got G3 and G4 from anything that happened. The AfD was 8 months ago and the article was changed to address the reasons it was deleted, so G4 is out. G3 is obviously wrong as hoaxes are noncriteria if there is even a slight chance at being real, which the new sources should show. Anyway, what is an appropriate time to wait before the next review, as obviously I believe very much in this? I don't want to keep putting up deletion review after review, though, since that would obviously be counterproductive and annoying. Or is there such a thing as a deletion review review, since I can't see how a review of the deletion process would come to such an outcome, haha. Anyways just wondering if you knew about how long would be best to wait, or if its just completely over for now until even more new sources are found? Thanks. --Banime (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to rewrite the article around it being an hypothetical or postulated genre, discussed as such., rather than present it as a real genre, and then give references saying how it might be hypothetic. The way to go is to rewrite it in user space. And then ask for another deletion review. But make damn sure it is better. DGG (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Joewurzelbacher2010

An article I created, Joewurzelbacher2010 was deleted while I was in the process of writing the article. Do you know how I may get a copy of the article - the copy that was deleted? Multiple reliable sources were added, but there were more to be added and expounded upon. I had placed an "underconstruction tag" on the article. I would like to be able to complete it (on a user page) and then resubmit it in the future if/when it is notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have asked the deleting admin to restore it, as I think it a clear misuse of speedy. I would suggest Deletion review, except that it would be not worth the fuss--the article cannot really stand on its own at this point. If he does not restore it by tomorrow, I will move it into your user space. DGG (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Per the deleting admin's talk page Hello ^demon, I do not believe it is willing to restore the page. If the page can not be restored, can it at least be moved to my user space? Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. It's at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Joewurzelbacher2010, Feel free to move it back when you think it's ready, or ask me for a look. I suggest that it might be much simpler to add articles on this general range of subjects after next Tuesday. :) DGG (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdented) - DGG: I initially nominated the article for a speedy, which was declined on the grounds that apparently, the site was notable, although I disagreed with it holding its own place, recommending it should be mentioned in an article about Joe Wurzelbacher. The subsequent deletion, at least as far as I am aware, was not born from the initial speedy which I placed. I am only noting this so you don't think my speedy was what triggered this deletion. Thanks! Thor Malmjursson (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

the responsibility for a speedy deletion is that of the deleting administrator--anyway, the proper solution will be a better article if it turns out this is really notable. Otherwise, I can well understand anyone not wanting to boldly merge anything into this particular principal this week. DGG (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torkel Franzén

I'm staying out of this one, because I corresponded with Torkel for over a decade before his death. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Peter Max Lawrence

The few sources I listed at the AfD were simply a way of my saying "I found these in less than 20 seconds... can't notability be shown?". I have since found more... and am still in the process... but I have have no COI with this, I have begun sandblasting and rewriting the article to remove POV, Peacock, and unsourcable assertions. When I am through I hope it will then be nicely encyclopedic... and will most definitely ask you to look in and opine. This one is being a real pain, but I may be able to do it. I figure I am about 30% done. Wish me luck. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• good luck with it. I actually read them, & my impressions of them were that he was considered marginal. I wquld be inclined to aim at a noconsensus with a relist in a month, on the basis of the problems at the start of the AfD. DGG (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• • It was a total pain-in-my-butt to weed out the fluff and find sources. I think he might now been seen as having a minor notability, once I pulled his opwn major ego out of the article. I can do no more, and my fingers are tired. I will accept your opinion, as I now have to get to work. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

CT Connect - Need Sources Suggestions

Thank you for your citation/footnote fixes already contributed. This article is about a software product in the field of computer-telephone integration. The product is mentioned as one of several notable products in the aforesaid article. Since I was formerly (1988 to 2003) associated with the product under several company ownerships, I can contribute a lot of additional information that may be of interest to readers. However, I am having trouble identifying corroborating sources that pass Wikipedia muster. I see that you are a librarian by trade and training; can you make any suggestions regarding a research strategy to find these references? Much of the information that needs to be corroborated was (at the time at least) company confidential. FOr example, how do I demonstrate that this product was a leading competitor in the field without being accused of puffery? Cstrathmeyer (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As you recognize, one main thing you need now is sales information. I gather the product was not sold by itself , but was a component in systems? In exactly which systems? On what basis did it produce revenue --royalties on the number of systems sold? That information should be available. DEC was not a private company. Audited financial reports will do. What percentage of total systems sold in the period was that? Any business librarian can help you get the public part of this data. Another thing that is needed is a clear description of just what the system consisted of. Since parts were patented, not all of it is proprietary. Just whatfunctions did it support? How was in programmed How was it released. is it microcode on a ROM, or what? Now, some specifics:

You use the terms CTI and CIT -- are the equivalent-- explain them further. is this product simply a representative example of one of them--that is never clear. Don';t refer to other articles for a description--give a one sentence summary here. Give the titles of the patents. Reorient the article to talk aboutthe product itself, not the history of the product.

Is the product currently in use via Envox? what are its changes and current applications? Has the entire concept been superseded or incorporated into other systems? DGG (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. This gives me some good direction regarding the desired Wikipedia style and some specific things to work on. Cstrathmeyer (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm back. I think I have made some progress in a number of areas you mentioned. I know I need more non-commercial references, and I am still trying to locate publicly-available sales figures. Am I getting close enough that Wikipedia admins may drop some of the flags currently on the article? Or do I have a long ways to go? Cstrathmeyer (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. I think the article is looking a LOT better. I have found published book sources and have replaced the press release sources. I also moved a lot of the history material and recast it as descriptive material, with source backup. Two of my book sources devote a chapter to CT Connect, so I think I have demonstrated notability. This newbie thanks you for all your help! Cstrathmeyer (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of my article

Please consider reading the article "Swiss Quality Label for Swiss Tourism" once again. Why should that please not be encyclopedic? What about this article "exclusively poromote some entity"? I put the reference! Have you checked the source? With all do respect, DGG, I think you should advice specificly what exactly is to be corrected instead of just deleting it. And as I really do not have the time to read each one of the one billion wiki guidlines, please just advice! I have already spent hours to get to know wikipedia and how to write an articel. The content of this article was nothing but facts. Just check out the references: Official Website of the Quality Label for Swiss Tourism
Official Website of the Swiss Tourism Federation --Swordfish2008 (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Huggle

Hi. You stated recently that you would prefer to see Huggle use discontinued and every edit ever made by it reverted (an odd choice, as it would reintroduce an awful lot of vandalism). If it is not too much trouble, would you care to outline your objections more fully? It would be useful to see whether any percieved problems could be addressed in a slightly less dramatic manner. Thanks -- Gurch (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I spoke partially for effect. Undoubtedly a less drastic version would be possible. But I think it's the key features there that do the harm--as I will explain. (Note that I'm going by the documentation & some of what i say may in fact be disabled or work differently than I think--as i do not use Windows, I cannot even try it out). Basically I see too many mistakes made by it, even more than some of the other automatic gadgets used here. I'd accept some gadgets used in semi automatic mode that require a confirmation, and I certainly accept helper programs-- i use popups, and a variety of custom keyboard macros of my own, but they don't by themselves do anything. I do not think I am unique-- I notice that many good admins also do everything manually. automatic programs promote tagging, at the expense of correcting, and the use of automatic warnings instead of actually helpful messages. I do a lot of speedy patrol, and consequently see a lot of stuff that needs warnings--and a lot that other people have given inappropriate warnings to. I never give a warning of any sort without checking the full user history, including the contributions and deleted contributions, and I do not necessarily use the scale. Most of the time I want to warn I do a custom one instead, with something added in each case to indicate it's not written by a machine. I never tag for deletion without checking the history & the associated articles. When I put on tags or improvement, I think about what the 2 or 3 critical problems are, and use those alone. when I see spam & the company appear notable, I fix the spam. When I see something wrong and the person clearly does not know what to do, I tell them what to do. If I place a prod, I add to the prod warning usually my advice about whether its fixable. When I revert vandalism I pick the right version to revert to. And so on. All the above are things that Huggle does not encourage doing.

Now, you are probably going to say that this is the stuff experienced people know how to do, and not the beginners who catch a lot of the vandalism. First, it's not just the beginners with Huggle who get things wrong. And the solution is for the beginners to learn to do it right. The way to learn to do it right is to go slowly. That's what i really look for. If someone is doing 2 edits a minute or more consistently ,they' are doing it wrong, even if they ware working that fast manually. I've checked my contributions record--and even for the most simple of things I hit about 1 per minute and a half at the peak. You'll say that a otherwise a lot of th vandalism would be missed--I dont think so; a more effective way of making sure that patrolling is time-organized would catch things better, and--in any case--the way to aim for is converting vandals to editors. You'll say one can be careless manually just the same--true, but the damage goes slower, so someone will be more likely to notice. without. You ill also say that Huggle can permit people do do all the custom things I mention--and from the manual I think it can,--the problem is that it makes it too easy to ignore them. If you'd like we can go over function by function, so email me. DGG (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

replied via email--Gurch (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC) -- & replied also. DGG (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

André Boingnères

This info only appears to be found in this article, which is why I flagged it. If you look at http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilisateur:Stsulpice you will find that the creator has been warned over his 'spam' about Boingnères, who has also been removed from the French article Termes-d'Armagnac with the comment 'inconnu'. Boingnères did have something to do with the racecourse. Peridon (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC) PS Is your page always so slow to respond?

By all means nominate for afd, but we do not speedy on the basis of what frWP did in their AfD. The different project have different standards & practices. We'll pay attention to it of course--link it in your Afd. DGG (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Request

Please take a look at the latest developments in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Reply. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 23:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

if he come back we can & will deal with it then, probably best by some snow keeps as POINT noms. DGG (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg

Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)