User talk:DGG/Archive 32 Sep. 2009

Oct08, Nov08, Dec08, Jan09, Mar09, Apr09 , May09 , Jun09 Jul09, Aug09, ..., Oct09, Nov09, , Dec09,

You're invited...

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday September 13th, Columbia University area Last: 07/25/2009

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

GiftTree

Hi, DGG. Could you userfy GiftTree to User:Cunard/Article/GiftTree, so that I can rewrite, source, and move it back to mainspace? I believe that this company passes WP:CORP per this article from The Columbian, this article from smallbusinesscomputing.com, this article from Vancouver Business Journal and many more in Google News Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

done. When it's ready, move it back, and explain on the talk page in detail how its diffferent from the deleted article. I know you can judge that well. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It's ready for mainspace, so I have moved it back. I've left a note on the talk page. Thanks for restoring the article to my userspace so quickly! Best, Cunard (talk) 07:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Herb Ringer

Hello DGG, evil deletionist ogre here. Do you think anything can be done for Herb Ringer? Perhaps I started its AfD with too withering a tone; anyway, rabid inclusionist voices are welcome to pipe up there. -- Hoary (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably for an article like that, it's fairer to try to edit it a a tolerable state before nominating, but I too rarely do that work unless i think its salvageable enough not to nominate. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've encountered this or a similar conundrum before. Consider this fragrant article. I know little about color landscape photography of the kind that's marketed as calendars, but sensed that some worthwhile content lurked within the promotion. So I cut the article down to size, facing vigorous resistance along the way (see the talk page, passim). I wasn't sorry when it came up in an AfD, and was set to "not-vote" for deletion when a comment from Mr Wolfowitz made me rethink. So I edited it further, to the point where I could vote "keep" with a clear conscience. Yet the autobiographer is far from happy. -- Hoary (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I am coming to the opinion that we need a structured format for many sorts of articles, based perhaps on the infoboxes. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

List of mathematics articles (J-L)

I believe you misunderstood my reason for nominating the page. See the new AfD for it. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC) -

seems I did--certainly wasnt clear to me. if you;d asked me, I would have put back the prod. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

John Crout

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Phantomsteve's talk page.
Message added 02:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Notability questions

I'd like to start a stub on Vladimir Strelnitski, the director of the Maria Mitchell Observatory. Notable? Also, what about Andrew McKenna-Foster, Director of the Maria Mitchell Natural History Museum? Bearian (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

probably, if they have published anything much; we have never defined what counts as a sufficiently major museum the being the director of one is notable.But I think it would be wiser to first build up the article on the observatory, and make one for the museum. There should be a good deal available on the observatory at least. DGG ( talk ) 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Is there an advantage to having articles independent of the museums? If their notability is mostly or solely related to those instutions I might be inclined to include them there. Sorry about commenting here. I tried to fix what looked like an edit mistake, and wanted to chime in... :) Have a good one. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've re-created the Maria Mitchell Association article, and will add in information about the staff within those. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I did so, and created re-directs for the two major staff persons to the respective articles. Bearian (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Timewave_zero#Redirect proposal

Notice: You commented in an Article for deletion for Timewave zero / Novelty theory, an RFC has been opened on whether this article should be replaced with a Redirect. Please comment on the above link. Lumos3 (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Consistency

Hi DGG

Could I trouble you for your views on the notability of Claire Loewenfeld‎? Mine are detailed at the AfD discussion for that article. I find the arguments for notability entirely unpersuasive. But if the arguments are correct, and notability (as defined here) is established, doesn't that mean (if we were seeking consistency) we ought to revamp things like WP:PROF and WP:CREATIVE to substantially lower the bar?

Regards, ^Bongo_matic 17:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not see why the need to use library resources should affect the bar at WP:PROF and WP:CREATIVE. It just means that arguments based on inadequate sources need to be checked first in a library. . We need not to lower our standards of notability, but raise our standard of research. And of judgment--it was easy to predict that someone who had published 6 books with major publishers would be notable, and not appropriate for trying to delete. DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

^Bongo_matic 23:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

List of floods in Bangladesh

DGG, I noticed that you removed the prod and speedy deletion tags from List of floods in Bangladesh. The article has existed for over a year, and has only ever contained a navigation box linking to non-existent sections within the same article. None of the links in the article actually take you anywhere. While I am sure a good article could be written on a list of floods in Bangladesh, this article doesn't list any, and given that the article creator hasn't worked on it in over a year, I still think it should be deleted. If someone wants to create an actual list of floods in Bangladesh in the future, they can always start one, but I don't think keeping this useless navigation box around is helpful. Calathan (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

actually, I carelessly thought the pages were there--checking, there is in fact one potential article 1999 Bangladesh floods. I added that actual link. I imagine there were floods every year to some degree or other, but if the articles are not written, the box does seem unnecessary -- the user who made it is still occasionally active. I would suggest asking him his plans, and, if not, asking the relevant wikiproject if they want to adopt it. If it were kept, the ones with no article would need to be unlinked, and that too is work, but it took a good deal more work to even build the table. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied

Replied to you at Logan family. Rocksey (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

closings on deletion review

Not that I generally disagree with what you say, but perhaps you are doing too high a proportion of them. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• I looked through my contributions and I see that my early closes at DRV fall into 3 clear groups. Procedural closes - articles outside the purview of DRV; abusive nominations - I have consistently been closing them to avoid soapboxing and never had any complaints about it and, finally, early closes so we don't get bogged down in process and the nominator can go do what they need - the OTRS one was a case in point. I think this is the first time someone mentioned the early closes to me and I hadn't thought I was particulary out of kilter with expectations. I don't think we have a consensus on early closing criteria. Do you think it would be helpful to discuss this on talk-DRV and get some wider feedback on this? Otherwise, I will reflect on your point and be a little slower to act. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: impact factor etc

Thanks for your praise! Don't worry about not doing enough yourself, I often wonder if you ever even sleep! But now I have you feeling guilty, perhaps I can use that to entice you to have a more detailed look at the draft journal guidelines that I proposed? :-) As there have been only very few reactions, maybe I should drop this? But I still feel it would be good to have some guidelines around. (Even though articles like this may always pose problems, haven't gotten around to cleaning it up yet, but have already seen that it does not have an IF, although it is in PubMed. That would qualify it under the draft guidelines, without those this would be vulnerable to deletion, I think).--Crusio (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I will get there tomorrow. If there's no opposition.... DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

deletion review clarification

crotalus said "No one has the authority to dictate a 1-year waiting period before renomination. The people asking for that were the same bullshidoistas who kept adding BLP-violating crap to the article," which is why I mentioned your name, because I was referencing you [[1]] as the person who asked for a 1 year waiting period for the next AFD. i didn't think it was right for him to call you a "bullshidoista who was adding blp violating crap to the article" which does not appear to be true. Theserialcomma (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but you should have done it without mentioning my name, since he hadn't--it's that which would have turned it into a PA. The term should not be used unnecessarily--it's a serious charge. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

he didn't mention you by name, but he said "the people asking for the 1 year waiting period are bullshidoistas who add BLP violates to the article" and since you asked for the 1 year waiting period, i felt it was a personal attack. if I said "anyone who voted against this afd is a vandal" and you voted against the afd and were not a vandal, i still think it'd be a personal attack whether i mentioned you by name or not. but i'll strike through your name if you want Theserialcomma (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Examples of (type II) patent nonsense

Since I (vaguely) recall you having expressed concerns in the past with some editors/admins improperly proposing/deleting stuff as WP:NONSENSE, perhaps you can comment on the examples I proposed. That guideline does not appear to get a lot of traffic. Thanks, Pcap ping 22:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sport tourism

Watch your tone. Not everyone is as "knowledgeable" about the convoluted deletion procedures as you evidently think you are but nominations are made in good faith. The article has clearly been plagiarised as any experienced editor can see. As it happens, there is an existing article about the topic so it is best dealt with by a redirect. --Jack | ^{talk page} 03:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

My comment to you, [2] seems about as helpful as i or anyone can do it. I have been known to be a little sarcastic or snarky, and in those cases i apologise, but this wasn't one of the times I get tempted to do it. I see I am not the only one to remind you about how to use Speedy G12. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Persian Empire

Heya DGG,

Just letting you know iv responded to you on ANI. Executive summary is: Warning only in place until clear concensus shown.

Thanks. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 02:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poo Girl

I agree wholeheartedly, so I zapped it per WP:CSD#G10 with a note referencing WP:BLP1E. youngamerican (wtf?) 23:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Need A Favor

Hello David, first, hope all is well with you and yours. Need a favor! In cleaning-up my various pages, I came accross two articles that I wanted to clean-up, source and just bring up to standards. Sorry to say, they have been deleted. Can you restore and place in my sub-page for me to work on. Thanks in advance for your help. Here are the pieces; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Host.net and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Time Machine (Radio) et al Thanks, ShoesssS ^Talk 22:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Restored User:Shoessss/Host.net; I'm a little puzzled at Time Machine, because the AfD closed with a keep. The subsequent history is not clear to me -- I'm checking, because there are also the pages for each episode, which I assume you want also. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be perfect if you can get them. Regarding the delete, I think it was one of those situations, where someone had a point to make and was nominating until they got the right mix to say delete. Sorry to say, I see that happening more and more. Either way, I know I can get that one up to speed so that it should not be challanged again. By the way, thanks for the help. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I first want to try for a day to follow this up, because something seems really wrong--unless copyvio was discovered, in which case I think you'd want to know, so you would see how much to rewrite. Sometimes I'm dismayed that we make about 10% error in deletions, but then I realize that given our lack of system, it could have been 20%. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL not a problem - Yes I would want to know about copyright violations. Typically I do check that first. As an example, the one you just put on my sub-page is a word for word cut and paste from the companys web-site. But that is easily fixed. Regarding the Radio Tales, if it is copyright violation, again that would be an easy fix. Regarding the 10%, as they say ^$#@ happens. The ones that real frustrate me are the nominations where even minimal investagation is not taken. But than again, when that happens, it actually gives me something to do, and I have actually been getting some DYKS out of it. See that, every situation has a silver lining. In the mean time, take care, and just drop me a note when find the answer. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 01:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Index medicus

This should be moved to Index Medicus, I think, as it is a proper name. I know there is a template to request this move (Index Medicus is currently a redirect to Index medicus), but for the life of me I cannot remember what it is. Can you perhaps do the move or point me to the template? Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It's simpler to just ask me to do it than to find the right procedure. I'll do it, to fit the usual pattern.

Unnecessary details follow: from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)]], the rule only applies to English titles. This is a Latin title, and , checking my references , they mostly say there are no firm rules, as everything possible is sometimes found. (though Chicago, which we usually follow if in doubt, says to generally do modern works in upper case, ancient in lower) The enWikipedia seems to do both ancient & modern ones inconsistently--cf. Hugo Grotius, while the frWP and deWP do ll of them consistently in l.c. , ancient or modern. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:Article Incubator

What do you think, you have been the biggest critic thus far (but there has been lackluster interest in this). Something you would use? Ikip (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

hey, are you really busy? I would love your opinion. Ikip (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible--I am not sure about the interactions with various processes. Certainly worth a try, & you will be a hero if it succeeds DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sam Yasgur

Re the PROD: Not sure what you mean by "2009 movie," but he is not portrayed in Taking Woodstock. I just saw the movie the other day. Is he portrayed in another movie?--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Searching IMDB, I find him interviewed in a German documentary, undoubtedly because he is the son of Max. Nothing else. Just to clarify, do you feel that his role in this documentary is what makes him notable? I can find any reference to him as involved in any other 2009 film.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll fish out the review I have in mind tomorrow & see if I remember it correctly. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, glad you declined the PROD. I nominated for deletion, but then I found information that undercut my initial rationale, and I withdrew my AfD. I guess this is an argument against hasty capital punishment of articles! --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Rhenman

DGG, since you're well-versed with AfD procedures, could you please comment here with regards to procedural nominations? A few users have raised objections to such nominations, and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Justified in general, as I commented there, but try to avoid the phrase, & do only in real doubt, not for every challenged speedy. For this particular person, I would not have brought it there. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait wait what?!

I've kinda been following this because I keep track of a few editors through their contribution history to see what's been done elsewhere, but I have to say something here because I really think you overstepped the line: I really don't see the issue over the username. We know who it is. That's a given: he's doing everything he did before short of citing the five pillars. That is not "personal information", that's very public and visible information anyone with common sense and some history with him. And to threaten to block someone over mentioning the name when the person involved is repeating almost exactly the same behavior is lunacy on your part. Granted it's TTN, a guy who for almost everyone here has been a pain in the butt at one time or another. But between this and the constant firebombs from yourself and to a greater extent Ikip is despicable. I'm sorry but I really think you need to take a step back and reconsider how you've been approaching that situation, and so does Ikip.

Please don't respond, I came to make a statement that hopefully will make you consider how it looks to someone on the fence, not to start a discussion on whether TTN deserves it to be socked to him or not.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have used no administrative tools here, nor do i intend to--I would leave it to the judgment of others--and I said just that. Anyone can & should warn someone about doing something that might require a block--it implies concern, not hostility. I have never used admin tools with this entire general field of things & never will, I have edited your post above--I have sent you an email concerned the factual basis involved here. I would gladly work with TTN or anyone if it were a matter of achieving a compromise. I've told him so repeatedly , and it is up to him how he responds to that. I express my opinion of comments at AfD as I see them and I will continue that. I try not to word them personally, though sometimes it's difficult to find a way to do so. If anyone else should think some AfDs or redirects is worth pursuing elsewhere it's their choice--I have made it very clear I will never start RfCs on user conduct or Arb Coms, and when others ask me about whether they should, I almost always advise them not to. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

ELs

Hi. Thank you for the heads-up about external links. I'm not new at this I've made plenty of great articles but I'm still learning. I had never done the external linking thing for articles that weren't mine but I thought these were interesting. Didn't know About.com wasn't considered a good source either... Can you help me with the article I wrote on Matt Eventoff. I don't know why it is tagged with peacock terms, written like advertisement, and notability even. I created a category for Communications consultants and made an article for him. He's been quoted in Newsweek, E!, Baltimore Sun, ABC News. The references for these news media sources ARE all third party from the news sources themselves.... Thanks in advance! Yours, StewartNetAddict (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

sorry about that tag--it went on automatically with the tag about it being written like a press release or advertisement, which does apply. The real problem is that there is current no evidence for notability according to our standards for WP:BIO or WP{:AUTHOR. His having written article that were published is almost never considered enough ;what is needed is some evidence that people have noticed his work and written about him. For an author of books, independent reviews usually are the way to show it. There is nothing of that sort in the article. If you can find it, the article might well stand. If not, it will surely be nominated for deletion and almost certainly deleted. DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is ridiculous, honestly. They do write about him each time they quote him by mentioning why he's qualified to be an expert. How is it written like a press release/advertisement? I'm frustrated and confused right now. I love writing articles and patrolling vandalism and I do so meticulously. StewartNetAddict (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I give you the best advice I can based on what I think people will do here, based on my experience with what they have done in the past. I consider myself obliged to explain the rules as they are. This does not necessarily mean I agree with all of them. The subject is in my opinion not notable according to our guidelines, and is almost certainly going to be deleted if there are not better sources. The argument you make has consistently been rejected. You will have the opportunity to see what the community thinks, and see if you can convince them, when it gets nominated for deletion. I'm not making that decision. What they say is what will happen. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for those comments, they are really helpful. I'll incorporate them all as soon as I have time (bedtime over here now...) and I'll let you know when I'm done. --Crusio (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have incorporated all of your points, I think, except for #10, as I don't readily see how to do that. It may not even be necessary to explicitly specify this. Let me know what you think of this version. --Crusio (talk) 07:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense again

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shirelive church

you denyed my request for un protection Could you please give me some tips on how to get this article up to scratch.

Bunzyfunzy (talk) Bunzyfunzy (talk) 09:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

you first must a tthe very least find some reference for the basic factual data, and then t=you must find articles or other published sources talking about the church in a substantial way. Please see our guide to writing Wikipedia articles. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Please check

I see that user Ohconfucius signed your name on this pool, is this a genuine addition, or a mistake? Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

He apparently added it on the basis that I had just said below on the page that I support the merger, using exactly those words, & he therefore assumed (correctly) that I did not see where the actual poll was, and he was simply moving my vote to the correct place. I'll add a comment to make it clear I'm OK with it. DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

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

email

Hi DGG,

I have been trying to contact you. You said I should email. Am I missing something obvious? I got an account but I still cannot see how to email you from your userpage. My project should be of interest to you. My address is eprayner at gmail dot com. If you send me an email I will reply with details. Please delete this after you read it. Sincerely, Eric. Eprayner (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

what you need to do is go to you "my preference"s, and in the user profile section, the first one that opens, enter your email address, and then confirm it when we send you an email there; then go back to that page, and click the "enable email from other users" check box. then go to the link email this user that you will find on the left of my user page. Alternatively, give me some idea what it is about and I will email you. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Re: Why not an account?

Well, because the problem is people. People trying to hide WP:IDONTLIKEIT behind WP:N. When I got disgusted with it to the point that I decided I didn't want to make an account, AFD was still VFD, WP:N didn't exist yet, and the system was a COMPLETE mess instead of just a partial one. The final straw was discovering a deliberately organized group of users that had the sole purpose and intent of getting every single webcomic related article deleted. They went around and successfully deleted dozens of articles simply because they didn't like them, and got away with it because they had enough people to pack the votes. Many of those articles have been recreated since, but that's not the point. I've thought for a long time that the whole neutrality thing needed to apply not just to the article text but how the entire thing is run, or the neutrality is a sham. I've not yet seen any evidence that anything has changed on that front, and bias being part of human nature, it's not likely to. Otter's a fantastic example. Since I stumbled upon the whole webseries fiasco with him, it's become increasingly apparent he's exactly the kind of person that drove me away. His methods are even worse though, as he puts on airs that he's only following policy when his actions and selective quoting make it look otherwise. I hate to admit it, but he's become kind of a test case for me. Seeing how the whole situation with him falls out is going to be my barometer to see just how much things HAVE changed. So far...it's kinda up in the air. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not think anyone is trying to get literally every web comic article deleted--there are probably some people who have a relatively skeptical attitude towards most of them. There's a problem with them--unless they have been referred to prominently in conventional media it's a hell of job finding sources to show they're notable. We probably should have a more flexible attitude towards blogs and the like, but it's proven very difficult to define what we should or should not accept as reliable. The way to get this changed is to argue both individual articles and the general question-- without of course getting into personal disputes. You will need to argue not that the opponents are wrong, but that what they are saying is wrong, and be careful to differentiate between the two, despite provocation. Though some editors have done it successfully with ip addresses, it usually helps having a user name, which is rightly or wrongly usually taken to indicate a certain amount of commitment. A good place to start is to see if you can find any relevant blogs on the general topic that we could consider notable enough for an article.

I do not see how we can have neutrality in discussing articles--what we can have is objectivity, and fairness. After all, they and you are advocating doing something, which is intrinsically not a neutral position. In a mass organization the only way to avoid vote packing is to get uninvolved editors to take an interest. One aids this by participating a little in other topics also, and learning what does and does not constitute canvassing. It does take patience. An excellent guide to working with Wikipedia policy is the relevant parts of The Missing Manual -- see the free online version of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual by John Broughton (also available in print) . DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

They're not now. Back then they were, it was several years ago. Like I said, notability hadn't been codified as a policy yet, but there were already things being deleted as 'not notable' which at the time really meant 'I don't think it's notable' due to the lack of an objective policy. I first started editing on Wikipedia back sometime in 2005 so like I said, things have changed a bit. I just got so disgusted with the whole system and the attitude of the people involved in it that I decided that I didn't want any part of it. I have a tendency to get overly passionate about things sometimes; getting too involved in policy discussions would likely accomplish little else than to disgust me further. And honestly, I can't fix it. The things that bother me aren't the policies, and especially not the ideals, but the people. The ones that go around trying to twist the rules to shove their own agenda down everyone else's throat. When I got fed up and gave up, they were succeeding on a surprising level. Reading stuff in the meantime has suggested that some new policies were enacted and procedures changed to considerably mitigate it. I'm still waiting to see just how much, though. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The other book to read is How Wikipedia Works -- there's a free online version of How Wikipedia Works by Phoebe Ayers, Charles Matthews, and Ben Yates (also available in print). I think it will encourage you. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary Islamic philosophy

Why did you de-PROD that article? The article was full of complete OR. warrior4321 10:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It would seem to me that we ought to have an article on the topic, and the article is not totally out of alignment with the main article on the subject. As I myself do not know much about this topic, I can not tell whether it is expressing generally accepted views that just need to be sourced exactly from standard books, or controversial views that needs other views represented also, or a minority viewpoint that needs to have the majority viewpoint added and emphasised, or perhaps something so totally wrong that it would be best to remove altogether. Only in the last case should it be deleted,rather than fixed. If you think it unfixable, such articles need to be dealt with at AfD--in my experience there are usually more than one opinion about things like that. And so the community must decide not you or me.

I do see that it used adjectives of praise and other opinions and judgments that should not be given on their own, without a specific source for them. Otherwise, I do not see that a collection of descriptions of the positions of different philosophers is OR. DGG ( talk ) 14:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Graham, 3rd Earl of Menteith (2nd nomination)

• • • That IS Wikipedia policy, DGG, see WP:NOT. Those are not "my" criteria, that is consensus expressed in policy. I am trying to assume good faith here. Drawn Some (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I answered you at the AfD, with respect to your selective quoting of policy. You are attacking an editor, not articles, as thoroughly shown at AN/I [3] . Let's avoid further discussions between us here,; there's enough opportunity at AN/I and AfD. DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge close

I see you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbados Group as merge. Perhaps you could assist in the actual merging? None of the current material in the article is sourced to reliable secondary sources independent of the article subject. During the AfD, one such source was suggested: (David Warsh, source: [4]). I would propose redirecting the article to the suggested article from the AfD discussion, pending addition of material from that secondary source. Does that sound appropriate? Cirt (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I gave my close as the consensus of the argument, not as my own opinion. I think the SSRN announcement will support a line or two about the groups existence. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well is it alright for me to ask your opinion? Do you feel in your opinion that pending addition of material from reliable secondary sources independent of the article subject to the article it was deemed to be merged into, it would be alright in the interim to redirect? Cirt (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

At least the mention of it would need to be added to support the redirect, and that comes to the same thing. I consider that SSRN was willing to incorporate their newsletter as evidence of existence and some significance. That note was from ssrn , not them, and ssrn is selective about such things. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Cirt (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Added info from the only reliable secondary source independent of the article subject. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

glad there was a solution. DGG ( talk ) 20:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the approval. :) Cirt (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Behaviorology Revised, Please Review

DGG:

I used the Wikipedia definition of psychology as a template to write a definition of behaviorology. Please compare the following two definitions:

Psychology...is an academic and applied discipline involving the systematic, and often scientific, study of human/animal mental functions and behavior.

Behaviorology is an academic and applied discipline involving the scientific study of the behavior of organisms.

I reorganized my summary of behaviorology and I added many new links and references. Please review what I have done at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Greg987/sandbox/Behaviorology

Thanks, Greg987 (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

better known as behavioral biology, I suppose. I am not sure it's an independent discipline, but I will take a look. DGG ( talk ) 06

41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

or just behavioral psychology or behavioral analysis. It is not standard terminology in my opinion But I see the material is already included in Los Horcones, I think the term could best be used as a redirect to that article, and I have done just that. Please put the {{db-self}} requested deletion template on your subpage -- I think everything essential is now included in the redirected article. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

DGG: I added the deletion template to my behaviorology sandbox, as you suggested. Thank you for creating the Behaviorology redirect. Greg987 (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Email

Hi there. I just sent you an email. Amsaim (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Steve Belichick

Hi, DGG--I noticed you added {{tl|notability}} and {{tl|unreferenced}} to this article. As you can see from the deleted history, it was a much longer article I had to delete because of a copyvio in its first revision, and then started over from scratch. I've been expanding it a bit today based on a NY Times obit and a Washington Post story, but there's a good bit more out there in the news archives--I'll do a little more work on it some other time, probably. I've taken the liberty of removing the tags, but if you feel notability is still in question you're welcome to take appropriate steps (knowing your history I'd be surprised, but who knows). Cheers, Chick Bowen 23:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

you are quite correct, and I was careless. There is enough there by now, and in addition I've put an underconstruction tag on the article, which should help prevent someone else from making my mistake also. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:HOTTIE

Hey DGG, you evil deletionist ogre you, I have thought further on the hot pressing issue of Lizzie Miller, but am still undecided. What say we nominate about five thousand articles on non-hottie models for deletion [emoticon]? -- Hoary (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"hot" is a subjective concept. The argument here is that although not what is conventionally regarded as such by those who are interested in models, she nonetheless is so to many people, and is notable because public attention has been called to it. Some of the discussions and classifications of performers in Wikipedia, deal with the observable fact that there is a great variation in what individuals find sexually appealing. Accomplishment is specific to the genre, and the level at which something becomes notable is also. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for ...

this, I just saw it today. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

A4M

We need to be absolutely and 100% sure that everything is verifiable in this article. Can you therefore separate the American Osteopathic Association Bureau of Osteopathic Specialists statement from the summary of the other sources (which do not mention this) and add a source that mentions this or gives a complete list of this set of specialities. Thanks. Tim Vickers (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

But the other sources were cited as mentioning this; I think it is in the exactly right place. As DOs, they are eligible for speciality certification from either the do or the md boards. What's needed is a little more complicated-- we must add all the subspecialties to each of the Wikipedia articles involved. I will do that tomorrow night. I'll do that; you can then arrange as you think needed. I suppose we need to find out a list of recognized specialties not within that system, but ZIm not sure where to go for that. DGG ( talk ) 07:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Non formal learning

I wondered if it was someone`s thesis- feel free to proceed as you wish...andycjp (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination)

Since you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4#Ashida Kim, which was closed as relist, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination). Cunard (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I took another look at this from the beginning on (I wasn't yet here in 2005). A clear case of inadequately sourced negative BLP, and one of the few times that such repeated AfD nominations will prove justified. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion "Central Pharmacy & Stores" - Revised

17:58, 10 September 2009 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted "Stuart and Sons" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

Hello David,

I have a special in pharmacies, particularly the Central Pharmacy & Stores piano. I am only new to editing Wikipedia and tried to revise the Central Pharmacy & Stores wikipedia site as my first project. I was not aware of all the copyright issues for the photos and I had simply used the words from the Central Pharmacy & Stores Facebook Page to revise the wikipedia wording. I do not wish to cause harm. Could you please revise my article and publish it because it is a 50+ year old pharmacy in Sri Lanka.| —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpscolombo (talk • contribs) 11:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Unambiguous advertising is just what that article was is, and the pharmacy is probably not notable as well. It's a pharmacy with a few branches, and the article is devoted to telling how good it is. That does not make an encyclopedia article. What you primarily need to do is to show notability with references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. If it has been established that long, there should be newspaper articles available. You also need to write like an encyclopedia article, not a press release--don't praise yourself, say what you do. And, be sure not to copy anything from a web site -- first it's a copyright violation, but, even if you got us permission according to WP:DCM, the tone with not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable and will look like an advertisement. You absolutely can not use the text from their page, nor can you write a paraphrase that will be closely similar to it--it must be rewritten from scratch in your own words and your own arrangement of material. We're a very prominent site, and we must take copyright very seriously and strictly. For further information see our FAQ about business, organisations, and articles like this, and to see our guide to writing Wikipedia articles. If you can do this all, put the article back. if you cannot find the references, it won't stand. If you can, it will. Don;t be discouraged, and good luck with it DGG ( talk ) 07:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking the time to comment regarding userfication. Your comments are always welcome. Ikip (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

WiserEarth

Hi David, I've gone and cleaned out the article to remove any peacocking terms, as well as added in some 3rd party sources for better citation. Would you mind taking a look at the WiserEarth article and letting me know if there's anything else needed to bring this up to Wikipedia standards? Thanks! Pomfrit (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's getting better; I gave some further advice. DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion "Stuart and Sons" - Revised

17:58, 10 September 2009 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted "Stuart and Sons" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

Hello David,

I have a special interest in both music and pianos, particularly the Stuart and Sons piano. I am only new to editing Wikipedia and tried to revise the Stuart and Sons wikipedia site as my first project. I was not aware of all the copyright issues for the photos and I had simply used the words from the Stuart and Sons website to revise the wikipedia wording. I do not wish to cause harm. Could you please delete the changes that I have made and restore the wikipedia article to its previous form (before my edits).

Regards, Wikiname1109 (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

the problem was not just that. Even apart from copyright, the article as your wrote it was essentially in the nature of an advertisement for the company, in both content and language. For an explanation of the difference between this and a Wikipedia article,Please see our FAQ about businesses, other organisations, and articles like this. I have restored the earlier version, and added some of the material from yours. I apologize for not seeing the earlier usable version--I seem to have been going a little too fast. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I just want to say thanks for your very helpful comment at Talk:Pit of despair. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Biographical Articles of Researchers in Psychiatry and Neuroscience

Would you please tell me of 3 or 4 Wikipedia articles on top researchers in psychiatry and neuroscience that I could use as a model? Thanks. Psychiatry777 (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• William Stewart Agras, Robert McCarley, Frederick K. Goodwin are examples of appropriate styles. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge of The Worst Witch (book)

Could you please motivate why the 6 book articles needs to be merged in the head article about the novel serie and the tv serie or remove the nomination??? Carsrac (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

see the advice I gave on the talk page of that article. I'm sympathetic, but realistic about what is likely to stand here. DGG ( talk ) 08:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Zoids and related articles

Hello David, can you take a look at what is going on with the Zoids pieces. A quick look at the article/articles history will explain the situation. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 00:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

was there are decision anywhere to merge the list of zoids into zoids? If so, we can rediscuss that and try to get a broader consensus. If not, it should just be unmerged. I've commented on the talk page. I see further problems also, but unless I misunderstand the history, that would be the first step . DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Epistemics of Divine Reality (2nd nomination)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Epistemics of Divine Reality, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epistemics of Divine Reality (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I read it more carefully this time. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello DGG--the Colonel has enacted a game changer, moving the entire article to Epistemology of religion. What should I do know? The new article is a viable topic, no doubt. Should I withdraw the nomination, gut the article, and start from stub? Thanks for any advice you have. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

such moves are discouraged during an AfD, unless obvious or minor. Since to revert him requires a deletion of the redirect, and needs the admin buttons, I've reverted him, and moved it back. I will comment at the afd. (the procedure, if I had or someone had not reverted, would have been to note the change, and continue the discussion) DGG ( talk ) 21:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. And may I add that, especially since MGM seems to have retired, you are my favorite three-letter acronym user. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate Page

Hello, I found a page that is not necessarily malicious, but I did not find anything useful about it. I believe it was called "List of Post-9/11 Inappropriate Titles", but I'm not completely sure. I found many titles that referenced New York, including Frank Sinatra's "New York, New York"?I did not find this to be humorous or informational at all. I am a native New Yorker and I lost many close friends on that day. Can you see if you can get this page deleted? Please contact me on my username (I can contact you there) Splittt. Thanks. 71.190.145.53 (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean 2001 Clear Channel memorandum? If you think there is an argument to delete it, get a user name, read WP:AFD, and make a nomination. Myself, I can't think of a good argument that would fit any of policies. Popular music is not my subject, but if there are good references to there being discussion of the list, it is not likely to be deleted. As I understand it the point of the controversy is exactly that not all the titles were appropriate for temporary restriction. As you can tell from my user p., I live in NYC myself, though I was in NJ that day. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for responding to me. I will make a user name and try to make a nomination. 71.190.145.53 (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If My Mom Were a Platypus: Mammal Babies and Their Mothers

Another editor has tagged If My Mom Were a Platypus: Mammal Babies and Their Mothers for speedy deletion. Do you think that the radio interview at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s1584576.htm is enough to establish notability? -- Eastmain (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

not by itself. If some other sources also indicate that it is in fact used very widely for school teaching, it might be. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Moiola Elementary School (K-8)

I should be grateful for your intervention here where the creator will not accept my redirect for a clearly nn school. TerriersFan (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

done DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

thx. TerriersFan (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George H.W. Bush vomiting incident

I thought you might find this one of interest. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

borderline--I wrote the line of argument, concluding first with a keep, & then the same general argument concluding with Delete, and finally decided on "weak keep" in contrast with the other two articles mentioned. FWIW, "weak keep" means to me that this is my opinion, but I would not think anyone wrong who concluded the opposite nor will I try very hard to persuade them. DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

DGG, you might want to review the edits of Berian. I followed this link and saw an article that surprisingly I thought was worth keeping, but upon closer review have changed my !vote. You'll see my rationale on the AFD.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

weak keep means, as I said just above, that it is not something i intend to argue about. But I would not conclude that he's finished finding all that can be found, for one thing it doesn't look like he's started with the print sources such as bios yet, of which there appear to be 82 in english. [5] and at least 1 in Japanese [6] that;'s not a translation of the English. Nor do I think he's actually checked Japanese periodical and newspaper indexes. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit War at Réseau_de_Résistance_du_Québécois

If you're okay with it, I'm going to take this article and try to come up with a NPOV version. I'll play with it in my namespace and try to make some headway on it over the next couple days. Frmatt (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, try this version. Frmatt (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

the re-enactment quotes seem to retain only the most threatening parta, not the less violent , "The re-enactment is off, that's great. This thing unleashed passions. But ultimately, the responsibility for all of this is the people who concocted this dim-witted plan. sure, we were promoting civil disobedience. But so were they. The potential for violence was there" DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Réseau de Résistance du Québécois

Hi, I am not in an edit war. There is an individual who keeps creating sockpuppets to vandalize the article. Here are the sockpuppets. Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Philbox17. This is the latest sockpuppet User:Québécois1837. Thank you 76.64.152.111 (talk) 09:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered creating an account and editing with that? Nathan ^T 15:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

as I said, I do not propose to try to figure that out, if only because i don't usually do sockpuppet investigations; all I did was seen there was a problem, and protect the page in whatever state it was in for a few days. DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, checkuser (Versageek) has confirmed that one person has been using a variety of accounts (see the SPI case here or take my word on it). When I looked it over, it was pretty clear that this user was being disruptive both on the article and the talkpage and would've drawn a block even without the socking. Even so, protection is probably the right move for now. If 76.64 gets an account and becomes autoconfirmed, then semiprot might make more sense. Nathan ^T 17:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't say I'm surprised. But I have a tendency to take such reports a little less seriously when reported by anons. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I notice that the User:Québécois1837 account has been blocked as a sockpuppet, which is good. This person is an Réseau de Résistance du Québécois (RRQ) member. These people are hardcore Quebec separatists with a similar mentality to Scientology or Al-Qaeda, meaning that the RRQ is their religion, i.e., they are not going to stop editing the article even if we keep blocking sockpuppets on a daily basis. Would you be willing to take over policing the article for me? I would like to move on and do other things! In addition, I would appreciate you removing the comment from my talk page that states I am edit warring, I was never involved in that. I look forward to receiving feedback from you on how best to handle a situation like this. Here is one tactic we can use and I believe it is the only one that will work article 1 and article 2. On a side note I would like to mention and thank User:Nathan for tutoring, mentoring and supporting me, this person deserves to be an admin, in my eyes. I hope you people can get the correct people involved in the article Réseau de Résistance du Québécois, I cannot do it myself, I am in over my head and I really need help! Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have now said four or five times that I do not intent to police this article, or for that matter edit it. I have made a total of one suggestion about what it should contain--perhaps I would have been more consistent had I not done so. I have never made any comment at all on your talk page--you are apparently confusing me with Frmatt. I was not involved in the scientology matters, but it was clear from just reading the Wikipedia Signpost that the problem there was enormously more pervasive and difficult than this. I must tell you, though, that it would simplify things for me & others if you got a username. DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Pit of despair

Hi DGG, Tryptofish is using comments you posted to Talk:Pit of despair to justify repeatedly adding the POV tag to the article, but without making any attempt to expand it. This is a misuse of the tag, but I don't want to keep edit warring with her. She has been adding the tag repeatedly since May. Would you mind clarifying your comments in a section I started about it? See Talk:Pit_of_despair#POV_tag. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I note this comment, and I note that it is highly inaccurate in its characterization of me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

DGG, thank you for the message on my talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/André Aciman.

Your input please. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-16t22:21z

given. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Help for Butler Greenwood Plantation

Thank you for your help & comments on possible copyright issues for Butler Greenwood Plantation page. Can you be more specific on possible problems? All information proved on the page were given to me by Anne Butler, author, historian and owner of the said plantation. There are numerous plantation homes in our parish which would have been linked together creating better history on the area except I am wiki-exhausted. As for copy and paste, I did copy and paste from my user page for Butler Greenwood Plantation as directed by one of the guides on wikipedia.com. Is this a problem? Please help on how to make the article acceptable and removal of the notice given at top of the page? Thank you for any help, Hank5720 (talk) 05:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You need to give us permission according to WP:DCM; that's the only copyright problem. But in copying such material, the tone will sometimes not be encyclopedic, so I removed some of the material about the general background, and rewrote the legends to say what the pictures were. You should also fix up the refs according to our guide to writing Wikipedia articles. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Journal guidelines

• What is the proper procedure to get these "live"? --Crusio (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Restoring Barack Obama Joker Poster

You recently commented at the DRV discussion for Barack Obama Joker poster. After four days of debate, it seems that concensus is to overturn and keep, but still it languishes. Would you restore it? Thanks. - Draeco (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• DRV Debates usually run for 7 days. Its too soon to close it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with Spartaz--It almost always saves trouble in the end to let contested reviews on controversial subjects run the full time. We want to settle this definitively enough that we'll hear no more of it. DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bob the Wikipedian

Thanks for casting your vote, even though it was not in my favor. I understand your concern, although what you've said about it being "a clear refusal to enforce WP:NPA" is confusing me. Would you care to explain at my talk page? Thanks, Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Actually, most of the heated arguments I've seen have been angry at the outcome of the discussion rather than personal attacks-- in fact, I've only seen editor-targeted personal attacks in userpage vandalism. However, if it should come down to a personal attack, as in the latter example, it would definitely violate WP:NPA and a block is well-deserved, although it is not referred to as a cool-down block. Perhaps you should have a look at WP:COOLDOWN -- a cool down block is a common name for a type of block that's issued for no reason other than to get an angry user out of the picture for awhile, no matter whether they're actually attacking someone or just angry that they're not winning an argument. I've observed a few heated discussions where it seemed like a block of a certain person would solve all the problems, but I learned from these that when the angry user was not blocked, they eventually cooled down after a few days or even a couple weeks, whereas if they had been blocked for any reason, it only worsened the situation. Hopefully that clears up my view, thanks for taking the time to read it all. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

why don't you clarify, preferably in the original answer to the qy rather than on my comment? DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for giving it another look. I am wondering what part you're wanting clarified yet (or was that concern answered today?) Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You clarified the main problem well enough. There are some policies I do not like to enforce myself, like 3rr--which I think as written very inflexible. I find ways around being as mechanical as some people think it requires, while still doing the necessary to stop edit wars when I encounter them. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you really believe this?

This is interesting to me.

The real problem the people who are bring this RfC have with A.N. is that he is effective in saving material. Everyone is agreed he does not always work in the correct manner, but absurdly overlong statements can be ignored. Cogent ones can't, for they tend to convince people. Hence the desire to attack the person making it.

The RfC opener presents a fairly clear case of disruption and tendentiousness, and that it is sustained over a period of years with almost no sign of improvement except under threat. Do you really believe the problem people have with A Nobody's current behavior is that he is effective in saving articles? Ignoring good faith for a minute, since you're already doing so, are you really blind to AN's current disruptive activity, or is this just a partisan and counterfactual attempt to protect A Nobody?

Is WP:AGF is being discarded for at least the length of the A Nobody's RfC? If so, a much stronger case can be made that A Nobody WP:GAMEs the system. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I also notice you say you are "forced" to say the above. Is there really coercion here? (You may email me in private if this is the case.) If yes, I would repeat my earlier suggestion that you recuse yourself in matters regarding A Nobody. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be blinding obvious DGG means forced as in compelled by his a sense of his decency to take a strong position against colleagues he has a great deal of respect for. One has to LOL at the suggestion someone like DGGs wouldnt know how to handle coercion. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you guys all just talk with one voice now? Will all of you overlook and defend misleading edit summaries, misrepresentation of sources, putting words in other editors' mouths, and similar tactical disruption as long as it's by someone you side with in the inclusionism/exclusionism debate? / edg ☺ ☭ 20:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You do know that DGG does not exactly love A Nobody, right? – iridescent 21:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Read it and commented on it. And while I didn't use the word love, this soft of enabling suggests (among other things) either a passionate devotion to the person, or to the shared cause.

Could still use an explanation for DGG's comment as quoted above. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly I have tried to influence AN into better behavior. I've even said quite specifically during earlier discussion what I consider defective. I like other have tried to explain things to him off wiki as well--I know several of the participants in this discussion have certainly tried to do so in good faith, working independently.

Certainly also many of the participants in this RfC are motivated by the desire to help him, help him that is to effectively cease aspects of his behavior that make him less effective.

I suppose I can mention that though I have spoken to him once or twice on the phone, I have never met him personally. It would be invidious of me to discuss him in the context of my other friends at Wikipedia, but they fall into several groups--people doing good things that I want to work with and learn from, as I learned how to handle corporate COI from Durova; people who generally oppose some of what i do whom I've tried to and usually succeeded in maintaining good relations with to provide a way of defusing; and people who seem to be subject to some unreasonable degree of attack, even to the point of mobbing, a condition I have great sympathy for. I do not consider that any of my attempts to help such individuals have made things worse, though about half the time they do not actually result in good content. It should be obvious that among this group there will be some whose behavior people might find difficult. I think I have shown a good deal of patience with some very difficult people. My customary reaction to seeing what appear to be excessive negative comments on some editor or article, is to consider whether there is any possibility of defending. (if anyone wants to know my psychological motivations for that, they may email me; but I expect a real identity if I am to give such private information about myself.)

But, Ed, what do you possibly expect me to say here, to specify the extent he may be my friend, and I would not dream of specifying that here, do you expect me to disown him because he has run into difficulties? I would be ashamed of myself not to defend someone under unreasonable attack, even if they may have to some degree provoked it.

There is almost no person at Wikipedia whom i consider a personal enemy, though it is possible that some may so consider me. if so, I am sorry for it--it has never been my attention. There are a few people I think that regretfully we might do better without, & I admit that in such cases I have not always made the full stretch of possibilities to contact them and try to work with them. It's even possible that I might feel this way about some of my friends. But one of the reasons I establish friendships is so i can speak to people frankly without them taking immediate offense. My friends have helped me this way throughout my life, and I try to help others. Some people who thought I was their opponents have been quite surprised at my support --sometime enthusiastic support--on their RfAs, while some have found to their surprise that I did not support them because i thought they were not ready or did not understand what was necessary. Everyone at this page must know that if you ask my opinion about something here, you will get my true opinion on the situation, not what may be strategic to say, or may be expected.

As for the issue of my motivation. I have thought from the first that what was needed was a higher level of content. Though I initially intended to come here to write good content, I find I have drifted into a position of spending most of my effort in rescuing problematic content that has possibilities. Perhaps I have done this because as a librarian and I teacher I am accustomed to being professionally obliged as all librarians and teachers are to work with whomever presents themselves no matter how unlikely they might be to benefit, and to do our best for them. I do not actually know that much about popular culture either first hand or by reading about it, and began working on it when I found that classic novels and films and other artistic endeavors that I cared very much about were subject to like attacks--and I reluctantly decided to support full coverage of what I often regard as deplorable junk also, accepting that it was necessary to defend the entire detailed coverage of against those I call the fiction minimalists. I think similarly about full coverage of fringe science, and unusual religious movements, and people subject to real-life persecution from an establishment. I do have an emotional attachment to good art and scholarship, and if I can only support it by supporting bad art & scholarship also, it's a fair exchange--and very much in the inclusive nature of Wikipedia,

Why should I recuse myself from any discussion here? I would need to recuse myself from administrative action involving A.N., absolutely, (though I did protect his old user page when he invoked RTV, but any admin would do that for anyone as a matter of course) and i try to avoid doing so w with the entire area of fiction as well unless I think it's obvious and technical.. Nor would I take admin action against you or any of his opponents, however well deserved I may think it . As I told you in the prior discussion on you user page that you chose to link to ". I work now as I worked before I became an admin, by advice. I know people sometimes take my advice, to quote my favorite author, Samuel Johnson, "as if I were to throw you out a 4 story window & advise you to fall soft"." I am embarrassed when anyone says they take my advice or adopt my argument because it comes from me. They should accept my advice if they think it good, and accept my argument only if I have convinced them, Take a look at my admin log to see what I do with my admin powers: 99% deletion of hopelessly unrescuable articles.

As for the question. Yes, I think the underlying reason for the bringing and support of the AfD is not disconnected--at least for some of the participants-- with the success of AN in rescuing articles. I should have been much clearer it does not apply to everyone making a negative comment. Some of it certainly is the desire to apply some strong medicine to get needed improvement. Irididescent links to where I tried that myself. I like to think it helped a little. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree with the extent to which you are impugning others in order to defend your comrade. I guess that is all I wanted to say. I do appreciate the depth and clearly evident sincerity of your answer—far out of proportion to the derisive tone of my question—and I respect you more for it. Thank you so much. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Further reply

In answer to some of your other questions (as you were so generous in answering mine), I have to believe there exist options beyond "disowning" and chauvinistic defense. An RfC/User by design has more than one user considering the work of a single editor—to call this "mobbing" not only disregards the previous attempts (required) to influence this editor's behavior, but also ignores the half-dozen or so editors (Ikip, Dream Focus and Schmidt certainly; User:Fences and windows and User:FeydHuxtable being too unfamiliar to me to estimate) who inevitably defend every position and action A Nobody takes, perhaps even favoring greater disruption, as long as it advances their cause.

History shows it is unlikely that A Nobody will stop editing Wikipedia or advocating for more inclusion if these behaviors are not allowed. Protecting A Nobody in this RfC can only have the effect of perpetuating the destructive behaviors being reported.

My original suggestion that you "recuse" yourself in matters advocating for A Nobody wasn't intended to apply to the RfC. However, the appearance of sectarian bias—rooted apparently in the ideal you state above of radically greater inclusion than current WP policy and practice bless—makes it difficult (for me at least) to accept your judgment in matters where there is apparent potential for political polarization. I would hesitate to classify you with the abovementioned editors, but it seems clear that you will defend any course toward greater inclusion, at least when talking to outsiders, with little other consideration.

(By my language here you can see I have a hard time not seeing this as a tribal loyalty. My apologies for reducing it so much, but this is how I have come to understand certain editors' behavior.)

Me, I'm someone who usually needs feedback from others to know if I am doing the right thing. And you are an intelligent and thoughtful person whose advice I cannot trust because of the above suspicions. I don't have words to convey how regrettable that is, because it is clear you are not only a decent and hard-working Admin, but also a sincere and giving person with an excellent mind. I'm very sorry about this. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said at the end, I ask nobody to trust me. I ask them only to consider my arguments. If you do, that is all that i would expect. Consider some of my arguments for doing character merges as a general policy, and my principle that we ought to judge material, not articles. I have dual views of what material we should include: at present, we should maintain our present level and try for consistency and compromise. in the future, we should consider adding a secondary layer of content. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Dictators

Humble apologies - I did not realise what you were doing. I'm reversing the deletion now - it's all yours! Best, Nancy ^talk 16:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elliott Wald.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Witches of Belvoir

Ah ok. When I looked at the photo the text was included in the image and was protected by copyrights; which doesn't make sense to fully copyright with reserves material that isn't orginally theirs on Flickr.com - Thanks for the notice, I didn't see the dates. Thanks and happy editing. --A3RO (mailbox) 02:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

people put copyright notices very frequently on material they do not own. In copyright, the general rule is that nothing can be trusted. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

List of the Butterflies of Morocco

Now rewritten.This time there are no copyright problems. I fixed this entirely.I have kept Tarrier in the reference list but left out his subspecies and revisions.Actually I'm grateful to you I decided Tarrier has gone a little far here. He is also a butterfly dealer with a motive.We live and learn. Many thanks and best regards Robert akaNotafly (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

glad its ok now. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

EU article vandalized

Hi. An admin is needed here pls. Someone has vandalized the EU article. Amsaim (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability and academics

I hadn't seen WP:PROF before so thanks for pushing me in that direction - I agree the PROD was a little hasty Steve-Ho (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hi DGG, I see you voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Benjamin's Syndrome, so you may be interested in this. I started an ANI about the wiki-crusading behavior of one of the users there, CharlotteGoiar. Your input would also be appreciated since you commented about Jokestress as well—I had no reason to report Jokestress as well, since I'm not familiar with her history, but maybe you know more. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

bob sorry for posty here, but I don not know how to contact you on your talk page. or from mine.. you elft me a note on my article submission, and I am greatful for that and hae made some corrections. what is the proper what yto leave you a message? there seems to be no link or cpation for leaving you one. thanks 1stand10

this is a perfectly good place to post: just ask. I'll look at the article but I think at the moment others are handling it fine., Or to email me, select email this user from the left hand column--you may need toi enable your email first from your user preferences. DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

User:DarkSummoner causing problems

Might want to keep an eye on this guy. Keeps posting blatant POV on Glenn Beck (TV program) and then gets pretty mad when it's reverted (see my talk page). I already hit him with an only-waring for attacks on other editors. I'll be out of pocket, Wikipedia wise, for two or three days and would appreciate your watching this guy. May be a bad actor. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

you seem to have explained things to him adequately. BTW, Huffington's "Countdown" In my opinion, is apparently an editorial feature written by the newspaper, not write-in bloggers, and their regular bloggers are considered the equivalent of columnists in ordinary newspapers, who also now typically call their columns "blogs". They're usable as opinion. DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Astrotheology

Understood and thanks for mentioning it to me. Will keep this on watch. Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Tiffin School

Perhaps you would be good enough to stop by this page? A SPA is trying to add a red linked alumnus. He has been reverted by three different editors. He has now reverted three times and twice before on an obvious sock IP account. I have given the 3RR warning. However, I have now reverted twice which is my self-imposed limit so I don't want to revert again. Perhaps you would, if you judge appropriate, revet his latest edit? I am about to add an explanatory note to the article talk page. TerriersFan (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

<Matters have now moved on following the writing of Darren patten which is currently at AfD. Reverting the addition of this alumnus can now await resolution after the AfD has been discharged. Sorry to have bothered you. TerriersFan (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

TC)

User:Bluedogtn

Go ahead, I give permission to DGG to delete and block my accounts user and user talk pages along with the sandboxes, that I created!_BLuE^DOgTn 23:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of iSCSI targets

Thanks for reviewing that speedy deletion request. I still feel that the article is over the line into spam, but I can see how reasonable people may disagree. This is the first time I have felt strongly enough that an article should be deleted to go through the process, so I'd appreciate some advice. Would it be better to PROD it or just move on to AFD? TIA, Celestra (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no point in prodding it, because if I think the article is potentially acceptable, I would be expected to contest the prod. The time to prod after a declined Speedy is when the speedy is declined because the problem isn't one of the speedy criteria--for example, if someone had nominated a book for speedy deletion as no indication of notability, the speedy would removed because books are not included among the sort of things that can be deleted via that criterion, but it well might be deleted under PROD (in such as case I usually simply change the speedy into a Prod to help things along.) What you should do is check earlier afds for similar articles -- there have been several in recent weeks, to see what the standards and usual consensus appear to be, and what arguments are accepted, and compare this article to ones that have previously been deleted and kept. (not that we're always consistent, but this will give you some guide about what to do and how best to do it.). And, per WP:BEFORE, you should consider other options than deletion that might apply. (None of this is a statement of what I would myself say at AfD--it would depend on the arguments that you and others would make there--and this article is considerably weaker than many similar articles.). DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll read up on the other options before filing the AFD, but I honestly don't know how that content could be improved to be more neutral and encyclopedic. Adding all of the iSCSI vendors would only solve part of the problem; the areas of comparison seem slanted toward promoting StarWind Software. If I do nominate it for an AFD discussion, I hope you'll find the time to participate; I find that thoughtful disagreement generally produces the best results. Regards, Celestra (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

yes, I noticed that slant. One way to deal with it is to limit it to software notable enough for Wikipedia articles. . Discuss on talk p. first. Although it is possible that StarWind might be--there is one non-pr source: [7] , it was not kept at AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StarWind Software It has proven difficult to support articles on computer products for primarily business applications-- there is often no material Wikipedia would regard as a reliable source. It might help to check on who started the article. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 26 September 2009 (U

The awards business

DGG, if you're wondering: I'm exploring a depressing netherworld of awards whose listing seems merely designed to impress the very gullible. It started here and continues here. Some of this stuff isn't obviously much more remarkable than what you can buy from this outfit, although it may actually require competence or even moderate skill. -- Hoary (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

agreed. Though each needs to be checked. I commented there--I suspect you misjudged the Benny. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Mass deletions

You may want to keep an eye on this user who appears to be systemically going through the index starting with aa and AFD loads of articles, most of them seem to meet requirements but need expansion... Himalayan 11:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

a new high (low) in recklessness. Probably actually is a newcomer, as he does not seem to have heard of WP:BEFORE. If it continues, take to AN/I-- I can not really myself block for this. DGG ( talk ) 11:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, there isn't much we can do about it. The person is mass nominating these articles and is seemingly confusing notability with just sheer lack of content/references as many mominators do. I believe most of our present articles could be expanded considerably they just need work. The nominator has a point about some of his nominations but all the same they meet general content requirements, just need expansion. I believe the nominator beleives he is doing good work by filtering out bad articles, if he is intent on doing so it will take him 20 years. I actually assume it is an experienced editor using a new account to delete articles to avoid having a backlash against them. Himalayan 12:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC).

there's quite a lot we can do about it. 1. a few SNOW keeps tend to have an impression on most people, if that's what the consensus is. 2.So does explicit friendly advice at AfD. 3. At some point, admins will close the noms as not in good faith. 4. And someone will probably check for sockpuppetry. That explanation of your's would be a prohibited use of alternative accounts. But I hope no experienced ed. would make such bad nominations. If you are correct, it will be interesting to see who. 5. At some point , it becomes disruptive enough to block. 6. Finally, we can solve this and similar future problems by actually start requiring WP:BEFORE. DGG ( talk ) 12:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And pls be a little more discriminating in what you defend? Did you not read what I said above that he may have a point about some of the noms? I am not the sort of editor who votes keep or delete to prove a point and am quite capable of making my own judgement whether it meets requirements or not.. Himalayan 12:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made my comments on your reasoning at two of the afds. But at that time I had not yet checked them all, and seen you refrained from comment on some--sorry about that. DGG ( talk ) 12:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyway if he persists with the noms I'm sure somebody will report him, especially if he targets articles which are clearly meteing requirements and are based upon his own warped understanding of the criteria... Himalayan 12:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I dare say a lot of articles should be deleted but I don't think going through alphabatically and mass noiminating all at once is the way to go about it... Himalayan 13:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a bit of history....

Nearly a year ago... back on October 30, 2008, User:Ism schism asked you about an article [8]. Somehow it got userfied to me. It was only recently that I was aware it was in a MQS sandbox... and you put it there. Now I certainly don't remember asking for it. Think he might still want it? If not... I know I don't. - Best, Michael

The subject seems to be adequately covered at Joe Wurzelbacher#Political ambitions. As such, I moved the article to mainspace & changed it to a redirect to that section. That way the history is preserved in case someone wants it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

fine with me; seems reasonable. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I have been reminded of late that several articles I had userfied should now be attended to. Since I have some time this evening and tomorrow, I shall work on some of them. There are several new articles I have been meaning to expand, but working on them at a perceived slow pace is now being called misusing userspace. A few others I can move off project. I'll lose the GFDL histories, which will make a return be stamped as CSD:G4, and complicate a DRV or getting deleting admin's approval for return as I'll no longer know who the deleting admin was... but what else can be done? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

do not be too concerned with Doctor F. -- nobody else there has supported him. Get back to main space sure, but as for moving off project, most attempts to remove userified articles at Mfd have not been successful recently if the user is still active and the time is only a few months. I've started watching carefully there. It's a nuisance having to watch too many places,but perhaps others will help. And I;'ve made some suggestions there. DGG ( talk ) 14:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you seem familiar with this, what is the lower threshold in current MFD practice for when userfied deleted material is considered abandoned? I know I've seen admins make statements about this, but I can't remember where and I don't think it was consistent anyway. Archived talk page discussions on policy pages never established an objective timeframe either. Thanks. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

See current discussions on MfD. For all practical purposes, the standard is whatever people do there, which is of course not consistent any more than the rest of Wikipedia. My own view is based on the possibility of making an article, not time; as I see it, there is no time limit on improvement. DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping just to get a rough estimate of what is "typical" (in the broadest sense) without wading through MFD, but thanks anyway. I'll peruse there later when I have time. It's always nice to stop by your talk page, have a pleasant day. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidents - JSTOR

Thanks for the correction. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Helen Goddard

I've grown to expect an insightful view from you, so could you explain in more detail why you think the case is worth keeping? I can understand that based on the state of the article when you viewed it there seemed to be a roaring controversy around the case, but I've found that this was all editorialising. From what I can find, there is no LGBT campaign of support, and the debate that her case has sparked about the age of consent or male-female disparities in sentencing for sex crimes is minimal to non-existent. Aside from this being a lesbian relationship, which titillates the press, and Goddard being photogenic thus causing a burst of coverage as always happens when the female teacher is attractive, the case is nothing unusual. Fences&Windows 21:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The reasons you state may very likely have paid a part in why there was coverage, but that's irrelevant. I modified my comment at the AfD. DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)