Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I hope I've done that right. I'm just trying to help out and thanks for bringing that to my attention. It was originally closed by B with a negative comment (something like "not that it will do any good") that the OP objected to and thus reopened (or should that be unclosed) the thread. I just closed it the same way as B had but removed the snide comment. I wasn't aware that there might also be an objection to the collapsing. Yworo (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there. On this AFD, you commented that it was my job as nominator to look for sources. Well, I have now done so, and was unable to find any reliable ones. (I have only searched English-language sources, because I wouldn't know how to find Japanese-language ones.) I can't say the article is absolutely unverifiable, but as far as I am able to tell I don't believe it passes our notability guidelines. Robofish (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm glad you looked. The problem of lack of English language sources for article on Japanese popular cultural topics is indeed a very difficult one, on which I can personally be of no assistance, but it is highly likely that we have been improperly deleting many articles; I hope one of the Japanese-literate editors can help this one. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
On second reading I see it is not a template you used but a very robotic and impersonal style of writing my apologies. Mo ainm~Talk 13:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
we call it not vandalism, but merely edit warring, which though wrong is not all that uncommon around here .I've commented atthe article talk p. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
A user by the name of Tgeorgescu has added a Criticism section to an article on the Intercultural Open University Foundation. As one of the editors of this article I find some of his selected quotes from his referenced articles to move beyond the Wikipedia philosophy of offering a neutral position, and in this case especially in tone. I have made some editing to the article without removing any of his references. All of the editors at IOU were aware of these articles that date back to 2007 and 2008. It appears to us that he selects the very worst of the quotes and adds his own slant in placing the articles. It is hard for us to understand the religious reference to Jesus with a link from a 2008 Dutch newspaper article. I am not sure this article even meets the Wikipedia validity requirement. We would like you to take a look at the talk on my talk page and the talk page exchange that I had with this editor. I do not want to get into an editing war with him. Our desire is to be fair and neutral when it comes to the article. Any help or suggestions would be helpful...Thank you Stretch call (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I took a quick look, and although I recognize the validity of some of your concerns, my impression is that fundamentally his material is based on sources, and offers a balanced view of the subject to counter-act the pure promotionalism that was originally in the article. What the article now needs is integration, since separation into a criticism section is not the ideal way of doing it. I do have some concerns: I am not happy with the detailed wording, including that in the example you have mentioned. I am also aware of some possibly questionable statements-- are all the 2010 faculty of high reputation--only two are mentioned; and, for the ones that are, are they in fact active at the university and do they acknowledge it in their own CV? --it is not unheard of for organizations to claim distinguished members that they do not actually have on staff. And has the 2008 reorganization succeeded in "breaking from past manifestations." If the difference can be documented, perhaps the article should be reorganized to talk about the earlier and the later universities. If it can not be documented, its mere puffery. I need to check on the reputation of the organizations it claims to be affiliated with. Do any of them have articles on wikipedia? Os there any actual verifiable information about exactly how many students and faculty the university has in the various years, or at least currently? especially full time students and faculty? How mny degrees have actually been awarded at the various programs and campuses? It may not be correct just to refer to "degrees"--degrees not recognized by national accrediting bodies must not be specified as degree without a qualification. I call your attention to our rules about Conflict of Interest If you are in any way affiliated with the university, it would be better for you not to edit the actual article, but answer my questions and submit other desired changes on the article talk page, so the information can be integrated in the article. We'll continue on the talk page there. DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
dont see the purpose, since the redirect is to Eustathius Garidas. But if you want to put it back go ahead, and no reason to bother RfD with it. Redirects like this arent worth much discussion one way or another DGG ( talk ) 15:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Hello, I was looking for information on Resource-based economy and noticed that you'd deleted it for copyright infringement. I realise that this is a trademark, but in the UK a trademark is invalid/unenforcible if it accurately describes the thing it is being used to promote - for example you could not register "Bread Maker" to promote a person, business, or device that makes bread. I think a resource based economy (being a type of economy based on resources) would certainly fall into this category of invalid trademarks. However I'm not sure if a) The same trademark rules apply in other countries or in the country where this specific trademark is registered; or b) if that is even relevant in the context of Wikipedia. Could you let me know and consider restoring the page and also point me at any relevant discussion about this type of descriptive trademark if one has already taken place. Thanks. JayAbbott (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Trademarks are a different sort of intellectual property from copyright.Anyone may a trademark in talking about a good or service, provided they do not use the trademark to describe or identify some other product that is likely to be confused with the original. Therefore, trademark violations do not ordinarily concern Wikipedia. In any case, I have no knowledge whether or not the term is a valid trademark. Trademark may also be copyrighted, but that's a separate issue. I do not think the term "resource-based economy" is sufficiently long, distinctive, or creative, as to likely by itself to be the subject of copyright protection.
This article was deleted as a copyright violation. The discussion found that"The article was copied word for word from an essay on the organization's website. http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kb&task=article&article=1&Itemid=100091". If you are the author of that essay, or otherwise own the copyright on it, you may donate the rights under the provisions of WP:DCM. This requires the donation of a CC 3 equivalent license; these give everyone in the world an irrevocable license to reuse and alter the material, even for commercial purposes. If you do not own the copyright. You can try to persuade the owner to grant such a license.
However, even were it not a copyright violation, it is in my personal opinion a totally unencyclopedic essay, advocating, rather than describing the concept,and would need considerable rewriting to be acceptable. The material must be sourced, rather than asserted, and it must be shown to be notable by third party sources written by others than those advocating the concept. For example, you cannot make the assertion "Market theory assumes a number of things which have proven to either be false or only marginally beneficial, while often ignoring many of the socially detrimental consequences inherent.' without giving a source for it, but you can say "this movement proposes that market theory ...." giving a specific reference to where some authoritative statement says this. You must avoid vague terms such as "It is often said that ... " You must write in a neutral style "We import bananas from" is true of only certain countries; you might want to say "Bananas are exported from .... Material like "There are also large amounts of evidence that the FDA has engaged in favoritism/collusion with pharmaceutical companies, to limit/stop the availability of advanced progressive drugs which would void existing/profitable ones. " is unacceptable. You cannot make such a accusation without proof , and since it is of peripheral relevance, it would be better omitted.
WP adheres to the fundamental concept of WP:NPOV; the article must describe the theory, but neither advocate nor oppose it. It is of course necessary to give material that supports it in order to describe it, but it is equally necessary to give the criticism of it. Both sides of this must be given as referenced by good published sources. If the theory is a minority view, it is necessary to state this, along with the sources that show it to be.
A comment was made at the disucssio nthat the material was duplicative of that in the articles on The Venus Project and its activist arm The Zeitgeist Movement, and in the article on Jacques Fresco . You should take this into consideration in rewriting. Examining those articles, I would say that they also border on advocacy not neutral description, omit the necessary criticism of the theories, and are based in large part on unsourced and self-published statements. If you are interested in the subject, they need some attention. I have tagged them accordingly. DGG ( talk )
I see, thanks for explaining, it was the content of the page that was copyrighted - that's good news for me because I would like to have a go at writing up an impartial article describing it (I agree that the views of The Venus Project and the Zeitgeist Movement are somewhat single-sided and inflexible). However, I don't have any experience in writing in an encyclopedic style and I'm sure I would fall-foul of many of the issues you mentioned. The reason I want to do this is because at the moment a good definition simply does not exist - all definitions I've found are specific to one group or another and contain their biases. So should I just create the page and start writing, correcting my bad style as mistakes are pointed out? Will someone help me with this - to get it right? Or maybe I should write it somewhere else and then get the style approved and then import it? I actually want a good definition for a wiki I have created and I'd be happy for Wikipedia's entry to be identical - in fact I actively want Wikipedia's strict criticism to keep it impartial and ensure sources are sought and cited. My initial (unfinished) attempt is at http://rbewiki.org/wiki/Resource_Based_Economy - would you be so kind as to advise me on this, or suggest someone who can? JayAbbott (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hi David, I've updated and fleshed out the above-mentioned article and copied it to a sub-page in my user-space here, to allow others to easily comment on it and update it. I need to work on some citations, but a lot of it is trying to enumerate and describe unproven concepts and various ideas/theories, so there are no published references for this. If you have any comments/suggestions on style etc. I would greatly appreciate them, thanks. JayAbbott (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
A page with that title was created, but the actual contents was a nonsensical one line statement, like "John has a high IQ" Was there perhaps an earlier article you recall under some other form of the words? Anyway, it won;t impair the creation of a proper article. DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Per your re-title suggestion made at your !vote at this AfD, I've opened up re-title suggestions for consideration here.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Your talk page is very long (currently 400KB). This makes it difficult to load and inaccessible to users on slow connections, preventing them from contacting you. Please archive it — if you don't/can't/won't do it for yourself, there is a handful of archival bots who will do it automatically for you. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Good morning, I would like to know more precisely why did you delete the European Energy Ombudsman Group page? I did not get all the details since I'm a novice at Wikipedia. Though I need help to know what exactly should be modified.
Also after explanation I would like to know if it's possible for me to recover the deleted content in order to rewrite it if necessary and publish another article about this organization. Thank you in advance! Ombdsmn (talk)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi I was wondering why the site of KURDO TV was deleted. Please inform us so we can add the missing parts wich you thought were missing in the article.
Lawsuit language on Don Martin (public affairs)edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I agree with your wording change as slight as it is, but your changes have disappeared. Nothing in the history re reverting it by someone else. What happened? Is it somehow protected? Jessi0421 (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
PS - why does my username appear in red? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessi0421 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
a.Your user name appears in red because you have never started that page by writing something on it. You exist as a user, but the page doesn't until you say something on it. "Hello" will do fine.
b.the change apparently disappeared when you made your edit. I'm not sure why, possibly you were editing an older version of the p., but I'll put it back. As for other problems, not all the template features work in IE6. a great deal else in the world doesn't work right on IR6 also. DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
[Warning: boilerplate] You participated in the AfD for Ricky Powell, an AfD that resulted in its deletion. It has since been re-created. I discovered this today and (as suggested here by WereSpielChequers) restored the deleted versions and am notifying all the participants of the AfD -- or anyway all who were logged in with user IDs that they still seem to be using. If you think the article doesn't meet WP standards you may to nominate it for deletion a second time. Indeed, if you think it is a blatant re-creation of the deleted article you may nominate it for speedy deletion (or speedily delete it yourself). -- Hoary (talk) 09:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
If you don't mind running, I'd be happy to nominate you. You seem to do pretty good work here. What do you say we turn Wikipedia:Requests for adminѕhip/DGG into a blue link? --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I was hoping to temporarily make him think he'd lost his mind, but I've probably only succeeded in making him think I've lost my mind. It seemed a little bit funnier at 4:00 in the morning. DGG, this was basically my peculiar roundabout way of saluting you for your multitude of outstanding contributions and well-reasoned discussions through the years. So, in that spirit, allow me to pass along one of the finest awards I've ever received:
Carptrash's Seldom Coveted Thumbs Up Award. Don't let it go to your head. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I understood it as really intended, as soon as I saw the user name. Many thanks. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion
You've been a great resource so I wanted to ask, I'm entering some new stories on J.D. Salinger, one's that were never published. Some are going to be referencing material in special collections in a library. If--and when--you get a chance it would be appreciated to have a set of eyes look at my new article, in my page here [2] to save any future bickering over if and how I've cited or neglected to do this or that. Because as I said before you one of the few out here with a reliable set of eyes! I'll move it when you say it is ready.
Thanks in advance.
Jim Steele (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
this is a problem, because unpublished material is not usually a suitable reference. WP:V means that readers of WP can check it. This source is used for the plot of the story. Now, although the work itself is a primary source, we do as an exception accept the work itself as a source for the plot, because anyone can read the text or view the film, and see if it's accurate. We've generally said that material which can only be verified from a unique copy of something in an archive or special collection is not verifiable in the WP sense, which requires published references. It is unreasonable to expect a reader to go to a single place in the world to verify a WP article. Additionally, most such collections are available only to qualified specialists, not general readers. Additionally, it is not clear to be that the Ransom center permits general access to this material--I do not know the terms on which it was deposited there. When we do link to archives, we normally do it by the device of linking to their published catalog record or summary or description of the material. In any case, your link must include the necessary descriptive metadata to specify the material--their accession or catalog number. The letters referencing it need also to be cited under their specific designations. If you yourself have seen the material, and are publishing the description for the first time, this is, frankly, original research and should be published as such, where it will be subject to expert review and can then be cited. If the plot description is from alexanders book, cite that as the source.
Literary historians and other historians do cite archival material routinely--it's the basis of their profession. But they write for the benefit of other scholars, & what they published based on that is original research. also, the work of the profession involves traveling to unique sites to see materials. both to cite and quote from them and to check that other scholars have cited & quoted from them correctly. on that is original research). DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the lightening-quick response. I have the unpublished stories. But the HRC allows others to access the stories for a nominal fee. Recently the collection was digitized so this is easier. So they can be verified, but from what you're saying WP readers should not have to circumvent to get to the source? I understand that. Interestingly An Ocean Full of Bowling Balls is one short story that is unpublished and yet has a stand alone plot summary with only a reference to the Princeton collection. It's been on Salinger's page awhile. Moreover, the artilce lists his rumoured "15 manuscripts" yet the sources are, from what I see, hearsay. I wonder what your thoughts are on those issues. Alexander's book only metions the date Mrs. Hincher was purchased and then not published. So what I will do is add the cataloge number for the story as well as the letters referencing it. Will that make it ready to move? Thanks again, I appreciate your trained eyes...
If it's digitized, you can give the links. That a fee is charged is irrelevant, and no reason not to use it. That will do, but make the status clear. I don't see that we have an article on the other story, of that we ever did--please check the exact title of the article. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, the story is The Ocean Full of Bowling Balls. I just linked to the story in my reference to Mrs. Hincher, the story I am hoping to move.
that article is unacceptable as is, but surely there is a published ref somewhere to the existence of the story, which might be enough.
More generally, I am not sure about the notability of either story. Salinger is considered sufficiently important that every published story of his is notable, but I am not sure it can reasonably extend to every unpublished story. It might be better to combine these--are there others? up to you. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I see your point on the notability aspect. How do you mean combine them? Both stories were just removed (with the rationale they are unsourced, but didn't I provide that with the link?) by someone whom I have crossed paths with before--in an unproductive way--so at this point I am going to find some more sources. Do me a favor and keep an eye on this, as I said before a trained set of eyes are valued around here. Jim Steele (talk) 04:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think there was certainly enough sources to include them all as article content in that section, removing it was ridiculous--but at this point you might as well get some more references before restoring them--they must have been discussed. I would then advise expanding that sectio first, and then breaking it out into separate articles only later. DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
This is the kind of thing that prevents newbies from staying here on WP. I took the time to find sources, hopefully citing them properly, and he reverts them according to the edit summary they are "unsourced." Now, I will bet you this has everything to do with my interaction with him in the past, and nothing to do with the lack of sources. It's like a elementary playground around here sometimes, when in fact the idea is to share knowledge, or at least provide it, correct? Thank you for the advice, but there isn't much in the way of other sources for these stories, they're quite obscure (but important for the article), and I've added what is a detailed bibiography of Salinger's works done by a scholar. Shouldn't that be enough? His published short stories have less sources! Jim Steele (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Just as anyone can edit. anyone can revert. Add what you have to the page. give a discussion of it on the talk page. It should not be reverted back again without discussion. (the relevant policy is WP:BRD ) I will comment there. I really think you will have even more trouble maintaining them as separate articles. Remember that our basic principal, that anyone can edit, has some limitations: it is not our function to require editors to have either formal qualifications or good judgment. We rely on the community of editors to correct the errors. This has certain frustrating limitations, but it has worked to produce about as accurate an encyclopedia as has been produced by more more elaborate editing and control. (What it has not produced is consistency coverage or high article quality in terms of readability--these functions probably do require the top down control of conventional publication.
As for sources, where have you searched? DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think it's both great and terrifying anyone can edit. It's like letting a group of students run the classroom, some students are sharing all sorts of knowledge about a story in one corner, another few are teaching each other how to carry their ones at their desks but there's always a couple scratching their fingers across the chalkboard. WP seems to have problems with people with axes to grind and to me that goes against the intent. My point will be illustrated when you see that I have re-posted the article, with sources and added something on the talk page and it'll be reverted. I think policy states it should be tagged for citations before being removed? But what do I know. It is like the Wild West here sometimes. As for sources, I used an an author whose extensive bibiography of Salinger's works was published in an academic journal. In that the stories are mentioned and summarized. The other source is the actual story, content of which I linked to, I hope, correctly. That is your department! Thanks again.
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi DGG. Back in August 2009, you deleted this article as a copyvio and briefly protected it. Now the article has reappeared, created by Cck1988 (talk·contribs), one of the two users who have repeatedly created it and received stern warnings because of it. The reason why I don't just nominate it for speedy deletion is that the original article has disappeared. I am, however, reasonably certain that the present article has the same contents and thus still constitutes a copyvio. Could I persuade you to check it against the previously deleted version? Favonian (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Another editor identified the article as a copy of this translation, so it's been deleted and I have reported the author to AIV. Favonian (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
An RfC against Lar, an admin, has been sitting around, closed, for days without a summary. Wordsmith has written up a draft and stuck it on the talk page, but apparently, largely because he participated in the RfC, several other participants don't want a summary from him. Could you review it and summarize it? I realize I'm asking you for something that might take up, I guess, two hours or more of your time and I can't blame you at all if you don't have that time to give, but I think you have no close ties or friction with anyone involved and your head is screwed pretty securely on your shoulders. I was about to make a request at WP:AN for this, but I increasingly hate self-selection by admins, so I thought I'd ask one whose name didn't make me groan. The discussion for the thread is here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Lar#Proposed closing summary. Although no one on one side seems to trust anyone on the other side, if you're not on either side I would think you could walk over the coals without getting your feet burnt. If you can't do it or don't think you should or just won't (all very sane conclusions), can you suggest an admin who might? Sorry to bother you about this, but every six months or so I come across a situation where I'd want the participation of a sound mind in a sound admin and your name comes to mind, and so far you've been game. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
DGG, you have participated in this RfC and so are technically no more neutral than anyone else (even though I personally view you as neutral). I suggest deferring all judgement to the arbcom case that awaits which this RfC will feed into. Polargeo (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
He did? Oops ... Uh, never mind. Any suggestions for somebody else would be welcome. Sorry, I should have checked that.-- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have just read your !vote in my RfA. I am well aware that you and I have rather different perspectives, and have often disagreed, and no doubt will disagree again. The fact that you can be objective enough to set that aside and offer your support says a lot about you. So far 62 other editors have expressed support, but yours means more to me than all but a couple of the others, because I know it might not have been so. JamesBWatson (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Yoenit's talk page. Message added 08:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi DGG, Miller-McCune magazine appears to have a circulation of about 100k, or about 10x the amount suggested on Wikipedia:Notability_(periodicals) although it is unclear what small portion of this is paying. However, the LA times article describes it as "virtually unknown to the general public" but claims that it has "gained a toehold with academics, government officials and journalists". Any thoughts on the notability? Best, A13ean (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
possibly notable. The current circulation from Ulrich's is 92,000. It is included in Ebsco, but no other indexing service,which is a major minus. I think it is intended to compete in some way with Chronicle of Higher Education. What is needed is a fuller article to judge. DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I joined wikipedia a year or two ago and ported across my work to wikipedia under cc-by-sa-3.0 attributation license, there were failures in wikipedia to comply to license terms and this has resulted in constant and repeated copyright breaches. On advice of lawyers, specialist in I.P property rights the license for use of works ported in part or full from my site or publications has been formally withdrawn. These works will be published elsewhere and will be made available to the public. In the meantime would you please proceed with the deletions.
Intellectual Property Rights Attorney, ip21 Limited, Warwick House, 65-66 Queen Street, London, EC4R 1EB--Rovington (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
apparently some other admin has already deleted them. I have the right to take them to deletion review, and force a discussion, but I'm not going to do so, especially because the articles would need extensive editing in any case to avoid repetition. It will be just as easy to rewrite them from scratch, since the people are unquestionably notable, being members of Parliament. Just what failure to comply with license terms has taken place, and who has been in contact with you from Wikipedia? You do not have to respond, or you can respond off line by email from my user page, but I'm trying to help. I think you do not realize that WP is a chaotic system, but one where errors can be corrected--and usually, but not always are.
I am moving this discussion to your user page to keep it together. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Have you seen Rovington's statement on his userpage? He's doing this to try to revoke the cc license, so he has no right to request their deletions under db-author. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I do not know what he is trying to accomplish. See my comment on his talk p. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
What do you think of this Women's development theory article? The underlying book has a lot of citations, but "Women's development theory" doesn't have much usage. The article is a solo work by a SPA, there are no incoming links, and the page views are pretty low. It looks like original research to me. Abductive (reasoning) 18:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Suggest changing it to an article on the book, which is notable--WorldCat shows almost 2000 libraries and a number of published reviews. Given that, it's strange to see only 3 or 4 GScholar hits. If there's an underlying book to cite, it isn't OR, but the summary should obviously be shortened. DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Is there a way to place a semi protect or full protect on an image page at wikipedia. Would you be able to help with that?
--Rovington (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I do almost no work with images, and little with protection, except to protect against the continued re-creation of impossible attempts at articles. But we normally protect only against edit-warring or vandalism, and I do not think either likely for images. It is, however possible to protect them & it is routinely used to protect the images used on the main page. DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Can you please userfy the page you deleted for me so I can work on it? You assume that I am Esrati in your comment on my talk page, but I'm actually just a resident of Dayton and this guy is a notable public figure in this area. I had plenty of links to local newspaper article about the fellow, as well as Constitutional law sources totally unconnected to Dayton, why doesn't that count as notable? Thanks for your time and consideration. TooSimplicious (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Here's a new try: David Esrati, it's got only newspaper and other credible secondary sources as references and it's marked as a 'stub' to encourage others to contribute. Thanks for any feedback you have on improving it. TooSimplicious (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
see below--you're doing nicely. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I can assure you I did not post this page. It was done by a PhD candidate at WPAFB. I agree the first page that was posted in 2008 wasn't even close to being factual- however, my case has been cited by the KKK to defend their rights to wear a mask in public (unfortunately) - and I am the best read political blogger in Dayton. My page rank isn't much off of RonPaul.com according to Technorati. http://technorati.com/blogs/directory/politics/uspolitics/page-10
I"m sorry I don't know how to do Wiki markup- and only use WYSIWG editors.
I'm currently a candidate for Congress- I'm pretty sure that counts as someone worth a mention- even if you don't agree.
The great thing about wikipedia is that it gives my haters the ability to record dirt as well as the good stuff.
However, if you take the page down- nothing happens.
Please be succinct to TooSimplicious at what you have problems with. He's pretty smart.
Thanks-
David Esrati —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Esrati (talk • contribs) 14:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I have commented on the talk page of the article. There's more to do, but the present version is a great improvement, much more so than usual. Even at this point it is no longer deletable by speedy. What will happen at AfD is not really predictable. I'm not going to send it there, but of course anyone else can do so. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey DGG, just wanted to say thanks for your endorsement at the Don Martin DRV, it means a lot to me. So I just wanted ot say thanks.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus! 18:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
"Roger L. Jackson - Candidate for Oklahoma Governor - 2010" deletionedit
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Howdy-
I posted a page with information on a political cadidate. I believe the article was deleted because the page was titled "Roger L. Jackson - Candidate for Oklahoma Governor - 2010," but it had to be titled as such, as there was already a Roger L. Jackson page for some voice actor. Other candidates running for the same office have wikipedia pages, why was this one removed? Also, can you please send me a copy of the article.
I have moved the page to your user space, at User:Minus5252/Roger L. Jackson (politician). I deleted it for two reasons: First, it gives no indication of possible notability. Mere candidacy in a primar7y is never considered here as sufficient notability for an encyclopedia article. If he should win the primary, there might be reason for an article, but even then it is likely to be disputed, unless he wins the election itself. Second, the page is hopelessly promotional. The detailed descruiption of his campaign message belongs on his own web site or political advertising, not here. The reaminder of the article as well is written an language which is praising him, not giving a neutral factual description of his career. Please seeWP:FIRST for what is expected in a WP article. If you can improve the article enough, you may move it back; if sufficiently non-promotional, I will not delete it immediately, but nonetheless I will surely propose it for deletion unless he wins the primary-- bhowever, the community will decide, not me personally.
DGG - Thanks for getting the copy for me. I will modify this to include only non-promotional information tonight so you can re-evaluate. Thanks for all of your help!
68.12.115.63 (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
DGG, I've always respected your opinion, but I'm still upset at the way I was treated by her. I do not understand why, when editors are punished/talked to when they do not assume good faith, makes insulting and factually inaccurate comments, continues to make comments that show that bias after the incidents are closed, that an admin who does the same just gets a free pass. I'm a good editor - I have over 6,000 edits, I have done a good job here, and I've tried to be helpful. I've never been treated that way by any other admin. If I've been wrong, or inadvertently offended someone, I've always tried to clear it up, as I did here - but instead I was accused of a bunch of crap that wasn't even close to the truth, and she continued to push that agenda after the DRV/ANI were complete. Is this the type of thing I need to expect, that an admin can do that and it's OK? Are there two separate castes here? Because if there are, maybe someone does need to shake the tree or upset the applecart. Like I have mentioned before, I'll take this however far I need to, and I fully expect that I'll be banned because I wouldn't roll over and play dead.
I'm not talking about people having differing views, I don't have a problem with that. I don't have a prob with being on the minority side of the DRV, or how the ANI turned out. That's how it is supposed to work, by consensus. As far as the other, I don't expect admins to be perfect, but I do expect them to be civil and to treat people with respect, as you do.
I would really like to hear your thoughts on this - why it is apparently OK for her to do this, without a single admin saying a word, but it is not alright for editors to do it.
Generally it is best to not pursue even the most justified grievances. The so-called dispute resolution procedures at WP do not function in a constructive way: I have yet to see a case where an RfC has every done any good in the end, and whether arb com gets the cases it deals with right is a 50-50 chance. It is not castes, but individuals. There are proportionately more jerks among the admins than the other editors only because the admins are the ones who stay around the longest. There is thus nothing to rely on except the power of general public opinion: people do see, they do remember. The bullies get their way sometimes, but in the absence of physical force, we can withstand them. But unless the polite are in a great majority over the impolite, we can not drive them out--we are not predominant enough to isolate them. Fortunately, WP is very large, and it is not necessary to do the impossible and forgive one's enemies--one can just ignore them.
A more specific and cynical way of wording it, is that in this particular case, the concerns over the article are such that I think we would do best to bury the evidence. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think you leave out a key contributing factor of administrator cynicism: constant criticism. No matter what, any decision that really needed admin judgment in the first place will be disliked by someone. Thus, those administrators who are fundamentally people pleasers are emotionally punished for engaging in such work, while those who are more immune to criticism continue along, tuning out a finite level of dissent. It's rather easy for an administrator to lose perspective and see each new complaint as either sour grapes, evidence of the need for user education, or bad faith on the part of the appellant. Not that I've been reflecting on that lately or anything. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it is certainly true that almost every time I have made a compromise decision or given a non-consensus close , I have been attacked as prejudiced by both sides. This is partly due to the BRD method here--it almost inevitably forms two sides that mutually reinforce each other. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
DGG, thank you for taking the time to answer my question. unfortunately, I'm not willing to put up with a system where those that are supposed to set the example can instead do what they want, say what they want, lie about whatever they want with innuendo and snide remarks, and the only people that confront them are editors who have no power. Their were several editors that called her out on her conduct, but not a single admin stepped forward. Not one. I'm a good editor with 2 GA articles already and was close to completing a 3rd, with a 4th shortly to follow that had the potential to go to FA. And in an area that had a serious shortfall in both total articles and articles of quality. I used these as example to others at the university where I'm employed to push Wikipedia as a reliable source for papers - no more. I will not support nor participate in a system where administrators are allowed to bully and abuse editors as Sarah has. Again, thank you for your time. I'm out of here. GregJackPBoomer! 04:09, 23 June 2010 (UT
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I thought I'd have a go at sourcing Luke Losey (which you deprodded), and I really struggled. Even finding references for Orbital's iconic video for The Box with Tilda Swinton that he directed was really tough. Look at this search for example. It brings home how much information from even the 1990s didn't make it online. All I can find from Billboard is this, and from MTV this, but the video won awards! Fences&Windows 21:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
right. This particular one startled me a little also. But of course there are many similar though less dramatic, and I don't really want to go checking print for one of these at a time when they're all in different areas--nobody could keep up with the work. We need to get the projects working on them more effectively, or find some other way of collecting them together by likely source. Since this is Wikipedia, there's no way to get people to work systematically and add good sourced articles for, say, all prize-winning shows from a period, etc., except in the random areas where there is someone truly dedicated to the topic. It's immensely easier to do these by groups. I think of filling these in as like writing a term paper where each paragraph had to be on a different subject. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think my editorial training helps my brain jump from topic to topic! What we need is for more people to realise that not every notable topic ever is going to have a handy free access newspaper review covering it; the mindset seems to be "no title hits in Google News=non-notable." This seems especially common for non-English topics, it seems that most editors make no effort to search in non-English sources or alphabets. Indeed, getting editors to even look for sources at all can be like getting blood from a stone, they much prefer arguing. I'm always surprised when people say that there's few topics left, there's literally millions (billions?) of things to write about that aren't covered at all in Wikipedia. The strength of Wikipedia letting people write about what they're interested in is also its weakness - they focus on what they know, and what they know often ain't much, even when they think they're familiar with a topic. You're right about systematic approaches being good, but what resources to use and how to get editors to work like that? There was a German project that just ended to get experts to edit articles on renewable energy that didn't seem spectacularly successful for the time and money they put in. Maybe we need to get universities to make their undergraduates create articles using sources to get credits? Only third-year students though! <ramble/> Fences&Windows 02:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
David, just removed the PROD on this one. Maybe you could find a good bullet proof source in your library stuff to show notability. Its there, but I am swamped in meetings all week and stealthly reviewing PRODs in the midst of a client meeting. I'll work with the new editor to help get the article up to speed. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
It seems quite OK now. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This looks to me like a needless page move, as there is no disambiguation issue. There is no other film with this title, so confusion seems very unlikely. But, I cannot seem to figure out how to revert the page move. Can you be of assistance? Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I see it's been undone. Personally, I think it a mistaken, and it would have been clearer the other way. I would have kept the title change. Though I also think of this movie when I hear the word, my general opinion is that using a common word as the title for an article about a specific work is unhelpful. (the MOS says otherwise--I have from the first disagreed with the practice of not adding qualifiers to terms that are potentially ambiguous, but there more important things to work on than trying to change this.) DGG ( talk ) 09:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
DGG -- you seem to have the respect of everyone participating in the RfC/U for admin Sarah. Jclemens has made a motion to close, although the issue has not been resolved, and in fact the underlying issue of admin accountability to editors has surfaced as a more global concern. I requested (and Greg supported) that someone facilitate a civil discussion among Greg, Sarah and me so that we can just clear this up and move on. That is all that we ever hoped to accomplish -- no one ever wanted sanctions or any kind of penalty against Sarah, just a conversation.
We are getting a whole lot of "just drop it" votes, and I can't speak for Greg but at this point I am not amenable to just dropping it, and I think that is a lousy policy.
I have no idea if you could be cajoled into would be interested in facilitating such a dialogue or if you might recommend someone else who is particularly good at mediation-type conflict resolution. I am sorry to bother you with this. I just feel like something should happen fairly soon or a fight will break out, and that is not what we are after. Thanks. Minor4th• talk 02:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Mr. Goodman, a few months ago I reacted very angrily and unpleasantly to your message on my talk page. I perceived your message as bullying. It's taken me THIS LONG to feel better enough to look at your message again, and I can't see what my problem was. The words you used were far more reasonable than the words I remembered. I'm awfully sorry. Best wishes,Rich (talk) 10:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
it's essentially the fault of our way of working being so antagonistic--having one's article nominated for deletion often tends to cause efforts to help being misunderstood. I'm quite used to it, but still I really appreciate your coming back here to comment. Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
it may be usually that, but for some reason i didn't care that much about MarHedge, it seemed borderline notable-I was putting due effort into it, but my skill level with citations is so low and frustrating to me and others--I never remember what little i learn and I'm sweating and squinting at all the squiggles as precious time rolls by-my oversensitivity to criticism was raised concurrently Anyway, thanks for your gracious acceptance of my apology!Rich (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I did some editing. The challenged statement does have to be removed--I explained why on the talk p. there. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thnx … I'll keep an eye on it … all of the WP:SPS has made me suspicious for Quite Some Time. — 70.21.13.215 (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
FYI, they're at it again … <Sigh!> — 70.21.13.215 (talk) 01:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
dealt with and warned. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi DGG, came back from the weekend and noticed that my company's website was deleted (advertising). Just wondering what changes I could make so that I could get it up as a legitimate page. Didn't mean to have anything on there that was not supposed to be. Thanks for your help in advance.
Cheers, LV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockevincent (talk • contribs) 18:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, you removed the recent prod of this article writing that it has sources, but these are not sources. Sources must be something one can find, no? Also, please when you remove a prod, why not at the same time add categories for an article? If it stays it should have them. I'm just saying this because I've seen this frequently from you - removing a prod notice but then leaving the article without cats. Best Hekerui (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
actually ,sources need not be online. Print sources are perfectly sufficient. and yes, when I prevent articles from deletion by removing the BLP prod, I just make sure that they have some source for the indicated notability and do not fall into any speedy criterion. I see no reason to add categories also, or do other technical fixes. There are priorities, and keeping improvable articles for further improvement is the priority. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
If you're referring to the Baxter Building AfD, I've been in cordial discussions with SheffieldSteel about it, have more sources, and have userified it to User:Jclemens/Baxter Building. I intend to add the additional sources, present the changes, and only DRV it if I can't convince SheffieldSteel through polite discussion to change his close on the basis of the article's improvement. You're welcome to help if you have the time or inclination. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
If the article is substantially improved in such a way as to meet the objections in good faith, there is no need to go to DRV or even to ask, unless it has been protected against re-creation. That said, I normally do ask. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure he'd necessarily see things that way. Your appraisal of the improvements to date would be welcome. Jclemens (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I've read the discussion. The sources appear to me to be sufficient. If you reinstate the article, he can then decide whether to accept it or go to AfD again--he could of course delete as speedy G4, knowing you will go to DRV, but no admin has ever done that when I have reinstated an article. It would not technically count as wheel-warring, but it would be unusually unpleasant, and the only way a system with hundreds of independent admins can survive is if we none of us push too hard against each other. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. User:DGG (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Mo ainm~Talk 09:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_June_13&oldid=367739158#File:The_Time_of_Angels_illustrative_image.jpg){kind=link}