User talk:DGG/Archive 24 Jan. 2009

Nov08,   Dec08, ... ,  Feb09,   Mar09,  

re:moves...

Indeed I should learn how to unmove/merge/etc; it is a sad lacuna in my adminimism. :) Thanks for the pointers to where I might find this info...much appreciated! GJC 21:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Helen Baker

Thanks for responding on my talk page, DGG -- I sent Ms Baker an e-mail attempting (much less succinctly) to explain what might establish notability for the article, and have received a response. Best regards for 2009, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Chronic fatigue syndrome and sub-articles

Hi DGG,

If you have time, I would appreciate a second opinion on these edits [1] [2]. I have left comments about them on their talk pages.

Thanks,Ward20 (talk) 06:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

not again :) I have by now a certain amount of chronic fatigue over the efforts needed to keep this article objective. But I'll give it a look tomorrow.DGG (talk) 06:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I did wait for a new year to bug you, so happy new year :) Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking at the CFS article, you certainly are invaluable around here. I won't bug you about that any more but wonder if you have any opinion about this method of trying to form an idea about the impact of the Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. A PubMed search of ("chronic fatigue syndrome") lists 3770 publications. A PubMed search of ("Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome") which would yield articles that cite the Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome lists 3648 publications, which seems impressive (I could be wrong). Do you know how to search PubMed for any instance of Lancet and ("chronic fatigue syndrome") to see the approximate number of chronic fatigue syndrome articles that cite the Lancet? So far I have only been able to get the number of chronic fatigue syndrome articles published by the Lancet (99). Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Lancet is not a good comparison, because most of Lancet is not on the subject, and, obviously, most of JCFS is. You need to to do two complementary things: one, look at individual articles published in the journal, as compared to individual articles on the same subject published elsewhere, and see what the relative citations to them are. To be fair, you have to look at the same kind of articles--eg case studies, etc. Second, you need for find admitted classics on the subject, such as the Cochrane reviews, and see whether they cite the journal as compared to other sources. But even doing this well, you run into another problem: whether people in the field publish in specialized or general journals. There are a few subjects, such as Diabetes, where there is a specialized journal of such importance that almost all the best articles are published there, but it varies from field to field. I believe that in neurology in general, the most prestigious journals are the general neurology journals--rather than in general medical journal or specialized disease-oriented journals. But for this specific subject, I do not know. And in any case, the overall reputation of a journal does not imply that all papers in it are of the same quality--in practice, they never are. Even the best journals have some papers that never get cited, and most poor quality journals will have a few that do. All this avoids the real problem: in a field where there are distinct hostile schools of thought, the different fields often publish in different journals which ignore each other.

Now, Journal of CFS is in Scopus, so

of the 54 papers published in 2000, the most cited ones were cited 24, 21, 17 times.

of the 32 papers published in 2001, the most cited ones were cited 13, 13, 13 times

For papers of CFS in the journal Neurology

of the 2 papers in 2000 on this subject, they were cited 76, 31 times

of the 2 papers in 2001 on this subject they were cited 45, 25 times

For papers on CFs in the journal Lancet

of the 8 papers in 2001 on this subject most cited ones were cited 264, 117, 116, 60 times

(no full papers in 2000

Of all the 299 papers ever in JCFS, the 3 most cited were cited 44, 37, 36 times

This line is the most striking, and is enough to show it is not widely cited in the field. That does not mean it is unreliable.

Please feel free to copy this to the discussion on the talk p. DGG (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Super DGG, thank you. Not exactly the results I would have hoped for but the data is the data. I will check individual articles. I have found two CFS Cochrane reviews that have searched the JCFS for their conclusions, not sure about if they actually cited the JCFS. Am also trying to compile a list of prominent researchers that have published in the journal. I will present that with your information and see how the consensus goes. Thanks again. Ward20 (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD discussion

At the AfD discussion for Guy Blod You wrote:

Redirect such an obvious redirect that it could have been done without coming here. I do these as a matter of course when i encounter such minimal articles on minimal characters.

Seems like good advice, and I'll follow up on that more in the future. However, I understand that my opinions are sometimes outliers and I generally try to seek consensus rather than acting boldly. In any case, thanks for the advice. Bongomatic 02:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I remind anyone seeing this that I can do it without much challenge because i do it only on the most obvious cases, very selectively--just a few times a week. If I did it on a wholesale or indiscriminate basis it would not be proper, nor would it be if there were any real chance of a decent article. And of course I would not revert someone who challenges it. (and, for good measure, having been patrolling overlooked New Pages from the end of the queue, I am currently a little more on the the deletionist side myself than usual. :) DGG (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Rob Fyfe

But without sourcing, we have no evidence that he is the CEO of a major company. Harry the Dog WOOF 19:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, but merely being the CEO of a corporation is not notable. Thousands of people are CEOs. There is no assertion of notability, and the article is original research. I will AfD it. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have responded there. First you tried to speedy as no indication of notability, then as recreation of a deleted article, then nominated as OR without bothering to look for references--even though you are an expert in the subject & the previous copyvio is at the least an indication of where refs might be found. And he's CEO of an international airline. I find it odd. So now I will do the work that you should have done; it would have taken less time than arguing with me (true, the person who wrote the article had the primary responsibility) DGG (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ray Royer Deletion

Hi, User_talk:MBisanz suggested I talk to you about an issue related to the removal of the Ray_Royer page. While the page was deleted (and I'm not asking that the decision be reversed) there were a couple of questions about noteworthiness that were not answered.

Basically I had a question about checking how noteworthy his work in the band "Freedom" and an Italian film called "Nerosubianco". This was important as it showed noteworthiness beyond Procol_Harum (ie redirect back to the Procol page was not the right thing to do, IF they are important enough).

Do you have any suggestions on checking this? I'm looking for an answer as Bobby_Harrison also appeared in both contexts. (material added by User: StormCloud)

Matt must have suggested me on the basis of my total lack of knowledge & consequent expected objectivity about both the specific subject and the general field. The obvious way of establishing the importance of the subsequent career is establishing the importance of the film and the other band The film was directed by [[Tinto Brass], who is apparently notable & it would help to mention him. The enWP article on him is sketchy, the one in the itWP is much fuller; The itWP has an article on [Nerosubianco], and also ones on most of his other films. but it's unreferenced. I note from IMDb there are both a UK and a US band of that name--I assume he was involved with the UK one. What you need to do is to look for reviews. The film reviews, unfortunately, are likely to be in Italian print publication for the period. I don't know what you can find on the band, but that's what I would look for. DGG (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Skeheenarinky

Please have a look at the article's talk page: Talk:Skeheenarinky

Thanks, KieranC15 (talk) 12:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Lisa Wickham and User:Shandynelson

I am pretty sure that User:Shandynelson is removing the AfD notice repeatedly on the Lisa Wickham article, but does so without signing in. The traceroute shows the anon IP's are in Trinidad and Tobago. Any way we can confirm this and take any action? It's pretty obvious this is a promotional article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a checkuser, so the simplest thing to do seemed to be to protect the article for 2 days, which I did. DGG (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That was fast. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear DGG,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Old Man River (restuarant)

Hello DGG, and Happy New Year. I was in the midst of preparing an article on a famous restaurant in Western New York, but before I could get in references, the article was deleted. Could you either email a copy of the deleted article to me or put it online in my sandbox, so that I can better prepare it? Thanks much. --Donbodo (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

emailed, and see your talk p. DGG (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Your warning re: CSD

"Reviewing administrator"? I don't have a mop. Either way, I'll gladly take articles to AfD and let them run through the full process instead if you think I'm tagging articles for CSD "a little too fast".

--KurtRaschke (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

a bit of a misunderstanding I think--the meaning was that I was the administrator reviewing the deletions. The problem anyway, is not intrinsic to going too fast, but that going too fast one tends to make mistakes. Please review WP:CSD and WP:Deletion policy about the difference between speedy and CSD. But the most serious part is that you were going too fast to check for what seemed to be obvious copyright violations, which are a necessary reason for speedy deletion. Myself, I delete over 1000 articles a year without using automated tools. I know my limits. DGG (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year

In a hope to foster harmony between inclusionists and deletionists and all other flavors of AfD voters, I wish you a Happy and Healthy 2009. :) --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 06:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Joinin2

Could you please indicate exactly what is wrong with that page? I cited my sources and everything.. this was the issue last time, so what am I doing wrong now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockNRollKitten (talk • contribs) 17:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

replied on your talk page. DGG (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Classical guitar pedagogy

Hi there DGG! Thanks for being a bit of an inclusionist there, by not deleting entirely! Please see Talk:Classical guitar pedagogy. (I put the prod back, but if it doesn't work out... well, then so be it. hehe) TheRationalGuitarist (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

what are you talking about? the author does have a page

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I started the discussionDGG (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

User:124.105.9.3

Good day. Do you still remember this user? He/she is at it again. The anon together with User:Ellineratedj created several hoax articles related to Hey Hey it's Saturday. Please help. Thanks! -danngarcia (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Is everything from today vandalism? DGG (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked the new sock indefinitely and the anon for one year. I rely on you for the cleanup. Please email me to confirm. DGG (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, all of the anon and User:Ellinerated's edits since December were all hoax. I also nominated for PROD for all of the hoax articles that he/she created. Thanks for the swift action. -danngarcia (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sylva Channessian

Hi. Can you please point me to the discussion or policy that states that individuals who have won the Miss World contest on the national level are automatically notable as you implied in this edit that removed my PROD? Thanks and Cheers, CP 17:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

such is my understanding of our usual practice for all major prizes, awards, and competitions.. However, I do not make policy here, but the community does. Feel free to test it at AfD. I'd suggest checking for references first, in appropriate national print sources for the period. DGG (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Policy

I'm too run over by being bashed by the anti-plant band to be able to even think, much less write policy. Plant editors keep getting dragged into this by hostile editors who just want to abuse us, but don't write any plant articles. The current punchers don't know very much about plants at all, while trying to force us to write articles their way. No matter how many times I say it, it never makes a dent, and it really just makes me (and some of the other plant editors) want to quit. There is a small group of editors contributing huge numbers of species articles, mostly stubs, on plants in the world. But having to get ground out and down every year by the latest group of editors who know nothing about the issue of names in the world of plants is interfering a lot.

I'm not a very good communicator on this issue, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't know where to start. I am the in-house expert on plant common names, and I know for a fact that my knowledge is seriously limited.

I will think about it though. --KP Botany (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

which policy?--I was talking about protect at "wrong" versions. As for names, as I've said once or twice, I usually prefer common names, this being a general encyclopedia, but I've thought of this more in terms of animals than plants. DGG (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were talking about the common name naming policy. No, I'm in the midst of the battle, so I can't pick a version, plus, it's apparent the edit war has been carried on in stealth for a while before coming out in the open.

Plants are tricky, botanists and gardeners have gone down this path over and over again. They move, people move them, the useful ones have dozens of common names. There's no standardization, whereas in some areas of animals there is. Plus the most common name is the one where the plant is often most familiar, and that's usually where it's a weed, which demotes native plants seriously. --KP Botany (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I can second this, as there are (I'd hazard a guess) less than 20% of plant species with common names, and half of those would have several common names. The plant naming mudwrestle is spreading far and wide now then...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

To be sure, most do not have common names--but of the ones with substantial general interest, its more likely to be 50%-60%. And its not as if scientific names were all that stable. But, as I said, my experience is with animals and procaryotes, not plants. But my feeling remains that for anything at all, if there is an English language common name, use it first. DGG (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, with plants it is almost never, "if there is an English language common name." Most plants have more than one name, many of which are very commonly used, and many names apply to multiple plants. I've had this battle at work, already, and lost, badly, as the advocate for placing common names over scientific names. There are less than 100 species, probably world wide, where this holds true, that there is an English language common name--and, these species have heavy ethnobotanical stories that are told, by plant guidelines, under the common names, with a separate article under their scientific name.

Having a policy requiring common names for article titles for plant articles leads to a large delay for most familiar plants in figuring out what common name to use. Common names for plants are not internationally standardized in English. (In Germany they are standardized, and native New Zealand plants have standard names in Maori and English.) There is no source that a reliable, verifiable reference for standard names for plants that are known the world over. If we use the most commonly used name (which is not obtainable through a google sources because of advertising by nurseries) we would wind up naming a large number of familiar plant species with their invasive weed name. This would cause resentment and claims of giving undue weight to the plant in its non-native habitat over the place where it evolved. Trees would be called by their plantation names used in the lumber industry. These aspects of plant naming come about due to the nature of plants--they're different from animals.

I could go on, but others have done this before me. The plant community itself would like to use common names more often and has made attempts at standardization, but all of these have failed. Plants are too important to too many people to allow others to name them for them--they will always have many common names when useful, and none when small or rarely seen by the English speaking world.

I worked researching common names for plants. This took more of my time than all other tasks combined, including researching the correct scientific name and authorites, the geography, the horticulture, and doing a thorough literature review. A requirement to use common names would stop plant article writing dead in its tracks. New editors would always be posting articles under dubious names, or the wrong names. Some animal areas do have standardized common names in English. Ostrich is rather common for example, but you don't have wild ostriches all over the world, like you have Scotch broom growing weedy all over the Western US.

It's an unfortunate aspect of the nature of plants and their relations to people and the English language that requiring articles to be named with common names simply means stop writing articles about important plants that are missing from Wikipedia and begin researching and arguing about which common name to use. The issues won't be resolved, they'll go to arb or rfc, and then another plant name will be debated. Meanwhile articles die as all editing by plant editors is consumed with the debate about the common name.

Scientists, botanists, and gardeners have failed to resolve this issue for hundreds of years. This is why we've simply followed what the experts have concluded after going through the same battle dozens of times over the past few centuries: use scientific names, include all known English and familiar other language common names, and create redirects. Wikipedia is not equipped for reinventing the wheel in this case.

--KP Botany (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually....

Given you are thoughtful on common names and how things are called, you may want to look at a bird as well as a plant here at:

• Talk:Blackbird

Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And a third thing...

Are you interested in running for Bureaucratship? There is a recent shortage, and I feel your wide knowledge would be particularly handy in assessing usernames...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that's where I could most usefully work at present. Guarantee that everyone with an opposition to articles on fictional characters and IPC "trivia" will immediately change their mind, and that the admins making really problematic speedy deletions will reform or start doing other things, I might feel differently. But then, I don't see how an interest in scientific of scientific nomenclature and subject headings carries over to user names. DGG (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

They don't - it was a non sequitur and I was merely thinking you'd be a good choice. I was pleasantly surprised by the support votes at arbcom elections from the deletion-minded (unless it was all a cunning plot to keep me away from AfD). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

AFD of UK Community Issues Party

Dear DGG. I have responded to your comment on the AFD discussion [3] of UK Community Issues Party. BlueVine (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

NawlinWiki and Thieves Like Us (Band) DRV

You said:

FWIW, I consider that no admin has the right to have their talk page unavailable, or to refuse to respond to inquiries. A person nowadays who said they intended to do that would never get approved for the position. DGG (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out by way of reply (without clogging the DRV with irrelevant side points) NawlinWiki's talk page got some pretty serious vandalism a while back, so I understand why it was semi-protected. I've suggested that he creates (at least) a subpage which is available for new and unregistered users. Stifle (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I shall have to apologize. Thanks for letting me know--I didn't realize. DGG (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect of United States Adjusters ®

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on United States Adjusters ®, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because United States Adjusters ® is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting United States Adjusters ®, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Unnotable families

I'll take a look. In the meantime, you may want to look at Portal_talk:Poland/Poland-related_Wikipedia_notice_board#Notable_.3F_Polish_families.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ross Jeffries

In reply to me editing Ross Jeffries article, you sent me this : " Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Ross Jeffries. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC) "

- Edit was COMPLETELY referenced, I had the video of Ross Jeffries himself stating he is a member of [some group]. The presenter and Ross Jeffries gives his name on the video. - Was not defamatory in any way. If RJ claims [whatever] quoting him saying such is not defamatory. It also isn't against Wikipolicy. - I suspect your in association with RJ. Unless you can answer my challenge, I will be reporting you. Dimensio (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Kindly read WP:BLP for the relevant policy. Such material can only be added if published in unquestionably reliable sources, and if clearly relevant to the notability. That it might be relevant to the notability is conceivable, but that it was published in an unreliable source is beyond question as well. We do not source negative comment to videos posted on the net and referred to in blogs. . You know as well as I the unreliability of such posting. If a reliable newspaper were to print an article saying that such a posting had been made, and was considered authentic, then we could consider saying so, and referring to that article. We could in no case would refer to the youtube video. If you've looked at my (infrequent) edits and comments on this series of articles, you will know my degree of sympathy with the him--or anyone else in that whole community. Proceed as you see fit, as long as you do not add the material to any discussion here. I have removed the specifics from this page. BLP applies everywhere in Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

So your suggesting a video of a talk show is not an adequate source ? 03:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimensio (talk • contribs)

exactly. Nothing on youtube is ever an adequate source for negative BLP. DGG (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Not even Rickrolling? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

not if its negative BLP. The appearance has to be commented on by a RS. Thee is no way of telling if a youtube video is genuine. DGG (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Psychocinetic Art

I tagged this article with {{db-hoax}}, which redirects to db-vandalism[4]. Perhaps this should not be the case, but it is. Can you prove that this form of art exists? I can't, after extensive google searchs. Please look at the talk page of the article before you remove speedy delete templates from it. Thank you, Lithoderm 04:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't prove it exists. Why should I? if it merely cannot be shown to exist, it does not get deleted by speedy. If it can be shown NOT to exist, even, it still doesn't get deleted by speedy--the way to remove hoaxes is via AfD or Prod. See WP:CSD. As for that template, if it's been confusing you, we will have to see about changing it-- the template has to fit the policy, not the other way round. some people, including myself, think we can speedy delete a hoax as vandalism if it's blatantly self contradictory to the extent that it's blindingly obvious vandalism to anyone who looks at it. I do not consider it reaches that level of obviousness, & if any one ed. in good faith thinks that, then it's not a valid speedy. (Personally, I would guess that its an example of confusion rather than hoaxing). DGG (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Warning

This is your only warning.
Do not attack against other users that do not violate any Wikipedia policies like you attacked against me with no reason in my talk page. If you continue this, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Klassikkomies (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

for background, see User talk:Klassikkomies -- & the comments of other editors there. DGG (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI question

Hi, I actually might be called a hypocrite for this, but I am drafting an article on a relative, who you've met. I would like your opinion on whether you think he's notable under WP:ATHLETE, and whether it's a viable stub based on WP:POV and WP:RS. I am contacting another admin as well. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's an amateur sport, so national championships in it are notable. We've decided in the past that junior championships are not necessarily notble; I'm not sure we've ever considered if "senior" level ones are. So what you need to emphasize is the actual national 1st's. I'd write it to concentrate on the championships, not the overall detailed record. I have commented a day or two ago at WP:COI and some COI of this sort is inevitable In a sense, though, this is an instance of how lack of distance can affect the article; another ed. who wrote it might have mentioned only the first place standings, which might have helped the article. And I'd suggest not including that picture. DGG (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Bearian (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

MTQI

I have noticed that you have participated in this AfD article that keeps on coming back. In actuality other articles (specified below) related to it were already merged and redirected to the main article Miss Tourism Queen International but the other three articles (annual competitions of the pageant) keep on appearing. Please check these articles that were reverted in their original form by an editor, after the merging and redirection were performed:

Miss Tourism Queen International 2004 Miss Tourism Queen International 2005 Miss Tourism Queen International 2006

The articles above were decided to be merged to Miss Tourism Queen International. The articles have only 2 references, one from a personal website and the other from the official website of the pageant. Here's the AfD discussion of the 3 articles above here. The Miss Tourism Queen International 2007 was deleted

I don't think the pageant is notable enough aside from these comments made by the 2008 delegates of this pageant:

"Two contestants spoke out against the mistreatment that they and other contestants had experienced in Miss Tourism Queen International 2008 that was held in China in April. First, it was AMY LYNN HOLBROOK, Miss America, who complained about bad food, minimal security and poor medical attention, and rude organizers. Holbrook was forced to withdraw from the pageant and inspired the wrath of MTQI organizers headed by ALEX LIU and JEROME TOO who accused Holbrook of blatant exaggeration. Holbrook's complaints were echoed by HODA KAISER, Miss Egypt, who claimed that the contestants were no longer treated like beauty queens as soon as the pageant ended; the remaining contestants were forced to pay for extra luggage even though they had been promised that they did not have to. Then a week later, SAIDIA PALMA, who represented El Salvador, painted a harsher picture of the 2007 pageant. She wrote that her fellow contestants were lodged in a one-star hotel with poor security and that they were treated as if they were in a circus tour. Palma, a pageant veteran, exclaimed that MTQI was the worst pageant she has ever attended." source

Further reading: 1. MISS BOLIVIA SPEAKS OUT/SAIDIA SPEAKS OUT/SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT/THE AMERICAN GIRL 2. ON MISS TOURISM QUEEN INTERNATIONAL 2008 3. MISS EGYPT'S TURN 05.05.2008

With the above info, I'm thinking that the [[Miss Tourism Queen International 2008 be nominated for deletion also if not to merge to the main article.What do you think--Ped Admi (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC) -- (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Here's the AfD of Miss Tourism Queen International 2007: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Miss_Tourism_Queen_International_2007--Ped Admi (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

well, my first thought is that if they persuaded a former Miss America to participate they must be somewhat notable, even if they turned out to be of low quality. I'd suggest having a combined article on the pageants. Propose it according to WP:MERGE, with the discussion on the main page. if there are no objections in a week or so, do it. The redirects left behind will help. DGG (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• • She is not a winner of Miss America. She was appointed by someone and was given only the sash or the title "Miss America" in the pageant since she represented "America" in the MTQI contest. Thanks for the input.--Ped Admi (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

oops. That settles it--obviously a merge to the main article. It's easier than doing the delete. DGG (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

These articles were already merged before to the main article: Miss Tourism Queen International 2004, Miss Tourism Queen International 2005, Miss Tourism Queen International 2006; but as you can see they are back to their original form prior to merging and redirection of the 3 articles made by another editor. I definitely need your help with this to perform the actions, being a not so active editor in Wikipedia. Thanks in advance.--Ped Admi (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

They can probably then best be reverted to the redirects, but since I do not work regularly on this subject, as you can tell from my mistake above, I am going to ask , Suntag, an experienced ed. who does, to take a look, & if he agrees I'll support him as needed. DGG (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that would work if you ask someone, since I'm not a "daily" Wiki editor. Thank you in advance--Ped Admi (talk) 04:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC).

I asked Suntag and I will take care of the follow up. I want to thank you for your care in noticing & explaining problems like this so they can be dealt with. DGG (talk) 04:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't worked much on beauty pageant topics. From what I've seen, someone figured out that the real money in beauty pageant is tourism and a variety of beauty pageants sprang up targeting these tourism dollars (the dollars coming to the pageant from the country desiring tourism). The have similar sounding names and now may be upset with each other over trademark and other issues. They're less well refined than the more famous beauty pageants, so some of the participants, etc. might have an ax to grind as well. Some of the tourism beauty pageant promoters and detractors seem to have made their way to Wikipedia, which brings problems to the articles in this area.

• Miss Tourism Queen International (AfD) - No action needed
• Miss Tourism Queen International 2004 (AfD) - PageantUpdater performed the AfD merge here. DRV if there is a disagreement. Potential action needed: G4 merge into Miss Tourism Queen International.
• Miss Tourism Queen International 2005 (AfD) - PageantUpdater performed the AfD merge here. DRV if there is a disagreement. Potential action needed: G4 merge into Miss Tourism Queen International.
• Miss Tourism Queen International 2006 (AfD) - PageantUpdater performed the AfD merge here. DRV if there is a disagreement. Potential action needed: G4 merge into Miss Tourism Queen International.
• Miss Tourism Queen International 2007 (AfD) - Deleted. No action needed
• Miss Tourism Queen International 2008 (AfD) - Merge incompletely proposed 20 March 2008 and removed 28 March 2008. Probably could be listed for deletion since it seems to suffer the same problems as the other dated Miss Tourism Queen International articles.
• Miss Tourism Vietnam (AfD) -
• Miss Tourism World (AfD) - Page protect.
• Miss Tourism World Hungary (AfD) -

-- Suntag ☼ 17:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

done as specified. The 2008 will appear on afd in a few days, unless merged -- I';ve suggested one and will discuss with the main editor involved. DGG (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Hi there! Please visit my Talk Page. Thanks!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Kelly Overton (actress)

You are invited to review the improved article and tell me if I missed anything. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see what you think of this idea

At your convenience, please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Committees#Content authority: a different approach. It may address some of the objections you voiced earlier on that page. -- Noroton (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed extremists are the problem

Per mailing list...

I think you are right the 1% loud mouthed people are disrupting the system so much, it prevents us as a community to reach in any sort of agreement. Such an agreement would significantly hamper the activity of the 1%.

To address this I think a few things need to be done. This is more of a chain reaction.

• I demand to see proof of consensus behind the mass removals. The community should also demand to see the evidence of such a consensus. I am wary of polls and votes on this issue as in the past the 1% has "outvoted" the community as no one is interested in the drama over unimportant articles. People reserve their "drama credits" over possible future disputes they care about.
• After the above step community would need to ban or restrict people who do not act responsively and disrupt the site with their "bold" mass actions. Mass reverts, mass deletions, mass nominations and mass actions of any sort are problematic unless there is consensus behind it.
• After the two steps above, the general issue should be addressed and community should decide how to handle unimportant articles such as the ones on TV episodes, character and video games.
• Lastly the consensus by the community would need to be enforced.

However to achieve all that we need to prod the community to act on the first item somehow. I doubt arbcom will be useful at all so this should either be a community prod or a Jimbo prod. Jimbo himself told me that he wasn't too happy with whats happening but he explicitly tried to avoid saying anything definitive. I guess maybe a community request for a Jimbo prod may start the actual discussion.

For example Jimbo could "demand to see" a consensus to mass remove articles (like how TTN and others are doing) and that would start the chain reaction. After all if they indeed have consensus behind their actions it shouldn't be too hard to prove it. If enough people ask Jimbo, I am sure he would be more compelled to prod the community.

-- Cat ^chi? 01:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for the note of encouragement. I have just retired as a school librarian. I love Wikipedia and thought it might be fun to work on it--I had NO idea it was so involved. Since I now have the time for it I will see what i can do. I wrote 1 article and think I will stick to editing for awhile :-) I am a better reader then writer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleobatra (talk • contribs) 23:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Kamal Givens, Kamal "Chance" Givens

While I was on prod patrol, I found a situation that appears to need a bit of your involvement. An article, Kamal "Chance" Givens, was prodded. The editor who prodded it simply said "Delete or change name to Kamal Givens." The latter turns out to be a protected redirect to I Love New York (TV series), a reality show in which he finished second. Since then Givens and his brother have become hosts of a VH1 reality series, Real Chance of Love. So I come to you, the person who protected the redirect two months ago, and propose the following: to delete the redirect CSD G6 to allow a move of the "Chance" article (stub that it is) to that name. If that sounds halfway decent to you, may I prevail upon you for the favor? Many thanks in advance. B.Wind (talk) 07:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, see your talk p. for details & follow up that's needed. DGG (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Everyme

I'm failing to see any privacy violation in Everyme's (now deleted) edits to his own talkpage. The only thing he linked was on-wiki stuff (ssp cases). What am I missing? What I see is a X-mas greeting by an editor, everyme thanking that person for the greeting. Prior to any of this, I was aware of who editor: A.N. was previously. I thought everyone knew. E-me and the other editor have a long history of bickering, and E-me, from what I can tell, took an understandable offense to someone posting a very retributive looking "christmas greeting" on his talkpage when he's indef blocked and near the same time the same user was opening an SSP case against E-me? Again, what am I missing here? The posted x-mas message was nastiness wrapped in a sugary template, no ifs/ands/buts about it. RTV is fine and all that, but going back and rubbing it all over the face of an editor that you've had conflict with in my opinion negates the RTV. Thoughts? Keeper | 76 04:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

the ed. involved has consistently done those greetings, despite my advice that they might not be taken well. That still does not justify revealing names hidden because of external threats. Nothing does. And I am quite sure E. knew he was doing wrong. DGG (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What did he reveal that isn't already known? Again, honest question. At the risk of sounding too much like an Abbott and Costello bit, I thought everybody knows who "nobody" is. Keeper | 76 04:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, many of us know, but the problem was their being written down & searchable. Many of us know, after all, a good many other hidden names--it just takes having been around at the time. But we still don't write them down. My own view about Wikipedia names is that everyone should use a single one, the real one, and then we won't have these problems. What I hope is that this episode will teach the ed. that this sort of attempt at simulating friendliness are indeed likely to be seen as hypocritical, since he did not believe me before; and I hope the notice here will lead to us having no more of them. DGG (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Was E-me aware of "external threats"? I understand and completely endorse that the edits should remain deleted if there were external threats to a real person, but I also endorse e-me being upset by the vindictiveness of the "greeting". If a editor needs to vanish for external pressures that's absolutely acceptable. Another editor shouldn't be effectively banned because of the foolishness of someone else that didn't actually vanish by any stretch. Keeper | 76 04:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I posted the Christmas greeting as a show of good faith and as a means of reaching out to him first. THEN, a day or so later, I discovered that not only is he evading the indefinite block with multiple IPs, but even did so to call for another editor to be banned. Considering the hoopla that he made over me, I hope that he would be held by the same standards of accountability. So, the chronology is: 1) I sent him a nice message in good faith under the then inaccurate assumption that he wasn't evading being blocked and as a hopes of future reconciliation should he be unblocked; and 2) then discovered shortly afterwards that in actuality he was evading the indefinite block with even more IPs than the two I listed in the RfC/U and was doing so to actually call for Pixelface's ban among other things. As far as the removal of his rant goes, yes, regular editors who have interacted with me may know who I am, but I do not want certain others who are not regular editors and who required a real life court order to leave us alone might be searching for me by the old username (my nickname). If it's a not so secret who I previously was amongst us, so be it, but plastering the old name about where somehow or other others might see, that's another story. Plus, his complaining about someone requesting administrative action that confirmed he was evading an idefinite block doesn't seems like he hasn't much ground to complain about, especially after I tried to be nice to him with the Christmas greeting only to discover that he's actually evading the block and calling for another editor to be banned while doing so. Finally, he made some cryptic "you'll get what's coming" kind of remark in his post as well, which seemed a bit extreme. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on your history, I'm having a hard time believing your post was a "show of good faith". I agree his rant should stay removed, as I stated above. I'm willing to bet an admin paycheck he was not aware of those specific ramifications of his post (aware of "external threats".) There's the whole pot/kettle/black thing here too. If you are so terribly concerned about being identified, and I believe you that that is a credible concern, then you should be doing an EXTREMELY better job of disguising your past. None of your editing patterns have changed one bit, to the point that I didn't even realize that no one was aware that you are who you are. I assumed it was just a rename! Keeper | 76 04:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I gave him the Christmas greeting on December 25th. I later regretted doing so six days later, on December 31st, when I requested the checkuser after I started noticing his IPs evading the block, i.e. you try to be nice to someone only to see that someone who made all sorts of uproad against you is not refraining from engaging in the same sorts of behavior he criticized. I felt/feel really disappointed by that, because I really thought with my post, his reply, and my reply that he maybe things would change; then I noticed the IPs in Pixelface's RfC/U as well as other similar edits made by that IP range elsewhere and felt like a sucker. Anyway, I don't think the real world harassers would be able to identify me by editing patterns, but solely by the old username and certain images that were deleted and diffs that I requested be oversighted via email. I don't think they could put two and two together with someone named something as obscure as "A Nobody" and my edits. They could, however, with the older username as the main connection and the images and certain diffs that were deleted. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Fair enough. Personally, if I had real world harassers, to the point where I needed to close my wiki account, I'd be damned sure (excuse my language) that if I stuck around the website I'd change my habits on that website. Maybe that's just me, take it or leave it. Again, I knew it was you. It doesn't take rocket science to put it together. I thought you'd renamed is all, just based on your RFA posts alone. That said, I would recommend not doing that if you are so concerned with your safety. If your old account is behind you, for your own physical safety, why would you even visit pages that you had such acrimonious relations with??? Or any pages of other anonymous users at all?? I don't buy it. You saw he was indeffed (for unrelated issues), and you couldn't help yourself. You and I have (mostly) gotten along just fine in the past (heck, I was even quoted on your userpage), I'm really disappointed by this. Keeper | 76 04:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

E. was around when it all was discussed, and I'm sure he was among the many who paid attention. Note how both names were included, which probably not everyone notice. See [5]. this is very far from E's only problem here, e.g. "Im going to keep block evading". If it were, I'd agree with you that it does not by itself support indefinite. Keeper, please look at his entire history, think a day or so, and if you still want, take it back to ANB or ANI. I'm not all that comfortable continuing this between you & me alone--though I suppose most of those interested will see it here just as fast. DGG (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've not said that E. should be unblocked. I'm saying that his reaction was understandable. A.N. has had a vendetta for many months (a mutual mission perhaps). They have a fundamental disagreement about what Wikipedia should look like. To convince me that A.N. is worried about his past account being identified whilst posting on a page of someone that he has that much baggage with is gonna take a lot. If I were trying to protect myself, I certainly wouldn't post a flippin Christmas card on the talkpage of the one editor that seems to get the most irritated by my wiki-philosophy. It was a cruel thing to do. Keeper | 76 04:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Chiming in, I didn't think the Xmas card from A nobody was a crash-hot idea, but then E-me's 'seeing and raising' wasn't either. I figured the best was just wiping the whole exchange, Xmas card included and starting from scratch. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

These two editors tend to bring out the worst in each other. Which is why I'm wary of the intentions of the Christmas card. I agree it should all remain deleted. E. is rather stubborn though, and put it back even after you removed it Cas (and he actually LIKES you :-). Again, I would bet he wasn't aware of the "external threats" issue. If he were aware I would surmise that he'd agree they should be deleted. Keeper | 76 05:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The vendettas, of course, go in both directions, as they usually do. I do have so say that to me it sometimes feels as if those of us fighting to keep some of this content are fighting a heroic battle of a few defenders against the onrushing mobs seeking to destroy knowledge. I'm sure our opposites see us, as the onrushing mobs, & see themselves the heroic guardians of civilized standards. Thus we exacerbate an overly defensive attitude, in which people do things they later think unwise -- or at least, that they damn well ought to later think unwise. DGG (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

On the bright side, if I can be come chums with Everyme and Eusebeus, then all sorts of things are possible ;) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. So. If the information remains deleted (no one at this point says it shouldn't be, presumably including Everyme), does the page need continued full protection? I ask because prior to this incident, it was actually agreed that the indef block was ending when E.me decided he wanted to come back to editing after serving out at least the initial 3 weeks. The only thing that was making it indef was everyme hadn't yet decided to come back. Now, he can't even request to come back. I'm of the mind to once again lift the protection. Obviously, I watch his page. If his stubbornness (he's a regular work-mule) rules his brain to the point where he attempts to repost the deleted material, I'll reprotect the page myself. In addition, A.N. agrees to not post on that page, regardless of intentions. I also recommend that you drop the SSP case, being an editor that has found himself in the same sitch several times and considering your considerable history, you're the last one that should be opening an ssp case on everyme. Get someone else to do it. Is there agreement to any/all of this? Keeper | 76 05:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

All sounds fine to me. E-me can always email me too if he wants to return. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

CI'd be reluctant to see an unblock without an explicit statement from Everyme, and then it should really go to AN/I, as many people spoke for the block. DGG (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree about the explicit statement. That in itself should suffice without adding to the drama-boards. The blocking admin(s) were agreeable to an unblock (actually, to returning the block back to the original 3 week block). The only one that wanted the account to remain blocked was Everyme if I'm recollecting correctly. Keeper | 76 05:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Keeper, do you honestly believe that he;ll never make an appearance on AN/I again? (I assume of course, that A Nobody will have the sense never to initiate an action respecting him). I leave it entirely to Casliber's judgment. DGG (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I have no idea if he'll ever make an appearance on an/i again. Myself either, for that matter. We don't have pre-cog justice here. Blocks aren't punishment, let alone punishment for what one might do in the future. Hopefully, he'll get the picture. Keeper | 76 05:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

just to end this thread, I agree that the purpose of a block is prevention--prevention of doing such things that would necessarily get him noticed unfavorable of AN/I with an eye to renewing a block. Enough for one night.DGG (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention, good night! (and good morning to Cas :-) Keeper | 76 05:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

request for input

here when you have some time (concerns a proposal to Verifiability policy) Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

verifiability and context

I appreciate your recent comment - would you mind proposing wording you would find acceptable? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Scots law

Thanks for the warning DGG! Wikidea 10:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Miss Tourism World

I edited Miss Tourism World in response to a request by Uncle G at BLPN. I create a BLPN free article point from which the article may move forward, but my post was reverted and reverted again. Would you mind reverting the article back to this edit (if that is not the current edit) and providing some protection to the article. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 16:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have protected it against anon eds. for a few weeks. If there are problems with logged-in eds, let me know. I will block them, but I do not want to fully-protect the article against all editing if it can be avoided. DGG (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have decided to do some additional editing, to remove some further material. See talk page there. DGG (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm find with what ever changes you make. I didn't review the charts. I don't think this edit by SUNBOY2009 moved things forward. -- Suntag ☼ 21:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comment

You should apologize to me. Your comment is both false and uncalled for. I sense that you have some deep bias against me that provokes such indignation. One-line articles saying nothing about the subject are of no value. We have procedures and processes to deal with them. If going through those processes causes you such grief, I cannot help that. Not only are you inviting the creation of thousands of stubs, but we should do that with people articles, too. An article: "Joe is an alright guy" - oh, goodness, you can't delete that because Joe may morph into an FA and may eventually have some useful content. WP is not an exercise in waiting for Godot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't the least bias against you, & I can't think why you think I ought to have. There are many editors some of whose practices i often disagree with, and if I do I tend to say so forthrightly, but there's nobody here whose work I don't appreciate when it's good. As for an agenda with respect to you specifically, actually, your talk page isn't even among the 100 or so talk pages I watchlist. If I comment on many articles you also comment on, so do I comment on many other articles other people comment on. I try to respond on at least 10 or so of each days afds, and I try to check every prod about which I might have some opinion. Normally, when I evaluate an article, I try not to specifically look at who it is that has commented previously.

I think you are overgeneralizing. The situation we were discussing is at the opposite end of the incomplete article spectrum from "Joe is an alright guy." What I do with articles like "Joe" is to speedy them, several thousand since I've become an admin. Additionally, I am not happy with the people who transfer totally uncited bio information in from the deWP and other WPs, even if the subjects are clearly notable. I'm not quite sure how to handle this though--I've asked them to move in some references also, but not all of them are willing to. With respect to geographical stubs, yes, we disagree. I think that WP should include an atlas and gazetteer, and that every populated place should be included--many others people think so too--at present, it appears, the majority of those who care to comment on it. With respect to subject stubs, such as the one on Scottish family law, if they are started by a reliable editor, I leave them alone for the editor to finish. Experienced editors should have a considerable tolerance for how they write articles, as long as they do attend to sourcing at some point. The person who wrote these stubs is one of our very best writers in the subject area, User:Wikidea. To attack his stub--and without even asking him to expand it--nay, without even telling him about the AfD you placed-- is an act of rudeness, insensitivity, and disregard for the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we agree on geographical stubs: in fact, another admin has threatened to block me if I create any more of them; see further down your own talkpage. So I guess you'll back me up there? What I do not like are articles that say no more than repeating the title with a few verbs and punctuation. Such as the obvious Scottish houses are houses in Scotland; Scottish property law governs property law in Scotland; Doe vs. Roe is a case where Doe sued Roe; without more. If more was contemplated in the near future, there's a template for that. Another clarification: I hardly "attack[ed] his stub" as you claim - I submitted it to the community's process to sort out whether it should or should not exist - if that constitutes an attack (which it most assuredly does not, see WP:ATTACK) then there's more attacking going on at WP than in the Mideast. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

article

I'm just on the phone so distracted but - needs stubbing, it's a coat rack. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I've had a crack at it and I think I've removed all of the obvious problems, I'm going to have a decent look at what's left and the sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

On a related note Miss Tourism Queen International 2008 - I'm not sure what content there is to merge, the only thing that seems to have been lifted from the other articles is the winner and that's already in the main article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest for all of these putting the top runners-up in , as well as the winner. But that's up to you. DGG (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon

As you might remember, user:Dicklyon and I arrived at an agreement not to edit the controversy sections on the Lynn Conway or transsexuality-related pages. Although that had worked out for the most part, Dicklyon has now declared a unliateral end to that agreement, saying so here. This will, of course, greatly increase the problems on those pages, which now involve several editors other than me. Any input would be appreciated.
— James Cantor (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

commented there, but given the fixed positions, I do not want to work much on this subject. 16:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability of cases and legal doctrines

Hi DGG

I don't expect that we'll agree on much of subtance on this topic (other than to conform to a consensus should one emerge), but I'd like to point you to a discussion I'm hoping gains traction on the above-captioned topic. Would appreciate your views there.

Rgds, Bongomatic 04:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Historic_debates

RE: [6] Can you provide a page where this seems to be the case at the top of the page in the "further" template? travb (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

updated, but didnt give actual instances. How would they help? DGG (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Prod: Sulzberger Institute for Dermatologic Education‎

G'day! I notice you contested the prod with "if you want a merge, propose a merge". Thing is, I didn't particularly want a merge, which is why I didn't propose one ;) I was just wondering if you thought the article should be merged (with American Academy of Dermatology)? I'm not sure the information is terribly notable, but I'm happy to be corrected by the voice of experience. Cheers, Basie (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is probably not important enough to stand on its own, but we normally merge in at least a mention of subsidiary societies, leaving a redirect, rathe than delete altogether; per WP:Deletion policy, deletion is the last resort. I marked them appropriately for proposing the merge--we usually allow a week for comment, but this is quite straight-forward. Both article do, however need a check for copyvio; if they are copied from them website, the alternatives are to rewrite completely, to reduce to a stub giving the name and function of the society, or to speedy as copyvio. If the subject is clearly important, I usually try to avoid the last. Probably they counts as important enough to be worth the trouble. It is, unfortunately,a good deal more trouble fixing articles properly than just getting rid of them. DGG (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No doubt! Thanks for explaining. I will keep a watch on that page and try to make something of the final product. Cheers, Basie (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Creatures in the Metroid series

You said in the redirect's RfD that you planned to recreate the article. Any plans to do that soon, as I'm working on a featured topic on the Metroid series and would like to prepare for the article if it will be recreated. Right now, I'm working on discussing the series' creatures in Metroid (series). Cheers! Gary King (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

to be exact, I said that there ought to be a re-creation, not that I would do it myself--as i have never played the game, I'm not really the best person for the job. What I would suggest is that after working on that section, you simply discuss on the talk page and split. It's long enough an article to be justified on that grounds alone, and will be easier to justify when you've expanded it properly. Whether you do or whether you do not, I would suggest using subheadings for the characters, not continuous prose, but I imagine you'll get to that. DGG (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Continuous prose makes more sense to me, primarily because I don't think that there is enough third-party sources about real-world stuff regarding the series' characters. That's probably why they were merged, too. I will consider splitting it later down the road, though. Gary King (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

Ah, duh. Why didn't I think of that... Thanks! /facepalm Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 22:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Raven1977's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

About your comments regarding the naming of the war

It is true that during the time of the war itself, many of the names we discussed in the RfD process were in popular use. It is also true that during the time period of the publication of the Official Records, a strong case can be made "war of the rebellion" was the official term, though many southern loyalists officially advanced their own rhetoric ("Southern Historical Society Papers" and "Battles and Leaders" to cite two significant examples). The Wikipedia Military History project draws on several standard references; the main U.S. government source of many of the choices (campaigns, theaters, and battles being notable examples) the project supports is the National Park Service, whose website uses "American Civil War" and "Civil War" somewhat interchangeably. I can't argue with you that the important naming pagespace needs considerable love. BusterD (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Miss Tourism World is run by the THE BIGGEST con man on the planet

NEARLY ALL OF THE SOURCE provide for this sanitized version are bogus and do not contain any valid information>>>>>>>>>> administrators follow you high an mighty rules Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Most links are to sealed websites and also you say Miss Tourism World 2009 is scheduled to take place in Kazakhstan.[19 ON 8TH SEPTEMBER 2008………. Guys get you head out of you A***es This article is about Miss Tourism World not Miss Tourism World Zambia>>>>> YET YOU PROVIDE INFO ON Miss Tourism World Zambia? http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-21334868_ITM YOU GUYS KILL ME WITH YOUR SO CALLED INTELLIGENCE AND FEEL GOOD ATTITUDE but you are all just so very b stupid at times!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.71.90 (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Please remember to keep your comments civil and to avoid making personal attacks against fellow editors. Calling editors "stupid" is counterproductive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

RE Miss Tourism World: EDITORS PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH

Well yousome of editors should practice what you preach! Hiring some one in 2002 to direct African Operations is also not relevant is it? so who directs ASIA, AMERICA, EUROPEAN OPERATIONS ETC?

HIS LEGAL TROUBLES ARE NOTEWORTHY IF THIS GUY IS A CON MAN!! WHY IS Ted BundyFEATURED IF HIS LELAG TROUBEL ARE NOT RELEVANT TO HUMANITY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.70.156 (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Creation of stubby stubs

The issue of whether it's okay to create a lot of VERY short articles is being discussed here [7] and here [8] (bottom of pages). I thought some third party attention to the discussion might be warranted. I'm not sure on how to proceed, but I thought some independent input might help calm the waters and move the discussion in a more useful direction or to an appropriate forum. Gracias. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Gustaf Hjalmar Armfeldt

You might want to look at this one. I'm being called out for a similar AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johan Victor Aarne, in which we both saw a copyvio in the content (I cannot see the deleted content, as I am not an admin, but I do remember seeing a copyvio); in addition, MacGyverMagic agreed with the copyvio and G12'd it. It just seems like I've been put on the spot without anything to stand on, and I know you said in that AFD that there were other copyvios present. Perhaps you can shed more light on the subject than I can. Thanks, MuZemike (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I commented, but the further discussion had already justified you. DGG (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your comment on the AfD. My suspicion based on the creation date of inversion on Julius Rappoport, and (if I recall correctly--you may be able to look as an admin) the fact that the Rappoport article was created by a different user, is that both the blog and the WP articles were copied from a common source. It is frustrating not to be able to find that source, because (whether or not it's encyclopedic) it seems like an interesting little titbit. Bongomatic 12:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Advice requested re the spam blacklist

Much to my regret, I noticed a discussion on Jehochman's Talk about Cold Fusion, and the addition of lenr-canr.org to the spam blacklist. It appears that JzG removed some citations from Martin Fleischmann that referenced copies of published papers hosted on that site, which purports to be a library of documents relating to cold fusion. lenr-canr isn't a source, it's a library where possibly usable sources may be found for free access.

JzG at the same time as removing the citations, added lenr-canr to the blacklist, since he has admin privileges. He did list it as "proposed" for transparency, he said, after having listed it, I think, but apparently nobody noticed the proposal, there had been no comments. It was only when editors attempted to use the site, to restore the broken cite templates, that they discovered that they couldn't.

JzG makes many claims about lenr-canr.org. Allegedly it was spammed by the webmaster, but the only example provided by JzG so far, in the proposed listing, is a talk page post which seems legitimate on the face to me. He alleges copyright violation, but lenr-canr claims to have permission for what it hosts. As far as I know, it's not our job to determine whether an outside host is violating copyright or not. We shouldn't link to obviously violating sites, I'd presume, but that isn't nearly so obvious here.

Bottom line, JzG has become very involved with the cold fusion dispute, has a clear POV about it, cites the Cold fusion arbitration as if it determined that the whole topic was "fringe science," and used his admin tools to enforce his personal content judgments, with no discussion. Can of worms, to be sure.

JzG has mixed up several different issues, piling them all up, so if I or another user points out the problem with one leg of his argument, he asserts the other legs, and we can step through these legs and he simply continues asserting the combination, and ignoring the admin behavioral issue.

Anyway, I'm asking you particularly about the copyright issue. Has it been settled? I.e., a web site hosts a copy of a published paper. The site claims it has permission: from the home page, It features a library of more than 500 original scientific papers reprinted with permission from the authors and publishers. JzG claims, without having presented evidence, that the site is in copyright violation and that therefore we cannot link to it. What would relevant policy be on this? To me, it's obvious that it's not our business; our business is to make sure that we don't host copyright violations. And to make an encyclopedia useful to the readers, and having access to free copies of papers that otherwise can be prohibitively expensive is certainly useful.

I have requested that JzG remove the listing, as have others. He has refused. --Abd (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If the papers have been published in peer-reviewed sources, it is acceptable to list a convenience link in the ref where the text is easily available. We do this all the time in noncontroversial situations, & I've seen it accepted even for BLP. The site does not always necessarily have copyright permission, but in many cases it might, being often the authors home site. I think it right for us to blacklist only sites that systematically abuse copyright. Whether this is in that class will take some looking, but my first glance does not incline me to putt hem in the category of pirate sites. some at least of the papers they host are unquestionably PD-USgov. DGG (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've said what I think will help, but if you can get the ones you need listed, I'm not sure how hard one should fight this. The site is arguably borderline in terms of copyright.DGG (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look. The problem with the whitelist approach is that it limits editing to those who have the savvy to attempt a whitelisting. Certainly I'll do it if I have time. It looks to me like the biggest problem here is that some editors have interpreted the fact that majority opinion among scientists in general, that cold fusion is ridiculous, as indicating scientific "consensus," and that cold fusion is therefore "fringe science." One of the problems is that only researchers on cold fusion are likely to have a grasp of the whole field, which involves a number of disciplines, sufficient to come to a cogent conclusion. However, the 2004 DOE report, in spite of coming to a majority conclusion that cold fusion was not taking place, did conclude that the field merited further research, with substantial division of opinion among the experts selected for the review panels. Further, it recommended continued research. This kind of result is not generally the case with true fringe science. Lenr-canr may well preferentially host papers favoring the existence of cold fusion; it will take quite a review to come to a conclusion on this: bias may naturally exist because of differential response to requests for permission. But I've already seen that it hosts skeptical papers; but there seems to be a common thread, I'm finding, in more recent publications: no clear proof is known, though there have been some quite intriguing experiments, with quite unusual results, that show something is going on that we don't understand, though there are, indeed, theories that have been advanced that would involve, as I read it, quantum effects in metal lattices, where absorbed deutrium fuses with the metals themselves, and the fusion energy is transferred to the entire group of atoms instead of to just one (thus the lack of much, if anything, in the way of the expected gamma radiation). It will take a lot of work to find if these experiments have been confirmed, or confirmation failed, and all that, and much of this would be on the order of original research, perilous, but sometimes necessary for our own editorial decisions. There are many issues raised. There are peer-reviewed journals which publish papers in the field. It seems that the very fact that they publish in the field is taken as prima facie evidence that they are biased. It may be true. Or not. How do we judge if a peer-reviewed journal is biased?

Obviously, we need to be careful; what is objectionable about JzG's action is that it seems to be unilateral and not rooted in consensus. Discussion on his Talk page from some others has been on the level of, you would have been confirmed, so it's moot. But I don't see any sign that those commenting have done anything other than accept JzG's claims on their face, without investigation.

As to the copyright issue, are you aware of any clear violations? Lenr-canr claims to have permission; it's possible that there is dispute over isolated papers; our policy doesn't prohibit linking to a site with scattered violations, but definitely to linking to a site with massive violation. I'll look and see what discussion there has been over the last two days. --Abd (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, JzG went to the global spamlist and requested listing there, presenting his highly selective and biased evidence and giving no hint that any of it was controversial. [9]. He lists accounts for Jed Rothwell, the site owner, but no linkspamming was shown, in spite of his claims. Without any informed opposition, naturally, it was listed on the global spamlist and it's been removed from the local list. I've started researching LENR and lenr-canr.org is proving extraordinarily valuable. The can of worms is huge. --Abd (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, DGG, for looking at this and commenting. By the way, on the wordiness front, I've been seriously outdone by JzG on the meta spam blacklist, see [10]. I think some nerve has been struck. It's inspired me to be brief. --Abd (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ludmila Bereznitsky

Please take a look at this article. You nominated it for deletion via AFD back in April 2007. It was deleted then, and recreated in August 2008. It looks to me to have the same issues discussed in the AFD, so might be G4 material. GRBerry 19:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a few additional events-- & some additional references, so probably both it and her EIDOS Arts Development Foundation, a recreation and expansion of f Eidos foundation might go to AfD again, but as I do not work all that much in this field I shall follow your judgment about whether this is substantial enough An alternative course might be to merge the article for the foundation and trim. My other concern is the possible re-creation of the previous collection of now deleted articles on artists whose main claim to fame was their exhibition in her commercial gallery.DGG (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

user:Dicklyon, user:Jokestress, and user:James Cantor at Conflict of Interest Noticeboard

I have submitted a COI/N notice regarding user:Jokestress, user:Dicklyon, and me here. I am notifying editors who contribute regularly to the related set of trans pages. Although your involvement was more about process than content, notfying you seems appropriate to me nonetheless.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your solution--but i do have to ask you, whom do you then propose to work on the articles? (not me, btw) DGG (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any prediction beyond what anyone would surmise from the list of editors on the history pages. They're all the ones on whose talk pages I posted the COIN notification: DarlieB, ProudAGP, RedPenofDoom, Hfarmer, Skoojal, WhatamIdoing. Other people have dropped in, but the heat hurried them out of the kitchen. Is that what you meant?
— James Cantor (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Jokestress' threats and violation of WP:Checkuser

I am writing you because user:Jokestress appears to be threatening to investigate and publicize my identity (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AThe_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen&diff=263237807&oldid=263234849). Jokestress is in violation of WP:CHeckuser: "The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute." She is clearly trying to intimidate me here. This is part of a pattern in which she has repeatedly and aggressively demanded that I reveal my identity. See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AProudAGP&diff=228634369&oldid=228207020 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AProudAGP&diff=229720849&oldid=228642275)

Jokestress is Andrea James, whom I consider to be an unbalanced and evil individual. ... Finally, I will put my editing against hers, in front of a neutral but knowledgeable judge, any day.ProudAGP (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reason to believe this user is a sockpuppet evading a ban. Checkuser request will be implemented tomorrow. Also, I replied to your comment on COI/N. Thanks for weighing in. Jokestress (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

not here, please

I have no intention of judging the relative behavior of different editors. And I don;t give a damn who anybody is in real life. Final comment here on this subject. DGG (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: How to choose the right size poultry feeder

You make a good point. Other than waiting for PROD on this one, when we both agree that it is clearly inappropriate for a Wikipedia page, is there another option to place in the edit summary notation when deleting it prior to the PROD sequence? Cirt (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

why not just revert, and let the prod continue? Some things are harmful if they sit around the 5 days, but I don't see that this is. The problem with using "clearly inappropriate for Wikipedia" as a criterion for speedy is that some admins have some unusual views here, and rather than fight it out each time, it's better for all of us to just let everything go as prod, unless there is something which can be worded as a clean guideline. Saves trouble in the end. DGG (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, you explain this well, I see what you mean. No worries, Cirt (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Okay? Cirt (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

right. Maybe the ed. will sensibly withdraw it. DGG (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Castle Hotel, Halton

Saved; many thanks for your support. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"xe"?

I think you meant "he" - Deskana's userpage says "this user is male". In any case, thanks for your comment supporting Enigmaman! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Winter King

Hey there DGG, I've chimed in on the IP's talk page; though, as I stated there, I fear we're too late in doing anything. Unfortunately, I can't be at the NYC meetup; I have to go home to Chicago for the weekend. I'll add my input to this discussion as much as I can beforehand though, and you're welcome to repeat any of my statements at the meetup if applicable or necessary. GlassCobra 13:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A quick question

If an AfD closes as redirect, does the article get deleted and then redirected or is it just redirected with the history inact? Gracias. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

the article is redirected, in most cases. There are times when the previous history of the article is such that we delete and make a new redirect, and that should when needed be specified in the closing. . Note that if the article is merged, then the GFDL requires that the history not be deleted, and after whatever content needs to be merged is merged, then the remainder is edited to be a redirect, but cannot be deleted. At least thats how I interpret the procedure. DGG (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Please excuse my jumping in here. DGG's interpretation matches what I've found in documentation. Per WP:Guide to deletion#Shorthands (scroll down to Redirect), history deletion must be explicitly recommended, such as in cases of copyvio or BLP. Flatscan (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh bugger

Sorry, I didn't realise he was still alive. You have to admit though the cases are quite similar. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Your grammar is very poor so I sometimes find it hard to understand what you are saying but am I mistaken in thinking that you are on familiar terms with him. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

as I said, he occasionally used my library when I ran the Princeton biology library and we chatted from time to time, and I sometimes rode on the same commuter train with him, and we had a nodding acquaintance. I am not presumptous enough to say that I know him. Working as a librarian, one gets to meet such people from time to time, though not to the level of saying any of them are friends. DGG (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday January 18th, Columbia University area Last: 11/01/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).

We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza (on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.

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) 01:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD incivility

Dear DGG, I am not sure what to make of this, but calling another editor an "idiot" doesn't seem right and seems to just escalate things. Not sure if both editors should be warned or what? Thoughts? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not quixotic enough to take on patrolling AfD for incivility. As for what was said, I've used the same rhetorical tricks trav used, and people sometimes do resent it. DGG (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, i see they have settled the matter between them, as is usually the case. People say angry things, and then apologize--and we let most disputes get dealt with just that way. DGG (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, take care! --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

User Conduct RfC Vs. Dicklyon

I have taken the action of filing a user conduct RfC against Dicklyon based on his past and recent behavior. If you want to make your POV on this matter known please do. Users are needed to certify that the events as I presented them are factual, and they have to certify that outside help has been sought to address the issue. I have written this to every involved user in the mediation. Since Dick has proven that he will ignore any mediated arrangement when it suits him. The community must impose one on him. The proper venue for that is a user conduct RfC, not mediation. The proposed sanctions banning for editing any of the name space of the articles listed in the mediation, and from the user pages of any user who wishes to not have to deal with his mess any more. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dicklyon. Thankyou and have a nice day :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

followup

Hello DGG, hope the NYC meetup went well, and apologies that I was unable to attend. Were you able to speak about the issue regarding the teacher, and if so, how did it go? I'd very much be interested in hearing the conclusions that were drawn and the discussion that took place, if any. GlassCobra 03:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but I did mention it elsewhere; opinion was it was something teachers might well be tempted to do. I'll post a short comment somewhere more appropriate. Having said this I might as well say now that this was a question of a teacher deliberately introducing errors into a Wikipedia page in order to trap any of the students who used that page for an assignment. It's clear the teacher hadn't realized the possible general public effect of introducing misinformation even for a short while. People--even people more regularly here--don't seem to have generally caught up with the fact that we now have a greater responsibility to be accurate than any of us originally realized. Wikipedia may have intended to be just a quick & convenient supplemental resource that nobody in their right mind would use without checking, but it's become more than that. There's no easy solution, but we at least need to become much less tolerant to people here to play games with us. And we need a much more systematic way to correct both long=-standing and newly-introduced errors. No good print encyclopedia would go this long with a completely rechecked new edition. DGG (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea on modifying the section header; didn't mean to bring attention where it shouldn't be. Is there further discussion of this anywhere on-wiki? I'd very much like to get involved. GlassCobra 03:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

discussing what? the immediate instance has been dealt with by discussion with the individual, the way I at least consider optimal. the question of how to advise teachers not to do this, t we already have a clear policy that introducing error is vandalism, but we could repeat it in a few more places. The general question of revision and accuracy, I think should take 2nd place to the flagged revisions discussion. (& that was discussed at the meetup in relation to BLP, & the discussion will be posted) Not that I think flagged revisions is necessarily the answer--I doubt the enWP is up to the overhead involved, but I think it would be worth at least a limited test, for how else will we really find out? DGG (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Aron Bielski BLP

Thanks very much for your note. Yes it has been resolved at least for the time being, in that the passage on his arrest has been removed. However, now there is a move afoot to reinstate a lengthy external links section devoted entirely to his arrest. Stetsonharry (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

it has been removed. Gwen and I have both commented. DGG (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I saw, thanks! I'm surprised it became so protracted. Stetsonharry (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I imagine the notability issue is resolved by now. By the way, if you have any opinion on the neutrality of Defiance (2008 film), I'd appreciate it. I see a neutrality issue but others disagree. The whole Aron Bielski issue flowed out of that article. Stetsonharry (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

yes indeed. Almost the entire discussion should have been at the article on the Bielski Group. One of the characteristics of zealots in all fields (I have hitherto been involved with such here primarily in pseudoscience) is the attempt to spread controversy over as many related articles as possible. The article on the film is the more prominent, which presumably explains why most of the discussion is taking place there. DGG (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Deletion

Hello DGG, I am just curious as to why the Sauk Prairie Area Chamber of Commerce Wikipage was deleted today, if you could be of further help or explain simply to me that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time!

--McQuoidlake--04:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)McQuoidlake (talk)

Reconsider possibly userfying?

RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiles of the Hold (2nd nomination) travb (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked at this further, and made a somewhat different suggestion at the afd. DGG (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiThanks

Thank you for taking the time to honor my request, see you on the AfD circuit soon. Best wishes. travb (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nordine Zouareg

DGG, regarding the above, books verify that he won the Mr. Universe competition, which is indeed a notable title, and yes, bodybuilding is considered a sport. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of such championships: I do not see him listed for Universe Championships, which seems to be the main one, or for [[World Amateur Bodybuilding Championships]. I therefore have my doubts. I have not checked primary sources, tho. DGG (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll comment in the discussion, but once someone is covered in non-trivial fashion in multiple published books then they meet our inclusion criteria. He even made the cover of a magazine. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Ya'alon quotation

Would you be willing to vote to merg into the Moshe Ya'alon article?Historicist (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've re-examined the 2 articles. They both need to be rewritten by some uninvolved party--even for this topic, an exceptionally dishonest violation of NPOV. This is more important than the qy of whether thee should be one or 2 articles.DGG (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Nordine Zouareg

I'd like to take a crack at doing some rewrite and sourcing for this article. I have not yet loked at earlier versions, but the current one stills has a strong feling of Advert. Any advice? (and now I'm ging to look at the article's past) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

find out just what prizes he won where, from good published sources, and look for other reviews of the books. DGG (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Just found a very nice article about him in Tucson Weekly that gives coverage of he and his book and seems to confirm his awards. I added it as source to the article. And I do like the coverage in the Arizona Star. He's starting to tickle on the plus side on notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Just added a nice review from Armchair Interviews. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I gave a further explanation of my views on this at the Afd. DGG (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom request made.

I have submitted the request we have been discussing on COI/N to ArbCom here.
— James Cantor (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I was impressed by your statement at ArbCom, unfortunately, I do not see how your proposal could be practical... it is way too rational for the emotional attachment people have to things. That said, I look forward to either MedCom or ArbCom... theres is lot of intersecting issues here that need to be addressed by people who have no intent nor interest in getting involved, beyond the generalities of adquiring knowledge ;) --Cerejota (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is unlikely to appeal to some of the previous editors involved--the hope is that a committee of uninvolved editors. It would be a new approach to WP dispute resolution. My hope is, that, unlike a ban, it can be done with condemning anyone. DGG (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

James B. Lockhart III

Hi DGG

Wondering what to do about the above-captioned page. As you can see, one or more editors from the IP range 141.156.72.xxx have made numerous changes to the page. Here is the diff showing them all. This IP range appears to be registered to HUD.

The edits are disruptive not only to the substance (removing relevant, well-sourced, NPOV information, replacing it with redundant recitations of the subject's official bio--political spin and all), but also in form (removing internal links and citations).

What is the appropriate way to deal with this sort of thing?

Thanks, Bongomatic 15:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have semi-protected against anonymous editors, you should now inform the BLP message board WP:BLPN. (or I can do it for you if you ask me to--I may also inform WP:AN/I]].) If someone wants to carry this further, they can do so. Many people watch that board. Thanks for noticing & reverting. I'll watchlist it also. DGG (talk). 17:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do what's required at BLP message board a little later (new process for me so don't want to do it in a rush). By the way, I didn't just revert, I added sources and material! I don't only delete things! Bongomatic 23:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Futaba Channel

Hi there. You were a participant in the discussion for this article, which I closed as delete. I restored and relisted the article at AfD yesterday. I notified most participants, but somehow missed you and a couple of others. Please accept my apologies. The discussion is here. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A small favor?

Hello DGG--

You strike me as an editor with some power. Could you perhaps correct the title of this article, Open Season - Feautring the Songs of Paul Westerberg? I cleaned it up some, but the spelling error is bothering me. (I can't do this sort of stuff, can I?) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

yes you can--see WP:MOVE. This time I did it for you. Any editor can do a move, except when there's something already there that has to be removed--that's when you need an admin. I did do one thing you couldn't have done yourself--which is to remove the redirect that gets left behind during the move from the original misspelling. Generally we leave them, but when it's just an accidental typo like this, there's no reason to. You really should now add a reference to your source of information to the article, at Open Season - Featuring the Songs of Paul Westerberg DGG (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll check into the specifics of the operation. As for the reference, well, I only edited the article, which I came upon via the random function...but I'll have a look. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Review request

Can you review my comment at this AFD discussion, and delete it if it is irrelevant, or raised BLP or OUTING issues ? Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added some background details on the AFD page. A story of politics, money, family and murder! Given the COI of the author of the wikipedia article, it's not surprising that these details are missing from it. Abecedare (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Good catch, I presume you knew some of this before? I hope you will write the necessary article. it should be about not her, but the murder. DGG (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Requests for mediation - The Man Who Would Be Queen

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have agreed , but purely as a technical matter to permit the proceedings to take place. i do not consider myself involved, or, actually, even interested in the topic or the ensuing controversy. I would appreciate it if people refrained from posting about it here, but I wish the best to whoever undertakes this. DGG (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Eco's RfA

DGG, I left a question for you at Eco's RfA, if you could take a look at it, it would be appreciated.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 06:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern, and I responded, saying more fully what i should, perhaps, have explained initially. DGG (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Johnpatriots

Why did you give this user a single warning after he wrote just two how-to articles? Seems a little bit harsh. Especially since Blueboy96 blocked him afterwards. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC) First, there were three articles, one created deliberately with the same contents as an article that had been afd'd. (& I think there was another under a different user name) Second, he declared his intention of continuing indefinitely. A self-declared vandal. I see the block led him to think better of it and ask for deletion of his user page. I think if you consider it unwarranted, your real issue is with Blueboy. I considered blocking myself, but I don't like to block while the afd is ongoing, no matter how defiant the user. DGG (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Article on Teji Bachchan

You placed a message on my talk page regarding the notability of this article. But i found no edits by you on this article. I think you placed that message in error. Plz clarify. Quality check 05:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

She is the wife of a notable person, and the mother of another. that does not make her notable. DGG (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Orly Taitz up for deletion

A short article that is up for deletion came to my attention. Someone wrote a somewhat sloppy article that can be considerably expanded. However, as I tried to expand it, the person who put it up for AfD is simultaenously trying to "stubify" the article I notice. This is a waste of my time. I believe it should evolve and grow, sheltered in a sandbox for a while, and then go live in the mainspace, if it is to be subject to such attacks. This is a particularly touchy area since it involves extremely controversial and partisan issues. Any input or suggestions would be welcome. Thanks.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless there is major involvement in other matters also, I think deletion is the proper course. If there is nothing further in Google News, it will inevitably go, as it should. If there is, add it immediately, at least as references--you need to show that he is a leader of a significant movement. There have been repeated successful arguments that being a lawyer on even a notable single case is not notability; nor is running a political blog unless it is influential. At present, I think it fails Notability, Fringe, and the current interpretation of BLP single event. I would object to it even in user space, because of the extreme unlikelihood of it ever being an acceptable article unless references are presented now. DGG (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Poppy seeds

I was working on this article and spent about 20 minutes adding content. Then when I went to save I got an error message that one of the links I included was on the spam blacklist and had to be removed. No worries. But how do I get back to all the content I was trying to add? It was never saved so it seems to be gone? Is this normal? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

not my thing, sorry--I don;t know what happens in that circumstance--there have been cases in which I've lost edits through various malfunctions, but I don;t know about this one. Try VP-Technical. You should at that point have been able to return to your previous screen with your browser, but I doubt you can do so now. DGG (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Blogs as RS

Hi, DGG, you said at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Independent_sources that some blogs are accepted as WP:RS in SF-related articles. Could you please tell me where I can find a list of these, and the discussions about them. Have any articles that use blogs as sources reached GA or FA (not A-class, as that's a project decision)? Many thanks, --Philcha (talk) 08:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't keep track of FA/GA, since I work mainly in the lower end of things. As for AfD, there's no practical way to find ones on specific topics, or that raise specific points, but I'll see if I can spot a few by scanning. The most accepted blogs are on SF, where I'm not all that expert compared to many people here, so I usually do not participate. DGG (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Philcha (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD for How to prevent mold

Just so you know, an article that you prodded, How to prevent mold, has gone to AfD here because the user removed the prod without giving a rationale. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 16:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

if it repeats, the user will be blocked. DGG (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Scientist

Please check out this discussion here: Template_talk:Infobox_Scientist#Religion_field. Bletchley (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Simon Wilde

I was a little taken aback by your suggestion that Simon Wilde's notability has not been sufficiently established in his article. The William Hill Sports Book of the Year gets a lot of publicity in the UK press every year, and to be one of the half dozen or so books shortlisted for it, out of the scores of sports books published in the UK each year, is a considerable feather in a writer's cap. And it's not as though that is his only claim to notability. To be the cricket correspondent of a British national newspaper is surely notable in itself. I've also quoted a tribute to his writing from Ian Wooldridge. JH (talk page) 09:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

On looking again, I think the problem is really with the Wiki article on the William Hill award which I linked to, which only provided William Hill's own site as a reference. I've addressed that by adding a reference to a piece in The Times that looks back over the history of the award. (I think it's the job of the Wiki article on the award to establish its significance rather than the article on Simon Wilde.) JH (talk page) 10:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, Main problem is References. Refs. 2 & 3 are usable---what gets said on the book jacket. & amazon is written to flatter the author & counts as advertising, You'll need to document his awards from 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases or articles based on them). The Independent bio helps, but isn't enough by itself. Then, you need reviews of his books, again in 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases). sometimes amazon gives the source of its blurbs, and you can find them where originally published. Otherwise, librarians can help. As the the award, you have sufficient shown that the winners of the award can probably be considered notable--though I notice that the articles for those winners are almost also undocumented by any reliable source. For runners-up, it remains unclear to me. DGG (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I agree that if Amazon or the book jacket says "this is a great book" or "this is a great author" it's advertising hype and not useable, but I don't see the objection to taking verifiable statements of fact, which Amazon or a reputable publisher is hardly going to mske up. Anyway, I shall see if I can come up with some better references.

I've now found some reviews of his books and have cited a couple in the article, one from The Independent and the other from the Daily Telegraph. I thought it would be better to avoid reviews from The Times, since Wilde writes for them. Perhaps you would take a look and see if you are now content? JH (talk page) 19:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Gary Ackers

Hi David. When/if you have a moment, would you mind an eye at Gary Ackers? I found him in the backlog and what I found in GScholar, which appears to be all the same person based on the subject of his research, I think he's notable. Thoughts? No rush -- it's not at AfD or anything, I'm just doing some winter cleaning. StarM 21:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

typical problem with people whose main works are before 2000; I've added them. DGG (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Destination X 09

The event has been officially announced on the company's website. They tend to not announce the arena for the event until it is two months away.--WillC 03:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to test this at AfD, DGG (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It won't do much good since they will probably be announcing the event's venue pretty soon. There are numerous reports it is taking place at the TNA Impact! Zone, but no word from the company yet. They didn't even announce the arena for Against All Odds (2009) until the day after the previous event, Genesis (2009).--WillC 04:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You can take it to AFD, but it's gonna be overwhelmingly kept. It's a major PPV that is taking place in 2 months, and is sourced. There's not a snowballs chance in hell it will get deleted. TJ Spyke 04:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, such a discussion will be useful next time someone tries to delete a forthcoming political or sporting or musical event on the grounds we don't know the details yet. DGG (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Teji Bachchan

Hi DGG. I wasn't sure how to handle this one. I can see why you think this meets CSD A7. Clearly you can make the argument that she is only famous because of her son and family, but the article does make some attempts at individual notability. Perhaps it would be best if this went to AfD. Regards -- Samir 20:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure--should be interesting to see the discussion. DGG (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the help with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Universities and citing sources for colleges such as Rivier College. After reading some of your lengthy list of contributions- both written and as a thoughtful enforcer, I must say it is an honor to have had you reply to my question! Cheers! Skydive23 (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Laura's List: Books for Women

Thanks for the note. I AfDed. Honestly, I think it could possibly be salvaged if it's notable. To me, that's the if. It was enough to avoid a speedy on A7, which we agree on, but I'm not sure it will pass WP:ORG. At 1:30 AM, I'm not looking too hard into it. On another note, me on the keep-ish side and you on the delete-ish side, that has to be a record :) Hope all is well by you. StarM 06:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I tend to be inclusionist with respect to notability, I am deletionist with respect to spam, so much so that my feeling of what can get rescued depends on how much its worth rescuing. Having the encyclopedia contain content borderline for notability does not really hurt our credibility; having it look promotional destroys the trust in our basic objectivity. (And I never really understood why you thought you were a deletionist.) DGG (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I never really thought I was deletionist - it's the rep I got. I've found myself far more toward erring on the side of keep/merge/re-direct when it comes to close AfDs and or denying speedies, though I don't enjoy the CSD backlog as much. I agree that spam hurts objectivity, and there's no doubt the author has a COI, but I don't think it's teribly spammy. Writing about a likely n-n group? yep. Spamming to promote it? I think I missed that -- but it was this side of midnight. If you want to speedy close as spam, I won't object and based on the !votes, no one else will either - I just thought discussion wouldn't hurt. Hope you're staying warm! StarM 17:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Psychosocial studies network

You do realise you only need one CSD tag, right? :P Ironholds (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

when it equally meets two of the conditions, then it sometimes is clearer to use both, as A7 and g11 for spam, & in any case non-notable, so it shows that way in the deletion log if the author looks to see; this can save on arguments down the line. DGG (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Idiáquez

delete it if you want, anyway you could improve it :P

cheers Cosialscastells (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Midge and Bob Pinciotti

You can imagine as I did the research and wrote my long "comment" at the AfD, I was smiling. I hated being so verbose (me??), but felt it was important to put the discussion into context. Sure the article, and the others, could benefit from sourcing and format tweaks, but that's a mater for cleanup, and not deletion. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Having once written it, it can be referred to for all the future discussion we will unfortunately have. DGG (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers

Hello DGG, I don't know if you've been checking in on this AfD on which you spoke out quite eloquently (in fact, I dove into it hoping to prove you wrong ;)), but things have gotten a bit nasty. Yesterday, since some of the deletes sounded a bit mechanical, I browsed around and found one example of a "notice," but that's hardly the level of canvassing. However, another contributor added something a bit more serious. Do you care to have a look? I don't know what to make of it. I feel a bit overwhelmed there by a lot of arguments that claim bias and POV, besides SYN and OR--. Sure, the article may have problems, but it's not those, in my opinion. Thanks in advance. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

it is not unreasonable to notify everyone who has worked on an article or contributed on the talk page. In fact, I have frequently argued that this should be done as a matter of course,and indeed, absolutely required. If you think any are missing, notify them yourself. Whether to do ip's? Yes, I would if they were regular contributors. Some of our most frequent contributors, speaking generally, are people who use ips. I have not checked the notices used: if they advocate a particular view, only then is it reasonable to go further.

I have my own views about the expression of prejudice; I think it is in this case and quite a number of other XfD discussions, people who consciously or unconsciously want to diminish the presence of articles or categories that imply the relationship of religion to science in a positive way, along with people who do not realize that this such is the significance of deleting these articles. I think all of them want to improve the encyclopedia, but what they are doing is not in practice NPOV. There is of course an alternative position many non-religious people have, that the clear fact that many religious people in the modern period are also good scientists is an interesting paradox showing the general inconsistency of human thinking. DGG (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks DGG--when I said that I didn't know what to make of it, I was being sincere. I've asked one fellow editor to look at this AfD because I thought it was interesting, long before it got so contentious. If you say that these notices were not unreasonable, that's fine. I appreciate the note on inconsistency--Comenius, whose Laborinth I'm reading, says much the same thing, though with a different objective. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Drmies, I noticed that two or three keeps and deletes were robotic, too, but these were done half a day before I sent Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly_notices to users who have demonstrably a record of participating in the discussion on 'Islamic' inventions, so keep me out of this, will you. Thanks. PS: On a second look, User:YellowMonkey was on my talk page (one example), because we both were participating in a discussion on the topic. Next time first read the relevant talkpages, before you vocally blame others behind my back. Poor showing. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

general note

just a note in general: if you come here to fight, the only person you may fight with is me. . DGG (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Polish sources

I'd be interesting in your reply to my comment about Polish sources at Talk:Prehistory and protohistory of Poland (bottom of the latest GA review).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Aviation in Alaska

You participated in this discussion back in October, which didn't really go anywhere at that time. These issues have unfortunately not changed, and I am trying to get more of a dialogue going on the subject and have re-opened and expanded the scope of this discussion. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Adam Bogdan

Hi, I would be grateful if you could have another look at Adam Bogdan. I agree the Premier League is notable but the player has never played in it. As a Bolton fan I would like him to be notable but the circumstances haven't changed since the last time he was deleted as non notable. Cheers (Quentin X (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC))

ah, if he never played, & only played on the junior Hungarian team for not notable, but it still has to go to afd, not speedy. some people typically will say we might as well keep the article till he does appear. The virtues of going to afd is then it can be deleted if it just gets recreated, but you will need to go to deletion review when he does become notable. (it was previously deleted as re-creation after a Prod, but that was incorrect, as that reason only holds after an afd.) I know this sounds like a perverse sort of maze, but the idea is to give everything a hearing by the community that might even possibly deserve a hearing. DGG (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll sort the afd. Thanks. (Quentin X (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC))

Heal the World Foundation

Oh, I have no concern that you would do something like that for ad hominem reasons. Nonetheless, if this organization weren't tied to the Monogloved One, it would be a classic db-org speedy. The only notability here is his, not the organizations. It should be a minor sub-section of the article on MJ, not an article of its own. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've responded on Orangemikes talk page, I would suggest he looks for international sources if the America press ignored Jackson's foundation. — Realist² 02:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

CSD of the week

DGG has been identified as an Excellent CSD'er, and therefore, I've officially declare you as Balloonman's CSD'er of the Week Ending Jan 19, 2009! As those who know me can attest, I hate speedy deleters. A careless or hasty CSD'er can do more damage to the project than the worst vandal! BUT I recognize the absolute need for CSD and value those people who take the task seriously and do the job right As for what I look for when awarding this, please see for my criteria Thanks for being a beacon of light at CSD, we need more people like you! Balloonman PoppaBalloon A record of your week will always be kept here and a short review of your deletion work here.

Here ya go DGG, you deserve this. In case you didn't know this, you are one of the WP'ians to whom I have an extremely high level of respect...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 05:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I had to check out your page this morning... I had a dream that this was vandalized during the night!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 14:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If dreaming of Wikipedia is not a sign of someone in need of a Wikibreak, I don't know what is...oh wait, I dreamt about Wikipedia as well, so just forget that^^ SoWhy 17:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

as I understand it, many people dream of what they have to do the next day, as a sort of unconscious rehearsal for it. I also dream about WP, as I do about other parts of my life, and is sometimes nonspecific, but often quite specific. As for this particular dream, nobody has yet vandalized my page in any really serious manner, not as compared to other admins who are similarly active. DGG (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Deprod

Hi, you removed the prod from Akron, Ohio Police stating something about WP:MERGE. I don't see that as a reason to contest a prod. The article has no content except an infobox and needs to go. Double-checking what I put it appeared to be what was on other current prods, that if the author had anything on the page they wanted to keep they should move it. I wasn't asking for a page merge. Now I have to bring this to Afd, right? §hep • ^Talk 05:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the next step is not to bring it to afd, If you do bring it to afd, it will be either kept or merged, along with a few other people making comments that you shouldn't have proposed it for deletion. Police force articles for major cities usually pass afd. I do not know if akron will be considered a major city or not -- afd is unpredictable, & I tend to be a little more deletionist for local government bodies than the consensus. Though I would merge, the consensus may keep.

The proper next step is to put a merge tag on it & the Akron article, and give an explanation on the main article talk page. Proposed deletion is for proposed deletions. If anyone wants to keep not merged they will say so & you can reach a consensus there

Other people wrongly use prod instead of proposing a merge also. I can't follow up all of them myself & some indeed ought to be deleted, not merged. The admin who reviews them at the end of the 5 days either deletes if they think deletion is the best course, or else just removes the prod, or himself lists them for merge. I was just trying to clear up some of the work in the obvious cases for me & my fellow admins a little early. DGG (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Indonesian project

I think the starter of the list under discussion is currently blocked for adding copyrighted material. I think there is a very very serious issue that is beyond afd stuff here - do we encourage english challenged eds to add lists that are never followed up - the problem is the id project as a whole has zilch interest in WP:RS - whereas en project - we have. The issues are all intertwined and complicated - and ultimately the Indonesian project on en will end up a vast list of defended lists of red links, and stubs with no WP:RS - and the few active WP Indonesia en eds will eventually pull out after 'universal' afd decisions will end up keeping stuff that only encourages the wrong sort of editing. But Hey its only wikipedia :) - we gotta keep that in perspective always - cheers SatuSuro 01:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the starter of the list under discussion is currently blocked for adding copyrighted material. I think there is a very very serious issue that is beyond afd stuff here - do we encourage english challenged eds to add lists that are never followed up - the problem is the id project as a whole has zilch interest in WP:RS - whereas en project - we have. The issues are all intertwined and complicated - and ultimately the Indonesian project on en will end up a vast list of defended lists of red links, and stubs with no WP:RS - and the few active WP Indonesia en eds will eventually pull out after 'universal' afd decisions keep stuff that only encourages the wrong sort of editing. Hey its only wikipedia :) - cheers SatuSuro 01:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that how to handle these is an problem. I have perhaps a slightly greater interest & occasional involvement than you'd expect of a person without relevant personal background with the people from this area, because I frequently am on WP at a time when people from the south asian and south-east asian time zones are active. So i see a lot of the material that they add on New Pages etc. I'm aware that among the good work is some material like this. Another way is to simply delete red links, leaving whatever little is left. I've drastically pruned some articles from other countries that way, though it takes watching afterwards. Let me revisit the discussion--where was it again? DGG (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The Indonesia project noticeboard I admonish those who are left (not many) over the issue of the bloody red link lists - but nah alexbot [Recent Indonesian changes|changes] are not worthy of visiting regularly if you value your sanity! (they are on my user page :) SatuSuro 04:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

As i am hardly capable of reforming matters myself, and as it sounds like the two of us could not do it by ourselves either, I shall follow your lead in how to deal with this. DGG (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Amanda Riska

An article that you have been involved in editing, Amanda Riska, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Riska. Thank you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Gary Spatz

I see you've declined a speedy deletion request on Gary Spatz twice. I honestly don't see the claim of importance you're seeing -- could you please clue me in before I !vote on the AfD? Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I see they were two years apart. As for the article, I am not sure he is notable. I am sure that saying one is a coach to famous actors is an indication of at least minimal possible notability, which is enough to pass speedy. Speedy and AfD are two very different standards. AfD is indeed the right place to discuss,so thanks for notifying me. DGG (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm well aware of the different standards for speedy and AfD, I just wasn't seeing the claim of importance that avoids a speedy. Now I do -- gracias!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

my apology--I am so used to needing to explain everything, that I do it automatically even when I should have realized it was unnecessary. DGG (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Bielski

Forgive me, I lost track of how you got involved in this issue. Do you mean Aron Bielski? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

of course I do. I saw the AfD. And long ago, it was you yourself who invited me to the discussion of Polish related topics here. But why on earth should you have even asked "how I got involved"? I consider that a highly improper question, though I answer it anyway. DGG (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thomas D. Brock

User:MPerel and I are going to be working on bringing Thomas D. Brock to GA in the next 1-2 weeks. You are of course, welcome to help out if you are interested, or simply monitor our progress. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I will keep an eye out, but just go right ahead. DGG (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

malcolm schosha

as i was one of the editors insulted by malcolm schosha, i wanted to clarify what i think was a misunderstanding of the situation on your part. regarding his personal attacks, you stated, "one could if one wanted to assume that these are the specific editors Malcolm has been reverting, but I instead interpret it a general term for those whom he is annoyed with"

however, in his own unblock request, he specified, "I made a negative comment about some of the other editors of the article, saying "...they are mostly schmucks, creeps, and liars."

whether or not this incivility justifies extending a block is obviously for the admins to decide, but i wanted it to be clear that those attacks were directed at specific editors, by his own admission, not "a general term for those whom he is annoyed with." thanks for your time. Untwirl (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

the administrator who placed the block agreed with the removal of it. We will see what happens in his future editing. DGG (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

BLP issues

I consider this a much more urgent case; unfortunately, it seems that when a living person is also a Wikipedian, nobody gives a damn that they are harassed, stalked and lied about :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Harassment is worthy of attention, & I commented, but I do not see the BLP violation. I hope you are not trying to tell me that we should not deal with a clear case of inserting negative material contrary to the BLP policy, because there are other serious problems in Wikipedia also. DGG (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

David, I care to disagree with the part of your comment from above relating to what I’m being put through at WP:RS/N. The anonymous, repeated insinuations of improprieties on my part, on the pages of Wikipedia, are equally damaging to my reputation as an artist. Therefore, they are also a violation of WP:BLP, because the burden of evidence rests on the shoulders of the hidden user who's questioning my already confirmed track record. --Poeticbent talk 20:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I commented at the BLPN that the attacks on the article seemed unreasonable, & the latest attack particularly unreasonable.. I consider that helpful, as coming from someone not at all involved previously, and I do not see why you think otherwise. Were you hoping for something stronger? This is not my field; I consider my comment analogous & supportive to what Pietrus said most recently at RS/N, (17:50 on the 24th) acknowledging also that it was not his subject field. I'm perfectly willing to semiprotect the article, but it's less usual to semiprotect a talk page, and I'd want consensus on doing that. At this point, the insinuations are so much out of line that they harm the party making them. To allege that artwork signed by the last name is not that of the artist of the last name claiming it, who is known to work in that field, when there is no other person by that name prominent in the field, does indeed need some very strong evidence, so much so s to cast doubt on the motives of the attack. I commented to that at WP:RSN, as I had only commented elsewhere. DGG (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Please be assured, your comment left at BLPN is much appreciated and of course, very helpful. Even more so, the next comment you left at WP:RS/N which is right to the point and indeed, also very well informed. When I said that I disagreed (above), I meant only that in my opinion, questioning my sincerity with unreasonable demands while casting a shroud of doubt upon the entire list of references to the very last item, is a violation of one of the basic principles of BLP contrary to what you said above initially, about not seeing it that way. At first, I expressed my willingness to wait and see at WP:RS/N. However, the anon has returned only with even more unreasonable demands inspired by his/her ulterior motives. The demands have nothing to do with the article, and everything to do with my work in Wikipedia. I think that my request to block that IP indefinitely would not be unreasonable under the circumstances. --Poeticbent talk 01:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

given that it is apparently a dynamic ip, I do not see how it would help. It would just continue from another ip. It would be better to semiprotect the article and the talk page as a first step. I have done that. DGG (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Poeticbent talk 04:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

• Salmonella vaccines

I'm inclined to believe that Brs1762 (talk · contribs) is the "B R SINGH" mentioned in the article, and that the article is in fact xyr own work in xyr own words. I'm also inclined to believe that it is a mis-placed dissertation, from its structure. It seems a shame to delete it, given how little of the subject of vaccines, which is clearly a large one, is covered in our articles on Salmonella and Salmonellosis. Uncle G (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to think the same, but that does not necessarily mean he holds the copyright to it. It is in any case far from a usable article, just like most academic writing. There=have been several other cases of people putting their online textbooks onto Wikipedia, and being able to demonstrate they did own the copyright. We have sometimes kept them, though i do not regard them as really satisfactory either. I see you have begun a cleanup, but I think it takes a much more extensive rewriting. You certainly have the right to remove the prod, and I will do some abridgment beyond that if necessary, but I do not have much time to spend on it, given the problems with fiction and some of the BLP problems mentioned above. . (There's a dilemma: If I do this after you I'll have eliminated some of your work on some sections; if I do it before you, I may remove some sections you could rescue.) But have you considered his edit summary: "specifically for animal use", which indicates an unbalanced treatment, and that is confirmed in the introduction to section 2 "for veterinary use". What will you do with section 2--it is a reasonable essay, but clearly OR by our standards.

It will be much harder to clean up his other articles, as they do not contain the actual references. I think they need to get directed to wikibooks.

among the nonencyclopedic factors: Referencing--the main concepts are assumed,and only the really minor details given citations. Tone--an interpretive tone is used, not a descriptive Generalizations--very broad generalizations, given with authority. Emphasis and detail--check section 3 for example, with experimental details that are appropriate in a textbook for illustration (and selected in good part from his own work)

How do we deal with it--Do we want to try to explain this all to him and ask him to rewrite? If so, I will write from my academic address, which tends to help in such cases. DGG (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

McNair Ingenuity Research

FYI: I've started the discussion on the merge proposal that you've tagged on McNair Ingenuity Research - you can find it on Talk:Ian McNair. A side issue: the prod on a handful of related articles has expired. B.Wind (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

if I missed deleting any of them,, let me know. DGG (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Richard Tylman

Please do not make threats on my talk page. I made a valid hypothesis regarding the work of artists - and asked for reliable third-party corroboration of a claim by Poeticbent. There is little wrong with that and I wasn't making insinuations (I'm not the anonymous guy pestering him after all (our IP addresses will tell you that) - it was valid commentary on article content in order to improve it by finding proper corroboration for claims. Your threats should not work to hinder the sourcing process. Thank you. Malick78 (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

nonsense, to put it mildly. you have requesting proof that an advertisement signed by the individual include his first hame as well as his last name, even though there is no other artist with even the approximate field with the same last name, and then further prove that he actually did the work, even though he may have signed it. These extraordinary conditions are first of all disruptive if one does not take them seriously; if one does, it amounts amount to such a violation of customary practice as to be a BLP violation, in the absence of any evidence on your part that such a thing occurred. You can also be blocked to prevent that continuing. There is some reason to believe that this is in retaliation for comments of that subject {as a wikipedian) at another unrelated page in Wikipedia, in which case it amounts to harassment . You can be blocked for that as well--some of us would think it the most serious of all. If you continue this line, I will ask some other administrator to end the disruption, the blp violation, and the harassment (in order to keep it from being personal between us).DGG (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm confused. Are you accusing me of being the anon user harassing Poeticbent? If so you are wrong - I'm not the one. If you are saying instead that I'm retaliating for his AFD of an article of mine, then please look here - where I copyedited an article for Poetic back in September after the AFD took place. He even thanked me for it:)
• The fact is regarding the present incident that I happened across a report of Poetic's problem on the BLP page and recognising his name took a look. Then I gave an honest opinion - that third-party sources would be best. No pursuit of him, no harassing, just me giving an opinion according to the facts as I saw them. You are overreacting here. I've made thousands of edits to WP and written around 80 new pages with over 30dyk's. Hopefully you'll be able to assume good faith and see that my overall intentions are good on WP.
• Lastly, just because I questioned your right to accuse me of defamation (when I was only talking about somebody hypothetically) doesn't give you the right to accuse me of being disruptive. I have the right to counter an accusation surely, don't I? If it'd make you happy, I'll leave the discussion of Tylman to others from now on, but a less belligerent attitude from you would be appreciated too. Thanks. Malick78 (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

First, I'd like to make one thing clear user Malick78. Your comment left at BLP/N [11] is tendentious, mean-spirited and misinformed, very much along the lines of the anonymous attacks I've been subjected to in the past, forgive the connection. I did not fail to mention anything of importance at the article talk page contrary to your accusations. I was trying to protect my right for privacy. You cannot stretch WP:AGF to your favor infinitely while constantly badgering other Wikipedians with your rants at the same time. --Poeticbent talk 17:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen#Mediator

Hello. Please see the above link regarding the mediator for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Updated Brüel & Kjær wiki

I have now edited the article about Brüel & Kjær: I have added more sources and references and shortened the company history. This should resolve any copyright and adversitory issues. Will you please review the page for me. Thank you. Kasper Broue (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC) You must formally send the license to Wikipedia according to WP:COPYRIGHT or our Business FAQ . You ust give us more thn permission to use it, you must release it under a GFDL license, as explained there. DGG (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it alright now ?- I have now received a GFDL license from the author of an article I have gathered some information from, for my Brüel & Kjær article. I have forwarded the mail with the GFDL to Permissions [permissions@wikimedia.org] and received an email in return, with the following message: [Ticket#2009012710014069] Permission to use material for Brüel & Kjær article. Thank you for your mail. - I have also linked more of the contehnt in the article to other websites and posted internal Wikipedia links, where available.

Since these two points of critique have now been fixed, can I expect to get the 'error templates' at the top of the article removed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br%C3%BCel_%26_Kj%C3%A6r

Thank you! Kasper Broue (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You still have to adjust the article a good deal, but its tricky & I'll do it for you later today. I see you have one, but you really need some additional references that are not from your company to show its notability, some 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not press releases or derived from press releases). Business or technical magazines are usualy a good source. DGG (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

done, except for the OTRS staff adding the link,which will soon follow. DGG (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you very much 11:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasper Broue (talk • contribs)

Armies and Hosts of Middle-Earth

Your argument for removing the Prod template on this article did not correspond to the concern. The concern was that the article was OR not that it was unsourced. If you look at the article again you will see that all the references are to primary sources (writings by Tolkien and his son) not to any secondary sources written by scholars that have studied Tolkiens work. If you further scrutinize the contents you will notice that it is in fact an original interpretation of the contents of Tolkiens works consisting of conjecture and synthesis - which is not permitted in accordance with the OR policies. It is like writing an article about Bullfights in Hemingways authorship sourcing it only to Hemingway himself and not using any secondary sources. I hope you will consider replacing the PROD-notice or to improve the article to conform to WP guidelines. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

anyone can remove a prod template, and the way to challenge it is to take the article to AfD. My guess is that it will be kept there, but fD is notoriously unpredictable. There is no point arguing about it here. DGG (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

Hi DGG, I thought I would drop you a quick line to thank you for a quick in intervention here (Polish Atrocities) Best regards--Jacurek (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

On your 30th January 2009 comments on Sofia Tolstaya, Sofia Andreyevna Behrs, Leo Tolstoy wife, launching trials on the virtual space of English Wikipedia

I notice you are overwhelmed lately by your comments on subjects you are not a specialist and I am not sure if you are offering some of your apparent skills to people not acquinted by family relationships with Chaucer or Shakespeare, both British, by the way.

It is no difficult through Wikipedia software own means to understand or find out that many of my subjects are mainly on Russian and Hispanic cultures and then some British and American subjects, noteworthy in my opinion and not so widely known as you might think.

I have been in contact sometimes for a considerable time, both with the "Anglo - Saxon" and Russian inspired cultures and I celebrate your skills as a Librarian at Princeton, (University?), as you state yourself. I am an aging "humanist" always keen in historical events who happened to earn his own family every day money, teaching University Level Applied Mathematics and/or Physics Engineering applied to the Telecommunications here and there with the pleasure of coaching outstanding students, and still, while retiring, wishing to imply my former students and new "aliens" originally educated in China, Russia, Japan, Korea, Philippines, Indonesia, Chile, Argentina, Cuba, Mexico, Spain, Ukraine, Latvia, Turkey, Kirghiztan, Kazakhastan, Turkmenistan, India, Algeria, Egypt, Morocco.... into what "thickened" the sauce of the Westernized Cultures, i.e. Greek - Roman tradition Modern Tradition Philosophers, whether or not there were other cultures inventing FIRST paper, gunpowder, rockets, lenses or sailing FIRST to the American Continent or whatsoever.

It sounds easy while reading this, but believe me it is much more difficult than it sounds. Can anyone being an Aborigine from Australia, a pygmee from the Kalahari, a "fellah" picking cotton in Egypt, a Peruvian Indian washing woollens for instance, conceive German born Albert Einstein working for a while at a Swiss Patents Office, Portuguese background Baruch Spinozza grinding lenses and diamonds in Holland, British born Isaac Newton being a Director of the Royal English Mint, Egyptian woman Hypathia perusing scientific papers on Mathematics and Astronomy at Alexandria Library?.

Here are some ingredients "thickening" the Western European sauce setting our actual ways of living, including fundamentalists and zealots, using cellular satellite phones, driving tanks and Masserati sport cars they have no idea how and/or why they work.

Do you know you can tell anyone not being brought and educated in the Hispanic Cultures after more than 30 years, talking it everyday, by their use of the verbes "ser" and "estar", formally equivalent to the English "to be"?, but ONLY formally equivalent.

The uses of the past tense, (the verbal Subjunctive), is quite different, believe it or not in English than Spanish, more complete and richer in English, unfortunately for me.

Have you read there that the novel "1805", changed by exiled anarchist in Brussels, Proudhon, to the actual War and Peace of Tolstoy was copied and rewritten no less than 7 times by Sofia and Alexandra, their daughter?. Should people be banned of even hering about Sofia, ONLY THE HOUSEWIFE OF COUNT TOLSTOY as many "macho" readers would like to see it writen, if anything?.

Does the " Kreutzer Sonata " corresponds with a happy idea of Count Tolstoy or will have, perhaps, anything to see with the couple pathologic jealousies I do not dare to mention?.

Is Tolstoy a new Icone of the simple-tasted Politburo Communists of the thirtie´s , Socialistic Realism, which should be treated as Prophets are treated by religious fundamentalists? . Why Pablo Picasso and Salvador Dali have been, and are, the favourite painters of "Soviet Apparatchick" intelectuals however ?.

Do you know that Hispanic Cultures people translate into "Spanglish", "OTRAS CULTURAS" by "OTHERS CULTURES", but not "OTHER CULTURES" for obvious reasons as in Academic English and it does not mean necessarily a "mexican wet shoulders ignorance" as assumed by many English only speaking ignorants ?.

I believe personally that Russian Aristocrats who spoke fluent French and even English or German deserve to be known at least as well as some of the American European Westernized Politicians, such as Jefferson, the two Adams or your magnificent Benjamin Franklin. Nonetheless spirited women as Sofia Kowalsky, Lou Andreas Salome, Catherine II (with my substantial apports indeed), Sofia Andreeyevna Behrs, a.k.a. Sofia Tolstaya, Valentina Tereshkova, etc., SHOULD BE better known.

Please, I am a male by my genre, but let me talk about some Russian Women. As i say to my colleagues: We say, very much incensed as a concession to women that: " many times BEHIND a Great Man THERE IS also a Great Woman, but I am sorry I am discovering by now, much to my regret, that BEHIND a Great Woman there is plenty of times just an unworthy DUMB".

You are welcome to correct some of my grammar, I would be grateful for it, as will the English Wikipedia alien readers . I must add I always had to fight with my colleagues, YES, believing in computer machine translations problems, with results very hard to understand indeed, even to me.

All my writing through my "alien" brain for English Wikipedia, unaware of so many subjects of interest to OVER 1500 Million Persons or so inhabiting this Planet, some 30% of the whole world with so many shades of skin and so many original cultures, remember, does not require either automatic translators or even dictionnaries, something many "alien" authors are uncapable of doing in the language of my own childhood times Culture.

¿ "Vale" ? = "Is that all right" ?. In our Culture, we need to be warned using the sign ¿ , that someone is going to ask something, but you are more clever, or perhaps, to us, rougher and more scarcely educated too, of course, asking without previous graphic warning. People selling computers know this if I am going to buy their keywords, of course, othewise, without ñ and/or ¿, there is no deal .

Aecharri —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.98.254 (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to improve the article, not delete it. There are not all that many of us interested in the humanities around here, and we need to help each other. Your work is greatly appreciated. I noticed this article because i keep an eye on all the Tolstoy articles, since several people have at various times tried to delete the articles on major characters from his novels, and almost succeeded.

Yes, I recognized you were probably hispanic, based on your other edits--and the much greater English accuracy of the articles on Hispanic figures. With some experience of the faults of machine translation programs, it's possible to quickly fix many of their errors, and I think you could yourself from the article. But what is it translated from? I'm particularly curious about the section headings. I have not yet read Shirer's book, but is it from there?

In general articles about people here should be specific. The article on Sofia T. should be on her, her own life, and how she influenced her husband's life and works, but not about him or his works--this goes elsewhere. There is considerable opposition from some people at Wikipedia sometimes to articles of the spouses of significant people, but I think it's clear that this article is fully justified--at least it's clear to me, and i want to make sure it cannot be attacked by those who think otherwise. Tolstoy's sexuality is an interesting topic, but if their married life is going to be presented from her perspective, there needs to be some actual evidence.

My own academic training is not in the humanities, but I have certainly worked with them as a librarian, though primarily on 18th and 19th century English literature. None the less, the art of a librarian is to learn how to deal with anything a patron might ask, and I find this very useful here. Though I would not venture to actually write in any language except English, I can, like most academic librarians, decipher a number of others--sometimes even well enough to adjust articles in French, and i've improved my German by rewriting quite a few articles from the German Wikipedia. Yes, I will re-edit this one, but I'd appreciate it if you made another pass at it. DGG (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You're invited!

New York City Meetup—Museum Extravanganza Next: February 6-7, at the Met Museum and the Brooklyn Museum Last: 01//2008

Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

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 automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocking policy

Hi DGG. I came across this incident which seems to be a bizarre way of responding to an allegation of sockpuppetry. Can you have a quick look and see if this is appropriate? It seems (again, it's hard for me to understand the sequence of events) that on the basis of this AIV, Daniel Case put an indefinite block on Sweet Autumn Misery--no checkuser, no additional discussion. Is this (a) an accurate understanding of what happened; and if so (b) within guidelines for administrators? I'm no fan of vandalism or sockpuppetry, but neither am I a fan of arbitrary exercise of power. Bongomatic 01:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Case has been here much longer than I have, and is a member of the Arbitration committee. He knows a great deal more about blocking policy and sockpuppets than I do. Why not ask him? DGG (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are confusing something. Daniel Case is not on the arbitration committee, you mean Daniel Bryant, and he is a clerk for the committee. MBisanz ^talk 04:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

apparently, but DC is still the person I would suggest you ask first. He may not be an arb, but he's a reasonable person. DGG (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding recent deletion

Hi, I hope I'm using this page correctly. You recently deleted an article I put up titled "Open World Program." You noted that it was because I did not mention "significance." In fact, the program is the only exchange program in the US that is a part of the US legislative branch. My question is, would that be considered significant enough for the post to stay up? This is my source (a translation of an article originally published in Russian): http://www.openworld.gov/article/print.php?id=16&lang=1. If you have a moment, please let me know if the new statement (and its source) would be valid for "publication" on wikipedia. I'm quite new to this site and I don't want my article to be nominated for automatic deletion. I look forward to your response. Thank you!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandeey (talk • contribs) 17:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The article deleted read only "Open World is a program that brings Russian professionals on week-long interactive, educational exchanges to the United States. All information is derived from Open World's website: www.openworld.gov". But I see I should not have assumed that was all that could be written. I've restored a somewhat more sustainable version of that. Now go expand it properly, quickly, making sure the first version you put in is fuller and contains some actual references to 3rd party independent reliable published sources, (but not press releases or just its own web site). don't rely on that one article--there should be something more. As a guide for how to write such articles, see our Business FAQ (which also applies to non-profit organisations)--the advice is equally good whether or not you have COI, so don';t be put off by that. DGG (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Acral Lick Granuloma treatment deletion

I am new to adding content to Wikipedia, so if I made a mistake, sorry. The content of my article are my own words and are not a copyright violation. The same content minus specific references to products can be found on my website at www.dogleggs.com at http://dogleggs.com/files/granuloma_treatment.cfm. Do I need to add some tag that provides the proper release of this content? What are the next steps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhgross (talk • contribs) 00:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Please see our Business FAQ . To use content from our web site, you must release it to us under a GFDL license according to WP:COPYRIGHT, which permits anyone to reuse and modify it for any purpose, even commercial. If you are certain you ant to do that, the Copyright page explains how to do it. However, consider whether it might not be better to do a considerably revisedand somewhat shortened version, that would avoid the problem entirely. DGG (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC

Costly state verification restored

This article has been restored after its deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

probably not, as i supported the re-creation to give a chance for improvement. DGG (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Creation myths

Hi, DGG -- I think you will find this discussion of great interest, and I'm sure it would benefit from your input. Cgingold (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

discussion seems in good hands already. DGG (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

AFD for Frank Smith (fireman)

I've opened a second AFD for Frank Smith (fireman). As a participant in the first AFD, I thought you might want to review and contribute your opininion. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hazarh people (Hazara)

Hi DGG - you removed my speedy tag from the above article. I added it because, as I noted in the edit summary, the page's content is a verbatim copy of the opening paragraph of Hazara people, an article we already have. Should it really be kept? Gonzonoir (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I see from my talkpage that our wires crossed on this. My mistake in linking to the disambig page rather than the intended Hazara people article. Does that clear things up? Gonzonoir (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

yes, I deleted it as housekeeping, since its useless as a redirect Please check that the disam p. for Hazara is correct, and if not, edit it. DGG (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The disambig page is fine, so I think this is all done. Thanks. Gonzonoir (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Richard e. schiff

If you have a chance could you see if this art historian and writer is notable? Seems to be a professor at University of Texas Austin if that helps. There's the Richard Schiff television star too... ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I may be mixing up two people. The article is about an artist... ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Monumento a Giuseppe Garibaldi

Hi, I saw the AfD on this was closed as "no consensus", meaning keep. It is a very minor issue, but I am not comfortable with the result. We now have an article Monumento a Giuseppe Garibaldi and a section with the same name in Buenos Aires (Landmarks) which have identical content. JulesH was o.k. with turning the article into a redirect to the section. I am not sure if you had strong opinions on the subject, or just dropped out of the debate before the section was created? If you feel strongly that the stand-alone article should be kept, no problem. I confess to being a bit of a "mergist", but recognize that is a personal preference. But if you would be o.k. changing the article into a redirect to the section, is there a correct way to do that after it has survived AfD? Again, a minor issue but it bothers me to see duplicate content. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

After a no-consensus close, the matter can be revisited. Even without another AfD, if there is agreement, including at the talk p. of the article, then we could make a change. But I favor the opposite alternative: to use a link to the separate article with the template {{main}} which gives the text "Main article:Monumento a Giuseppe Garibaldi." as was done with others in that section--then the treatment would be parallel. The already short length could best be handled by expanding the separate article. There is always more to say on essentially any topic. Here, one could find, for example, the various local papers discussing it at the time the funds were raised, or the monument unveiled.

I had carelessly not really examined that main page before now. It raises the question, which I think reinforces my view, that this may in fact be considered one of the 4 most important monuments. Or do people intend to write several dozen other such articles? I do not know the city: how many such monuments are there actually of that degree of size and impressiveness?

My true concern is the generally accepted principle that major works of art justify a separate article, and a good sized one at that, as for each of Rembrandt's paintings. True, most such articles do not yet exist, even for Rembrandt. For me, it is a very high priority to add such content, and expand Wikipedia into an article covering such subjects even better than it does for computer games. I do not really think myself best described as an inclusionist, which implies adding content of lower importance. I'm more an expansionist, meaning to expand the content to includes everything of actual importance, as judged by those interested in each field. Not to go lower, but to be broader. It is certainly true that such content can be done within a small number of very long articles, as Grove's Encyclopedia of Art does. I don't think that really as useful in an electronic format--it works wonderfully well for the print Grove's, but I find their online version infuriating to use.

And it could certainly be said that works such as this are not actually major works of art & should not be judged as such--but some of similar works will be, and it is hard for us to make an aesthetic distinction. Even then, the question is, whether it is really considered in the city as a major monument. Personally, I admit I find such monuments of no particular interest, except as they serve as an excuse to build parks around them. DGG (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Estatua a Rosas en Palermo.JPG

Juan Manuel de Rosas

Monumento General San Martín, Buenos Aires

I have not been to Buenos Aires, but have been to Montevideo, just across the river, a smaller city, and to Santiago, Caracas and Bogota. Based on them, and given that Buenos Aires was one of the richest cities in the world at the height of the 19th century statue-building period, my guess is that there are quite a few larger monuments.

I just checked for San Martín, and sure enough there is a magnificent one to him, see right, which I will add to the main page. Also one of the dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas, see left, which I will also add. Personally, I rather like monuments like these, with their dramatic poses and supporting muses and warriors. Maybe a bizarre taste.

But the Garibaldi one is certainly a significant monument. Without passing judgment on its artistic merits, I agree it deserves a description in Wikipedia. My only quibble was whether a separate entry was justified until more information appeared. However, I will do as you suggest and put in a main link to the separate page on the Garibaldi monument. It may be a bit annoying to the reader to find there is no additional content on the separate page. But perhaps it will prompt someone to dig up old newspaper articles and add more content. Just possibly, there is more content on this one in the Spanish Wikipedia - I will take a look.

I totally agree with you on expanding breadth rather than depth. I would also like to see it a lot less biased. The rich, English-speaking countries get utterly disproportionate coverage, and within them pop culture, sports and technology get far too big a share. A lot of the articles will seem completely irrelevant twenty years from now. Oh well ...

Thanks for the feedback, Aymatth2 (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

---

O.k. I know you don't need any more abuse. But by forcing me to take hours to create an umbrella Buenos Aires (Landmarks) article in an unsuccessful attempt to get Monumento a Giuseppe Garibaldi deleted, and by then questioning whether there were any more monumental statues in Buenos Aires, thus forcing a major expansion of the article, you have caused a huge distraction from the more important things in life. :~) Thanks.

If you have time, check Buenos Aires (Landmarks) now, still work in progress, and comment on how it should be improved. No need to be polite. My feelings are that

• It is sort of long, but that probably does not matter. The article is basically visual, so people will scroll down looking at the pictures, maybe see one that interests them and read the description, maybe click to find more about the monument, the artist or the person depicted. It gives an o.k. visual overview
• There is a red link to Héctor Roca. He did at least three of these huge monuments, so someone really out to write him up. I rarely leave redlinks, but this is an exception.
• It needs sources. But English ones are not that easy to find. I will almost certainly keep tinkering.
• Maybe every section needs a "main" article, but I just don't have the time or knowledge to do that. The first version was mostly just of monuments that had articles. The additions do not. Easy enough to make main articles for each section that just replicate the content in this article. A trade-off I am not comfortable with. Annoying to readers, but maybe encourages editors to expand the sub-articles.

AfD nomination of Randolph Buss

An article that you have been involved in editing, Randolph Buss, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randolph Buss. Thank you. andy (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Notification of possible conflict between myself and an editor

As I am an admin I am unable to act on this beyond demanding an apology from the user in question. A difference of opinion has arisen between myself and User:Tbrittreid (aka "Ted Watson") over a couple of articles. This came to a head on Talk:Mission: Impossible, specifically this thread in which he made a statement that I have "zero credibility." This is a violation of WP:ATTACK and I have demanded an apology from this user both on the talk page in question and on his own talk page. I have as an admin permabanned users for similar conduct when repeated. However as I am the actual target of this, COI prevents me from doing anything beyond a) protesting and demanding the apology which I have done and b) doing what I'm doing now, which is notifying another admin. I am also limited in my ability to investigate whether this user has been abusive similarly to other users or whether this statement has been made about me elsewhere, as I do not want to be accused of Wiki-stalking. We have also had disagreement over the article Danger Man, though until just now I didn't really notice that it was the same user. To my knowledge he has not violated WP:ATTACK in that discussion. I'm telling you all this because if he does not apologize, or if he escalates in response to my protest, then I need to step away and let another admin handle it. So far this is all talk page-related. No edit wars or anything, and to be honest I'm not interested enough in either topic to get into it. But making a statement like "zero credibility" would be libellous if we used our real names here. Thanks for your time on this. 23skidoo (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Deepak pandey

Hi there. Would you please explain to me why you deleted Deepak pandey? I reviewed it earlier and declined the speedy because the negative BLP was sourced, so I wonder why you see this differently. Mind you, I don't want to complain, I just want to understand why you think G10 applies here. Regards SoWhy 23:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw that one of the 2 refs was a blog. But checking further, I see he did have a high official position, which I added, and so there are probably other refs to be found & he might actually be notable. Restored on the basis of your request. I'm not really happy of using prod for something like this, and i suggest perhaps either BLPN or AfD. Your move. DGG (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Checking Google News, there seems a ton of sources[12] mentioning him. So I guess prod is incorrect (I found only two sources when I prodded but I just realized I had "only last month" option on) and I removed it. I lack time to expand/source it myself (it's 1 am here and I got classes tomorrow) but I think it might be doable. Regards SoWhy 23:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds right. DGG (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Tea Talks with CEOs

About Tea Talks with CEOs will you change your opinion if we appear in British newspapers? And don't forget that these 13 people can change. It is not only these 13 people there can be new recruits from the school.--Acakdeniz (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Acakdeniz

It is possible that others would change their opinion if it appears in UK newspapers. Myself, I would take another look if you actually do it more than once. But the first step is to rewrite it, and the first step is to remove all the names of he people going on this visit, because they are of importance only to you, & to clarify when the trip took place or is scheduled to take place. DGG (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)