User talk:DGG/Archive 60 Jan. 2012

                                       ARCHIVES

DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG

Barnstars, Awards, etc.

Reminders

Topical Archives:
Deletion & AfD,      Speedy & prod,        NPP & AfC,       COI & paid editors,      BLP,                              Bilateral relations
Notability,               Universities & academic people,       Schools,                       Academic journals,       Books & other publications
Sourcing,                Fiction,                                               In Popular Culture      Educational Program
Bias, intolerance, and prejudice

General Archives:
2006: Sept-Dec
2007: Jan-Feb , Mar-Apt , M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D 
2008: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2009: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2010: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2011: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2012: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2013: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2014: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2015: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2016: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2017: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2018: J, F, M , A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2019: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2020: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2021: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2022: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2023: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O

 

            DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG

Underhill Society of America

Thanks for your input on Underhill, I always learn something new when you are involved. Could you take a look at the related AFDs? I have !voted delete on a couple, and wondering if I am mistaken on these and don't want to delete stuff that should be here. Many of these have improved since I first got involved as well. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• I have withdrawn my nom on two of them after reading your rationale. It appears I was a bit quick on the draw. Normally, only having a citation for an obit *would* be a reason for AFD, but not if it is an unpaid obit from an institution as large as the NYT. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Not size exactly, but selectivity. The only other newspaper obits that are routinely accepted here this way for obit is the London Times. There are probably others that are suitable in other countries, but I' not familiar with them. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I walked away for a couple of days because my confidence was really shaken in Wikipedia and the motivation of some editors. I must admit that you and Dennis Brown helped to restore my confidence again. Considering the fact that David Harris Underhill, Estelle Skidmore Doremus, and William Wilson Underhill all have editorial obits from the New York Times, can we lift the RFD from these pages as has already been done with John Torboss Underhill? At a minimum it might be sensible to include the NYT editorial obit comment on the talk pages with a note to "Keep." This will help to alert the administrator responsible for closing the discussion about the importance of keeping the page. Let me know your thoughts on the best way to proceed with this. Thanks again DGG. I can't tell you how appreciative I am for your efforts. Placepromo (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

before the article can be speedy kept, the people who asked for deletion of the article must first withdraw the afd. Ask them. And then someone else must close the discussion--not anyone who has joined in it, like you or me. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I've been having a lot of trouble with Toddst1. Seems to me like he has a vendetta against everyone named Underhill (which I find bizarre), and won't be satisfied until at least one page has been deleted. This is what he wrote on the Francis Jay Underhill AFD discussion page: "Delete: and transwiki to Underhillpedia. DGG is wrong about the obit satisfying GNG per MelanieN. Toddst1 (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)." Also, with respect to your comment about the Speedy Keep, the Underhill Society of America article has consensus on Keep, though was also put up for more discussion. The William Wilson Underhill has consensus on Keep as well, though no one has come along to remove the AFD. Any further help or insights you can provide would be more than welcome. IDKremer (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Hitchens's critiques of public figures

Would you consider reversing this decision? Surely this one was a "no consensus", which in that case defaults to keep.

In addition, despite a significant call to merge instead, you've already deleted the content, thus making this impractical. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I think a merge of the content in toto is as wrong as keeping the article. WP is not Wikiquote. If there's anything not in Wikiquote, it could be merged there, but I don't see the need to merge to the Wikipedia article when it can just use an interwiki link. As for consensus, the only keep argument was ILIKEIT, True it was said many many times, but no matter how large the n, n times zero is zero DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, nobody said merge in toto (not even the "merge" concept itself). And even the nom, with whom you agreed (not that often), noted that Maria Theresa's part could be merged (forked back even) into the CH article. And on wikiquote, here you seem to argue that a quote can be either in WP or in Wikiquote. That is not true. Without checking, one may expect that Hamlet quote to be in both. -DePiep (talk) 12:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

DGG, I think you closing arguments deserve some checking. Please allow me.
... the keep arguments do amount only [sic] to ILIKEIT. This is not true. At least one, me, did not say so. And by rereading the discussion, I saw this. There are six !votes to Keep, and two to Merge (including the nom: see the nomination and [1]). Out of these eight, only one can be seen to have used "ILIKEIT" as an argument (ending up with a MEMORIAL proposal). As a closing editor, one can easily leave out these non-arguments: skip while reading, as if such a sentence is deleted. What remains is the arguments used. You did not, and even drew (tallying) the wrong conclusion.
On the mirrored side, you do seem to have skipped the non-arguments. From the nom: Most of them just say that Hitchens had something bad to say about a public figure', and suggesting that Hitchens was just some kind of troll (now how is that introducing WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT). Being or not being a troll is no argument at all to include/exclude this page at WP. Not even for Hitchens's page itself. As I said, they should be skipped indeed (too) when closing, but you did not mention them, and explicitly stated that you agreed with the nom.
The nom writes, and you endorsed: Wikiquote entry seems to have almost all of these already [sic]. "Already"? We are not writing WP to fill and complete Wikiquote. Whatever in Wikiquote, that is not relevant for this page. The page should be encyclopedic relevant, which is not what the nom is talking about here. Adding, you did not refer to "quote farm" or Wikiquote at all when closing (not important then), but here in this thread you did.
You also stated that It's not that often I agree with the nom, but ... - What does this mean? Have you introduced earlier and outside experiences, with an editor not arguments at that, into this closing?
All in all. I think you misread and wrongly weighed perceived ILIKEIT arguments (and not those IJUSTDONTLIKEIT). You introduced outside personal aspects you had with the nom. You did not mention "quote farm" or Wikiquote at all, but here you do. You endorsed the nom's rationale unrestricted, including its non-arguments, distractions, and --contradictionally-- it's suggestion to merge: his reasons [plural, DP] for deletion are correct policy. I think they are not. I ask you to reconsider. -DePiep (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

1. I consider almost every argument including yours as equivalent to ILIKEIT: 1/"This man's critiques are more important than his own existence." 2/"a notable topic that can justify its own article." but no reason given 3/"a charming intro to an opinionated but sharp mind. It reveals perhaps the need for a new Wiki-project "Wiki-memorials" " 4/ "There might be an argument for merging it into a single article on Hitchens, but if we did choose that, the content here is so significant that it would have to be preserved pretty much unchanged. " -- but gives no reasons 5/ "The practice by some Wikipedians to scrub the site of viewpoints they disagree with is flat-out disgusting, and all too common. Hitchens' critiques are an important part of the human historical record " -- accusing the nom of bad faith. 6/ "in his career there are multiple threads with persons. These threads are not alway made explicit by himself or in his books & pieces. But when a serious critique/scholar/publisher points out that thread, that is enough RS (not OR) to merit a description here." -- your argument, and a good one, if there were such references besides the one you cite. 7/ "I came on this page after reading the article about Hitchens, specifically looking for some informations on his public figures critiques, " -- links to WQ would deal with this fine 8/" Just notice that if you delete all the quotes, you still have a pretty substantial article by Wikipedia standards." --but this is no reason for a separate article--and I don't think it's actually the case.
2. that something us a string of quotes means it should go in the appropriate wiki for such, which is Wikiquote not wp. Isolated quotes means to support or illustrate a point in an encyclopedic article belong in Wikipedia, but these quotes were selected not just to show his opinions, but to show his cleverness. They are there for the reader to enjoy his style, which is a literary not an encyclopedic purpose.
3. Smerdis, who made the nomination is well known has one of the more deletionist regulars at AfD,and I as one of the more inclusionist. I will normally look for any chance to rescue an article. (It is possible for content to be I considered this unrescuable because the content is intrinsically non- encyclopedic. ). When there is a disputed AfD, and I think the article so unsuitable that the arguments for it are nugatory, then it is fair and less likely to be seen as closed due to a deletionist bias if I close it, because I would not close as delete if there was any reasonable alternative. I look for such circumstances, so the close will appear as well as be fair. I consider the term "quote farm" reasonably applicable, though usually it refers to a large number of shorter quotes.
4. However, I agree that your argument is a good one to support the article, for if this sort of discussion could be adduced for each of the topics, then it would meet the test of there being substantial critical discussion. If you think you can do that, I'll gladly userify. And if you can add the refs, I'll move it back, as meeting the objections. DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I am being a buttinsky here. I certainly would have no issue with anyone doing anything that would make sure that the small bit of encyclopedia material gets "forked back", or even that the page be undeleted for some kind of transwiki and merger to Wikiquote. Not sure how that is done correctly, or whether it can be done while preserving the history. I suppose I could look it up. I would not have named the page for deletion if I did not think the possibility of loss of information from the whole project was minimal.

The page made me uneasy for a number of reasons: pointed attacks on living people, and the general impression that it made of Hitchens's work and memory. But I tried to keep focus away from relatively subjective stuff like that (it is of course trivial to prove these are Hitchens's words) and on what I thought was the real issue: that an anthology of choice bits of his invective against named individuals belonged on another Wikimedia project, and not in the encyclopedia. (And FWIW, I still consider myself an inclusionist, outside of the relatively narrow fields of for-profit businesses and IT-cruft, for which I do argue for higher and clearer standards for inclusion.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I am glad to see we agree on as much as we do. Hutchins is of course known for pointed attacks on living people, and its impossible to conceal it, and right that we give some indication of their nature--but not in such detail. The people he attacks of of course all of them public figures, and I don't really see any BLP concerns here. His politics are idiosyncratic, and I doubt anyone would agree with him on everything. As you say, though, the point is that I think we'd say the same about any group of quotations on any subject: to the extent they can be worked in brief excerpts within an article, good; to the extent the article is merely a setting for the quotations, not so good. My impression of your exclusionism must have been affected by my working so intensively lately on for-profit businesses--where I tend to feel inclusive, provided we can avoid promotionalism , which can indeed sometimes be a rather difficult problem. And something else we agree on: whatever the level of the standards for inclusions, they should be clearer. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, DGG, we have made a tack not?

- "Quote farm": you did not mention that issue in your decision at all. Strange that here you lean on that so heavily. Just pointing to the nom's text now would be too easy, as you supported all of his.

- "I consider almost every argument [...] ILIKEIT" " (your stressing) you write here. But at the AfD you said: "the keep arguments do amount only to ILIKEIT". (my stressing).

- Re my argumentation: here you write: "... your argument, and a good one, if there were such references besides the one you cite." You mean I should cite a proof on the AfD to convince? My argument is "a good one", yet you threw it out for being ILIKEIT? And: what does that relate to your claim it is an ILIKEIT argument? You still have not pointed out that connection.

- Your cosyness with the nom does not belong in this. When closing, you only need to look at the arguments presented, not your experiences and opinions with nom's earlier or elsewhere behaviour. This is not ANI or DRN. (Should not be in the conclusion I)

- ".. these quotes were selected not just to show his opinions, but to show his cleverness", you state here. But this statement is not from the AfD discussion. It is a personal opinion you construct. If that is your opinion to weigh in, you should have contributed to the discussion. Now you clearly have expressed (and excercised) a !vote through your conclusion. Closing should be solely based on the discussion. Adding your own opinion in the conclusion is not uninvolved. (Should not be in the conclusion II)

- You supported the nom's rationale unrestricted. That includes the IJUSTDONTLIKEIT and otherwise negectible points ("troll", "I'll cheerfully admit that I'm not a fan of Hitchens"). (Should not be in the conclusion III)

- Your point 4 here, is paternalistic and denigrating. It is way too arrogant to put back to me arguments you did not use or get in the first place, and in the second place. You want me to source a deleted article? Also, are you suggesting I should recreate an article you decided to delete?

- All together, I think you closing decision is sloppy (which you expanded here). You used multiple non-arguments, and you choose to throw out viable arguments with the WP:ILIKEIT reason abused. You introduced personal positions and experiences which should be out of AfD. And you address me arrogant, paternalistic and contra-policy along the line of "yeah, go ahead, just source and rebuild the article I deleted".

- Could you explain how my argument is WP:ILIKEIT exactly? Why did you introduce personal and external opinions and experiences? Why do you suggest I should source and recreate the very stuff you deleted? Why did you support non-arguments? -DePiep (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Please check again what I wrote--I was trying to say that your argument, unlike the others, was not based on ILIKEIT. But your comment was based on the existence of third party sources. So I now reanalyze the sources in the deleted article. Ref. 1 is from Hitchins about his general manner. Refs.2 & 3, similarly. Ref. 4 is describes an argument someone had with Hitchins, about which Hitchins subsequently wrote; like the Gibson articles, it's the background for the quotation. Ref 5. is his own defense of his manner . Refs. 6 & 7 are by him ; so are 9, 10, 11. 12 & 13. (Ref 8 does not mention him; it's an article describing Mel Gibson's arrest. ) Ref 14 is a wonderful blog posting by David Frum in which he gives his reminiscences of Hitchens. Nothing in it is about the quotations from him discussed in the article; it's a good ref — for the main bio article. Ref 15 is again by Hitchins; so is 16 and 17. Ref 18 says nothing about Hitchins--it's a speech by Mother Teresa; like refs 4 & 8 , it's background. Ref 19 is mainly an attack on Penn & Teller's critique of Mother Teresa. It has part of one sentence saying Hitchins is anti-catholic, but does not mention his views on Mother Teresa. Ref 20 and 21 are by Hitchins. That's all there is in the article. Not one thing substantial about any of his quotations or views in all of them. At the AfD, you suggested another source,[2]. This source discusses the long argument between Hitchins and Blumenthal about Monica Lewinsky & Bill Clinton . However, nothing about that particular quarrel is discussed in the article. In fact no quotes at all about Blumenthal, Lewinsky or Clinton are discussed.

Yes, I made a mistake: I made Two. In the closing I passively mischaracterized your opinion by not mentioning it as an exception. But in what I wrote above, I said "your argument is a good one to support the article". But it was actually a good one to support a different article which might be more appropriate content. It remains open to you to write one. Or try Deletion review. If you're lucky, you'll get a panel that also LIKE IT, and think the degree of their liking is an adequate reason to make a exception.

In explaining a decision, people don't say the exact same thing they said on the decision: that's not explaining, but refusing to communicate. I try to explain in as many ways I can, & I reanalyzed every comment and every every keep argument. I continue to think it inappropriate content. There's no point in continuing here. I was correct in every way that matters. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I will reread all this, and then come back. -DePiep (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Now raised at WP:DRV as Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_January_4 Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

result seems a snow endorse of my decision. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

A New Year for the DNB, and launch of "volume of the month"

See WT:WP DNB#Volume of the Month for a collaboration that I'm in the course of setting up. Everyone who signed up to the WikiProject for the Dictionary of National Biography is being notified, while there is still time to alter the way of working if need be. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Naming convention

Would you care to comment on Talk:Women in development approach#Requested move? This one is bugging me. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Commented. I hate jargon. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Laura Ramsey DRV

• Laura Ramsey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You restored this article so the history could be visible during the DRV. JesseRafe (talk · contribs), who brought the DRV, then started working on the article [3]. I reverted to you and protected the article since I didn't think that was why you'd undeleted it [4]. If I'm wrong, please revert my protection. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

certainly you did what I intended, though additional refs can be presented at the DelRev. DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Arunsingh16's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please comment on Talk:Futurama (season 6)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Futurama (season 6). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

=Chris Sweeting

Thank uou for your kind assistance and for the helpful advice given in your note of yesterday. With all good wishes for 2012 6 January 2012Clive sweeting (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Clive Sweeting

Destruction of Israeli tanks in the Second Intifada

I'm pretty sure this falls into a category of what Wikipedia is not (among other things), but would like a more experienced editor to look at it before sending it to AFD. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• I figured you were too busy, but just to let you know I took it to AFD WP:Articles for deletion/Destruction of Israeli tanks in the Second Intifada. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm never too busy to look (I'll comment on this one at the AfD); I am often too busy to look immediately -- not just too busy doing other things here -- I also might be elsewhere on the net than WP, or even somewhere in the RW. Some people here leave WP or their email or both open continuously--I find that distracting. I also sometimes think about something a day or so before I respond; people who write without thinking are prone to foolish errors. And when I do write my reply, I often wait a few hours before I send it--I want to make sure I really mean what I say. In general, allow a 24 to 48 hour turn around time, not guaranteed. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Delete request for Baotou–Lanzhou Passenger Railway

Hi DGG,

Recently I requested a speedy delete for Baotou–Lanzhou Passenger Railway. I created the page by mistake, and it redirects to the Baoji–Lanzhou High-Speed Railway. Note that these are two different railways, with different termini (Baotou vs. Baoji). Can you please reconsider the speedy deletion? Thanks.  –Nav  ^{talk to me or sign my guestbook} 00:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not instead make a proper article on Baotou–Lanzhou Passenger Railway, since you have the information? DGG ( talk ) 08:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

declined speedy on Archangel Ancient Tree Archive`

I think your decline rational was inappropriate and insufficient. The a7 criteria make no reference to BEFORE, and further you have no evidence that I did not do such a search (which I did, and which comes up either empty (gnews), or unreliable blog/interrelated org links (regular google). In fact, the a7 criteria clearly states that this is a lesser bar than the notability/verifiability rationale for justification. This article does not make a claim to notability and so qualifies. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

anyone except the original contributor can decline a speedy for any reason, including a hunch, or a desire that the community look at it. You have prodded it, which was exactly the right thing to do if you disagreed, and is better than arguing with me. DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of historical works: Kewill

Looks like you instigated the deletion of historical important works of Kewill. At first glance Kewill page could look like commercial promotion. But did you actually read the document thoroughly, or give an inkling to wondering why the document existed on Wikipedia for close to ten years? It must be great using your power without any notion of hubris to snub out history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boul22435 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I am always willing to reconsider; since I am human, I make errors. I also have the emotions of a human being, and I prefer to discuss matters with people who treat me politely, but having volunteered to be an admin here, I accept the responsibility of helping even those who address me as you do with as much grace as I can muster. I think if you'll check on my talk page you'll find I am considered among the most sympathetic of all admins to articles on such subjects, but that does not mean I tolerate articles such as this, be they old or new. I never said that Kewall was necessarily an inappropriate subject for an article, though that needs to be shown by references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases--the data pages from Reuters, etc. are usable as references for the financial data, but do not show notability. I deleted the article because it was so promotional it was unacceptable without more than routine rewriting. That the article has been here a long time can be simply an indication that nobody has sufficiently looked at it; our standards having risen, we are much more likely to deal critically with new articles than older ones. Examining the edit history, I see no regular editor except yourself has ever dealt substantially with it.

If you are willing to work on it according to our standards, I will restore the article to your user space for a limited time. I had examined it sufficiently to make the problems unmistakably clear; I have now re-examined it sentence by sentence. As a guide, among the elements that I consider promotional are: the emphasis upon the great constructive role of the current ceo; the inclusion of the dates of tenure of multiple officers other than the ceo--we include this only for much larger companies; the description of the overall field of business rather than the company specifically, the use of jargon; the repetition; the failure to describe specifically what the products are; the use of vague adjective of quality and praise; and the greatly excessive use of the corporate name--the words to use are "the firm", "the company", or, even better , "it". I also note the absence of basic data on numbers of staff, financial turnover, and, if possible, market share--this is important for all companies and sources are available.

When you have finished, let me know, and I will look at it and restore it to mainspace if suitable. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring Kewill page to my space. Apologize for not giving grace, I have had a succession of quality articles unnecessarily deleted from Wikipedia. In one severe case Suksma Ratri page a women from Asia Pacific who's addressed the UN general assembly on criminalization of vulnerable HIV sex workers garnering the support from Annie Lennox, OBE. Opening [UN] Speech by Suksma Ratri on Youtube. Compare to PARC/Google friend who advises the Wikimedia main board on HCI and another who's annually donated 20,000 USD gain new pages without suffering the dreaded fast delete flag. My sense is Wikipedia has become unbalanced with too much power concentrated in some admin's hands (thank you for reconsidering and advising). In other digital social networks concentrated power in one group of editors or contributors seems to have lead to a rapid fail from grace at MySpace, HI5, Digg. Putting up with some messy imperfect democratic contributions to Wikipedia seems to be a healthy design. A la: Facebook, Twitter, Google+ dmode (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 3#WP:Articles for deletion/Fictional women of Passions, volume 1

This discussion has been re-opened, and your votes have been recoved. You can go there now until official closing. --George Ho (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Persistently persistent NPOV

First, my appreciation for your consideration of my recent ANI. That being said, User:Snowded continues to assert his/her intent to delete any 'POV Section Tag" not in compliance with his/her, IMHO, misunderstanding and/or purposeful misrepresentation of WP:POLICY on both POV tagging and WP:NPOV policy. As I would like to renew the talk page discussion towards resolution aided by the hopefully increased breadth of editorial consideration which the POV tag is designed to foster, your indulgence in further clarifying your determination at your earliest convenience is solicited. I have notified User:Snowded of this request. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not normally mediate content disputes, but I will take a look at the article talk page & give an opinion. However,as I said at AN/I, there is no reason to edit war about a tag. Just make your case there for what the contents of the article should be. Then I'll look at what you've said there. DGG ( talk ) 15:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not normally mediate content disputes,...

If I might suggest, this is less a "content dispute" than it is a "presentation dispute" per rather clear WP:NPOV guidance.

Just make your case there for what the contents of the article should be.

As you will, no doubt, quickly discern, that was precisely what I did when I initially established the section to discuss (not dispute) the content in question. As, IMHO, no editor would address the specifics of my POV objection (as you will also, hopefully, discern), upon my elevation of the discussion to formal dispute status, I repeated my objection and rationale to, again, solicit comments specific to my POV objection. As of yet, that objection and its foundation in the SPECIFIC language of WP:NPOV has yet to be addressed...and suppression and diversion rather than discussion appears to be the only reponse thus far. That, hopefully, will be rectified by an infusion of fresh editorial consideration/opinion the POV tag is designed to foster. Thanks again for your time and consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?

An editor has asked for a deletion review of How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. aprock (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Jarvis hearings and geog context

Hallo David, Thanks for picking up Jarvis hearings. I've added a few tweaks just now.

But it raises an interesting point: you say "court processes in Minnesota". I've added ", United States". I don't think that US state is adequate geographical context for a world-wide encyclopedia. As an educated Brit who's travelled to Canada, I can't always remember whether "Michigan" is US or Canada (the lake is on the border I think), and "Idaho" might look positively Japanese to someone unfamiliar with the US. (On a related point, I find it very difficult when I'm stub-sorting and find a page where I need to choose from groupings like "mid-western states": I don't have this categorisation at my fingertips). I can't find anything which specifies whether a country should be given in the lead - I raised a point at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#.22broader_geographical_area.22.3F_how_about_country.3F, but (a) on re-reading, the MOS talks about what should be linked, not just what should be written in the text, and (b) no-one has commented in two days. I wonder what your views are, and/or where would be the best place to discuss it. PamD 08:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this was discussed elsewhere recently, with the conclusion that the country should always be added. But I haven't time to find it just now. Perhaps someone will remember on the page you mention. In principle, I agree with you. We are an international resource, and the assumptions that hold in the US of what is basic common automatically-presumed knowledge do not hold universally. For London, for Paris, there are other places by that name, so we should in logic always add that even when we are referring to the only universally known one, and by logic similarly we should have the country name in the title of the article. But some names are totally unique. such as New York City, and there is nothing named "Minnesota" outside the US State of Minnesota, Should we do this also? I think yes.

Indeed, I think we should fully qualify every geographic name and every locally based body, not just rely on the principles of avoiding ambiguity within the encyclopedia , or even the principle of avoiding ambiguity worldwide; and I think this should apply to all titles also, though we may not need all the intermediate steps. Harvard University should be Harvard University, United States,but I would even accept Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States. Cambridge, In other swords, I totally disagree with one of the key principles of MOS Titles, by which if there is only one Lakeside School in the Encyclopedia, the title gives no indication of where it is. I do not think our practice here helps any reader. Our rule should be the opposite of what it is. I doubt you are proposing something so radical, but I will support you even for a more limited suggestion. I'll comment there after the blackout.

I'm a life-long US resident, with a block puzzle of the (US) states as a childhood toy, and the game of naming state capital a childhood amusement in the car, so the basic assumptions of US geography are natural to me, and I would find it hard to write otherwise. (and similarly I suppose for Londoners, etc. ) The qualifiers should simply be added by human-assisted bot. And, for that matter, even though second nature, I was aware of this when I was writing, and was taking a shortcut to avoid deletion. I admit I often take such shortcuts in patrolling, because there are so few of us patrolling prod, and I must leave it to others to complete the job. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI: NPA

It may well be that someone has already had the courtesy of notifying you of this, but just in case. I've no idea what it is about, or whether it has significance, but I thought you ought to be aware of it.--Scott Mac 01:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) New link seems to be this. PamD 09:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw it myself a little earlier this evening. KW seems to be doing his utmost to show himself in as bad a light as possible. It's perfectly consistent with his general behavior there that he didn't inform me. As far as I am concerned, I don't think what he said about me is significant enough to respond to. I took the same view as others did. If he holds a grudge, that's his lookout.

As for my position on NPA, it's been stated elsewhere: that people at a responsible public site behave like they do no longer amazes me; what continues to puzzle me is why the site tolerate them. Perhaps I have a responsibility to say this there, but people will see it here also. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

That, I think, is the nub of the whole arbcom case. We've managed to get some sort of American free-speech, citizen's-rights, ethos, which tolerates children being childish, and really has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. Sadly, it is unlikely to change.--Scott Mac 04:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's better to avoid nationalities--to many Americans like myself the offensive style here is more like British pub speech, or more exactly, the constant back and forth of insult in British comedy sketches, rather than random use of occasional bad words that characterizes American adolescents. When people work together, deliberate and repeated use of what others in the group clearly consider insult always has the implication that the others do not matter. Whether everyone considers it insult is irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 15:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've not made myself clear (and foolishly appeared to insult Americans). The style here is certainly British (and the whole "cunt is not sexist in Britain" meme is slight of hand, because although not generally used to refer to women in the UK, it is not a term anyone would use in any open social space - because it is clearly anti-social pubic language, only tolerated in certain - generally male - in-groups). No, my reference to the US was not that Americans are less civil, it is that there seems to me a Wikipedian reluctance to clamp down on certain types of speech. Go into most British public spaces and use the word "cunt", and you'll soon be asked to shut-up or leave. Use it in the hearing of customers in most workplaces - you'll be fired. And if in any particular sub-culture that's not the case, you won't be able to operate within any wider culture unless you learn how to adapt. Wikipedia is a wider culture. I may, inadvertently, happen to use a word that's acceptable "where I come from" - but once I am made aware of the wider cultural sensitivities, I must surely desist. The idea those involved here don't realise this is, quite frankly, not tenable.--Scott Mac 16:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Very eloquently put Scott. I concur with you both. Why the site tolerates it is an enigma to me too. But it does. That said, some of the worst insults do not need the use of expletives to be gravely insulting and demeaning - but in the current investigations, that aspect of PA and incivility seems to be unimportant. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Interestingly the word "cunt" appears (final para) in today's Observer newspaper (a "respectable" paper, not a scandal sheet), albeit as a quote quoted from an article in Time Out and used to illustrate incivility woman to woman (and the original speaker was perhaps using it to emphasise her "working class" credentials?) While we wait for their inevitable degeneration, we should try to maintain an even temper, although that is not always possible or even desirable. After Helena Bonham Carter, the great-granddaughter of Herbert Asquith, complained that for all her advantages and beauty directors would not hire her because she was not "trendily working class", an exasperated Kathy Burke found the effort of keeping a civil tongue in her head too much to bear. "As a lifelong member of the non-pretty working classes," she told Time Out, "I would like to say to Helena Bonham Carter: shut up you stupid cunt." Not sure if this adds anything to any discussions, but thought it noteworthy when I saw it this morning. Perhaps it does tend to illustrate that it's not a misogynistically-offensive term over here (UK), just a stronger version of "stupid cow", ie rudeness applied exclusively to a female; male equivalent probably "Stupid prick". (But I spend most of my life in a quiet village looking after an aged Mother, so am no expert on what's said in pubs, on buses or in workplaces at present!) PamD 17:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The quote says it all. Burke "found the effort of keeping a civil tongue in her head too much to bear". Were User:K.Burke on Wikipedia, she would, by definition, have breached WP:CIVIL - can could be blocked. Now she might argue that User:Posh-Helena had bated her, but would we buy it?--Scott Mac 18:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I was at first surprised at our emphasis on the wording: I now appreciate it as a good opportunity for discussing bad language. I agree with Scott that the way "cunt" is used in the quote above shows that the use is normally considered offensive in the UK, and that this was newsworthy as an exceptionally crude statement. Its implication depends on the circumstances--it can be used in a positive sense between lovers. But even if the word were uniformly used in the UK as a strong compliment, even among strangers or people working together in offices, referring perhaps to the excellence of women as exemplified by their sexuality, and if nobody at all in the UK, even those of a previous generation, were ever offended, it still is offensive here, because we are not writing for a UK readership only, and it is obviously perceived by many people here as a crude insult. Even were all women uniformly in the English-speaking world to think it a friendly greeting, if any substantial number of men nonetheless considered it an insult to women, it would be offensive. All of these discussions about the intrinsic nature of this word or other words is entirely irrelevant to NPA. If words are perceived by at least some reasonable people here as offensive, that is what matters. I'm Jewish. If I'm called Jewish, I normally consider it a neutral descriptor, or sometimes a word of praise. If it's used to me as an insult, it's insulting because it considers my ethnicity a fit term to be used

Kudpung refers to insult expressed in polite terms. We need to recognize this as improper also--NPA means no personal attacks, not merely no personal attacks using conventional words of insult. When terms normally considered insulting are used, it aggravates the situation; when terms often used to indicate group membership are so used, it aggravates it further. It not the intrinsic use of any particular word that is crucial to NPA--it just makes NPA easier to prove.

There's even more serious aspect: when experienced people in a group can get away with behavior newcomers can not, it implies an hierarchy, a non-welcoming attitude. a sense of exclusiveness. It's a collective version of OWNERSHIP: the longer you're here, the more you own the encyclopedia. If we do welcome newcomers, the longer a person is here, the great should be their politeness. It's the same as an expert trying for OWNership of an article: for a true expert, their edits will prove it. If those of longer standing have the ability to determine our practice, it will be because their experience enables them to best explain it. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the missing link here is not so much NPA as "don't needlessly disrupt Wikipedia". What is a personal attack may very well depend on the intention of the writer, and his expectation of how the recipient will understand it. Thus, if we assume good faith, lots of things can be excused as having "friendly" intention, or having been misunderstood. However, it is not enough to have good intention - one also needs not to use language that may predictably give the impression of an intent to give offence (even if none is intended). To give a concrete example: a number of years ago a user was accused of a racist post (I can't remember the details). Of course there was uproar. The user then protested he had no racist intent, and indeed was himself black (sorry if that's the wrong term). The defence was accepted. However, in a virtual community no one knows you are black - so don't use the language that requires that knowledge for context, because it is likely to be misunderstood by some and thus cause disruption. Same here: how one normally uses "cunt" is immaterial, that one doesn't intend a personal attack is good, but also insufficient. If you know that a form of words is likely to be seen as uncivil - just don't use it. We are trying to communicate in a multi-cultural, non-visual community. Sure, people should assume good faith, but you should not (as far as you are able) require them to understand your ethnicity, gender, culture, local linguistic practice, religion, or sexuality in order to understand your words. You should attempt (as you are able) to use language that transcends that - ans so deliberately using language that doesn't is disruption (or even trolling).--Scott Mac 22:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

One of the saddest aspects gained by a reputation of of being unpleasant is that it has deterred some people from wanting to submit articles for promotion to quality status. It's already driven most people away from wanting to help the project through promotion to the use of a set of tools. This is clearly not conducive to a healthy collaboration and growth of the project. In other words, it's disruptive. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"Don't needlessly disrupt Wikipedia" can apply to a great many things. In a sense, it's the basis of all offenses--contributing or commenting in such a way as to make trouble for people. It includes persistently submitting unacceptable articles, or persistent attempts to remove acceptable ones. Or copyvio, edit-warrring, or promotionalism--especially non commercial promotion of a cause. All of these take effort to deal with, and interfere with work directed to building the encyclopedia.

Anything can upset people, especially if it's connected with rejecting their work. There is no intervention, however well meant and however careful, that is truly safe--I've had people upset with approaches that essentially amount to , "let me help you make a better article"--especially with autobio, where people tend to think they have written the obviously perfect article. Whatever people take offense with, I apologize for, and apology helps, if perceived as sincere, and if it's more than "I'm sorry it had a bad effect on you" but rather along the lines of "I made an error, and I will fix it."

But the best first line towards improvement is avoiding certain comments that are known to be especially dangerous.These are the expected--any reference to age, or race, or nationality, or sex, or religion; or using words some people thing are taboo. Reflections on people's education are tricky--much more than the others, they may be an actual problem, and, in this encyclopedia, they can be connected sometimes with age and first-language; I've learned to avoid these also. But the basic rule remains, that in a very public setting, where you are interacting with a range of individuals of unknown identity and background, with extremely variable preferences and expectations for formality, and a wide range of expectations, it is necessary to be extremely careful how you say and do things. It might sound like this is asking a lot: but we're all trained in language use and interpersonal interactions from infancy, and even children are aware of the concept of hurting other people's feelings.

(There are some people who unfortunately are not, and may indefinitely require guidance; one special aspect is that people with these difficulties are often attracted to our relatively impersonal setting; though we say WP is not therapy, it can be, or at least can be a safe environment--but just as in society generally, it is very difficult to encourage these individuals while also protecting the others, and we therefore will always need mechanisms of isolation. But never punishment--having social difficulties is not anyone's fault in a moral sense (or at least so I like to say, perhaps excusing those of my own). But we are justified in asking those who can control themselves to do so, and educating those who for whatever reason have not learned the expected standard——and gently removing the others.

The excuse of intellectual brilliance does not apply here: this is a communal setting, though some people may not at first realize that. Even the best of contributors, who can not or will not avoid offending other contributors will need to find a setting where they can work without doing harm. Even those who are most readily to hurt others can very readily take offense themselves——AN/I or RfC/U are good places to observe this; I rather doubt many of those who say it does not matter to them, and that this should be an environment where everyone is expected to be tough and impervious, both taking and giving. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Im confused. Accusation of rudeness may or may not be justified. Dont care. How did the "c" word come up? None of the linked diffs include it? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

the word came up because the use of it has been a prominent example in the manifold recent discussions. To say we should not insult other people by using the word does not mean we should avoid using it frankly when the word itself (or the subject) is the matter being discussed. Accusations of unjustified rudeness are rather common; I said I sometimes receive some after I've deleted an article, no matter what I've actually said. I would never support a rule that we act too strongly on even true rudeness if it's sporadic, but we should act firmly and consistently when it becomes habitual or defiant. DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGG stack

I've closed the AfD and redirected the article to The 4-Hour Body. You commented that there's a possibility for a content merge, feel free to go ahead now. Deryck C. 22:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look after the blackout. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Advice: David.Kane

If you read the findings on David.Kane in WP:ARBR&I, there are specific references with diffs to the reception of the paper of Jensen, "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?" If you have any substantial reasons for my topic ban to be reinstated after arbcom withdrew it on their own initiative, please make your case either at WP:AE or at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

First, I realized on waking up this morning that I ought to retract that sentence, and I will do so. It was more than I should have said , and I apologize for saying it. I thank you for the specific reference. Checking, I see the sentence in the findings on DK that "this editor has placed undue weight on selected research by A. R. Jensen to promote a point of view". I do not think that having an article on this famous paper is undue weight, if treated correctly; but it's not my opinion on that point that matters, but the community , and they expressed it. It is perhaps inappropriate that we do not have an article on many other famous papers, but that is to be dealt with by writing the articles. FWIW, like many people here, I do not consider that arb com has the legitimate authority to make decisions on what subjects a WP article can be written (with the exception of certain BLP situations, and the sort of problem covered by office actions), but that's not at issue here, because they never said an article on this paper could not be written--and that they did not say it indicates either that they too did not think they had any such authority--or that they did not think one could not be written. Though in any case, I do not edit on this subject; it is one of the subjects that I specifically avoid editing to avoid conflict. DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Internet service

I know you said back in December you were trying to get your Internet service worked out so you could restore User:Alden Loveshade/Anaphora Literary Press. Any luck with that? Alden Loveshade (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: new user warning test results available

Hi WP:UWTEST member, we wanted to share a quick update on the status of the project. Here's the skinny:

1. We're happy to say we have a new round of testing results available! Since there are tests on several Wikipedias, we're collecting all results at the project page on Meta. We've also now got some help from Wikimedia Foundation data analyst Ryan Faulkner, and should have more test results in the coming weeks.
2. Last but not least, check out the four tests currently running at the documentation page.

Thanks for your interest, and don't hesitate to drop by the talk page if you have a suggestion or question. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Software notability

"I will say I am not quite comfortable with arguments that the software is notable based on our judgment of whether the features were innovative or important. We don't make such judgments." I agree which I tried explaining to Czarkoff constantly. I would withdraw the Psi nomination, but it feels like it will give him some sort of satisfaction that his view about software is absolutely correct. It will be kept anyway so I will just let it run. SL93 (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Undeletion of the East Turkistan Government in Exile page

Hello Mr. Goodman. A couple of weeks ago, I posted a request for the unredirection of the "East Turkistan Government in Exile" page. You responded supporting its eligibility to have a page of its own. It has almost been two weeks and no administrator has made a decision on restoring the page. I was just wondering if you know how long it usually takes for a procedure like this to reach a conclusion. Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing from you.Tewpiq (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I cannot close a discussion at Deletion Review in which I have commented. Any other admin can of course do so, & I imagine one of the talk page watchers here will do so. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of vote at Articles for deletion/Davenport–Hingis rivalry (2nd nomination)

Hello DGG. I am writing because I noticed you deleted my vote at the linked page without apparent reason [5] I have restored my vote, as I cannot see how it would be prohibited. However if it is in some way invalid, please revert my action. Thanks - Cloudz679 07:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

you are absolutely correct, and I apologize. It was a slip of the mouse on my part, and I've explained further on your talk page. DGG ( talk ) 09:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Wanted to be sure! - Cloudz679 11:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of iCarly episodes

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of iCarly episodes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Bill of Lading

• The copyright violation is clearly seen in the book under the " 5. EDI systems and electronic bills of lading" heading. The sentence, "The use of electronic communication in international commercial transactions has received considerable attention in recent years. The term ELECTRONIC DATA INTERCHANGE is commonly used to designate systems of computer to computer exchange of information in predetermined formats." is directly lifted from the book. I am reinstating the tag, please do not remove it. Gsingh (talk)

thanks for the specification, which you should have given in the first place. . The criterion for G12 is "where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving" Do you assert that? Anyway, someone else seems to have deleted it. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought it was clear but will be more specific next time. Many parts of the article were copied from different sources, if someone is willing to rephrase the entire article it is still available for them. Gsingh (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:CSD. G12 is not supposed to be used for close paraphrasing, or complex cases, but rather they should be listed on WP:copyright problems. Added factors involved here is that one the one hand the material needs more than rephrasing, but considerable reorganization; on the other hand the subject is quite important. This set of added factors usually is what induces me to personally rewrite the article, or at least reduce it to a meaningful stub. (I will do this even when not in my field but where I have sufficient understanding to do a basic article). Tonight, unfortunately, I did not have time tonight to do it. The virtue of copyright problems is that it provides the necessary time to at least stubbify. But you did absolutely right to identify the problem; writing an article in such a pastiche is quite wrong, but beginners often do it. DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, DGG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

SarahStierch (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC).

I replied at m:Research talk:Teahouse, at some length. I appreciate your calling it to my attention, for I rarely have time to look at meta. DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norullah Noori.
Message added 03:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Courcelles 03:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

taking a break

- for a while, David. If there's anything on your mind, you know how to get me. Keep the wheels turning! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

will email you today. DGG ( talk ) 14:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals#International Journal of Communication

Hi David, could you give your opinion at this discussion about the selectivity or lack thereof of Ulrich's? Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Gundred, Countess of Surrey

Would you please look a the above mentioned page? There is a discussion there over a reference. It is at the lowest part of the Section entitled: Request for Comment II. It is not a formal RFC, just a section that was given that name. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Dr. for your comments and advice. I have removed the comment as a "reference" and will leave it up to others as to whether or not they wish to create a "Legends" section. Mugginsx (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I see Administrator/Editor User talk:Nikkimaria has re-inserted the reference, stating in the edit history that your remarks were an "unsupported assertion". (???) Mugginsx (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

as far as editing goes, all editors are equal, and admins have no particular powers. I can of course revert as an ordinary editor. In case of an unsettled dispute, the reliable source noticeboard has the power to make decisions by consensus. DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Secondary school A7

Actually, I had sort of meant it that way originally because it came up via investigating a username vio and it was sort of a commercial post, but you were right to change it ... you know I'm not the sort of editor who questions the notability of secondary schools. I was a little distracted at the time, I seem to recall. Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV

A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Self published books

Hi DGG, seeming as you have previously commented on some books that I am trying to establish whether or not are reliable, would you be able to drop by RSN where I started a discussion? Thanks SmartSE (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

commented, but the problem with the article in question, Criticism of Meher Baba is more pervasive. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"Adoption and Language Development" on my talk page

Hello David,

I am helping a new user who is interested in library matters. I mentioned you on my talk page, and suggested that she may want to ask you a question of two. I just wanted to give you a heads up, and thanks for all that you do here. Take care. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Special Collections Libraries

Hi DGG,

Thank you so much for the advice. As a future librarian I really enjoy hearing from current librarians. I would love to expand into a separate article just on University of Arizona libraries. I will work on the outside research. Do you think that publications such as Arizona Newspapers could work? Also, I work at the libraries. Is it looked down upon to edit or make an article about the place that you personally work at? Another idea I had was editing the Archive page. I was especially interested in the fact that it links to List of film archives and was thinking about trying to make a list for each of the types of archives listed in the article such as corporate, church, non-proft, etc. Again, thank you for the help and I'm excited to contribute to this field. Semccraw (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Disclose any conflict of interest that you may have, make neutral improvement of the encyclopedia your highest priority, and defer to the judgment of disinterested editors. If you follow that guidance, you can work on topics related to your employment. I think that you could work to improve our article on the Center for Creative Photography on your campus. As an Ansel Adams buff, I would love to see that article expanded. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

RFA

Many thanks for your nomination, much appreciated! GiantSnowman 15:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Question regarding credible claim

Does it not qualify that a credible claim has been asserted in stating the article subject had a notable song written about them? [6] My76Strat (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we've ever said so, but since you want to give it a chance, I'll undelete it. I suggest you redirect and merge to the article about the performer, but otherwise, I'll send it to AfD for the community to decide DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that gesture of good faith. I have my doubts that the article will meet notability guidelines but believe it met an initial obligation to assert a credible claim. I think normal editing provides the best recourse from here. Again, thanks. My76Strat (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Post-hypnotic suggestion. Thank you. MSJapan (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The National Student

That page has been a stub page for six years without asserting it's notability. I think that, along with a quick search for websites that mention it (that aren't a result of spam from the website itself), pretty much proves that The National Student is just a tarted up blog UKWikiGuy (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

possibly; not being from the UK, I am not familiar with it. I wonder though what more than a "quick" search could find. The obvious first step is to combine the two articles. DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Derell_McCall

Hey there stranger :-) We both seem to be cleaning out the CSD queue at the same time. Can you have a look at Derell_McCall when you get the chacne? I declined the A7 because while I'm not sure being drafted means he's notable, I think it's enough to avoid an A7. Any ideas? Happy to PROD if I was wrong on this. StarM 01:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

never mind. It has gone to PROD StarM 02:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

as I understand it , the criterion of automatically assumed notability is to actually appear on the field during a regular season game. Just being on th team does not count, but even a few minutes of actual play does count. But for passing A7, I think even being drafted for a major league team is a sufficient assertion of significance. DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Trying to brush up again on the various notability guidelines. Still think there are far too many. Will keep an eye on the article. Couldn't find much coverage of his play on various teams so I'm guessing he'll eventually be deleted. StarM 04:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

In your wealth of spare time

Hey -- haven't "run into" you recently -- hope all's well.

I've been doing some hefty revisions to a few Star Trek-related articles, mostly at Spacecraft in Star Trek and a work-in-progress at User:EEMIV/Starship Enterprise (relative to Starship Enterprise). I've also posed some frustratingly formatted questions at the Wikiproject talk page. Anyhow, regardless of whether you're a fan or knowledgeable about the series, I'd appreciate your input as someone who knows what makes for Good Stuff; you might have some perspective about other subjects (and how they're presented) that might help guide the work I've been doing/square away some of my frustrations with duplication.

So. If you have some time to wade in and offer feedback, I'd appreciate it. Thanks for your consideration; happy editing. --EEMIV (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Laguna State Polytechnic University & possibly copyright violation.

I see where the Duplication Detector report suggests there were no matches, however much of the article appears to be copy/pasted from the University's website. The copyvio template only allows for a single URL and the article in question contains content from multiple individual pages. Here is what I see:

• history appears to be from [7].
• Conversion into a state university appears to be from [8]
• Board of Regents appears to be from [9]
• The second paragraph of University president appears to be from [10]
• Officials of the administration and its subsections of administration council and academic council appears to be from [11]
• Although probably less of an issue since it is a list of degrees, graduate programs appears to come from [12] and undergraduate programs appears to come from [13]
• Vision-Mission statement appears to be taken from text at the right side of every page listed above.

That would leave the campuses table, student council and publications section, and the notable alumni section as not copied from the University's website (that I could tell) and figured that qualified the article for deletion as being an excessive copyright violation. If I was mistaken, my apologies. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks for your careful analysis, which agrees with my own guess of the likely sourcing. I can not get that page on history to load, and I will not delete based on something I cannot see--it seems likely enough, but can easily be rewritten, and, since I often work do subjects like this, I intend to do it tonight or tomorrow. The various section on the administration needed great shortening, which I have started--the remaining part I will need to look at, they probably do need rewriting also, but my guess is that most of the text, being pure boilerplate, can simply be removed. The list of degrees and programs is factual matter which cannot be avoided. It could be resequenced, but the sequencing used is fairly standard, and the wording & the basic organization would necessarily be identical. I'm sure the honorary degrees section is copied from somewhere--it was inappropriate as written in any case, and I've reorganized & shortened into a list of notable alumni. Most of the unlinked people would seem to warrant Wikipedia articles. The mission statement we normally include as a quotation with a reference: it's conventionally accepted content, though personally I regard almost every one I have ever seen as essentially meaningless. All colleges intend to educate students in subject matter and develop their character in the light of social expectations, with the resulting benefit to the community--in the case of a university, just add that it intend to promote research.

I do not think you did at all wrong to tag the article. Even as university articles go, it's pretty awful. But since they all do need an article, it's a choice of deleting or rewriting--those admins not prepared to rewrite could very reasonably choose to delete, but sometime I fix by rewriting. But it certainly needed urgent attention, which it is getting thanks to your efforts. I would not think it right just to decline to delete in cases like this and do nothing further. (Incidentally, quite a few of our better written university articles have an almost equal portion of copyvio or at best close paraphrase, just done more competently--nonprofit institutions in general sometimes have rather careless PR staff. Only a few of the university articles here are handled well by good groups of knowledgable editors. I've no doubt many other fields are equally poorly served, but this is the area I know best & can consequently recognize the problems.) DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)