User talk:DGG/Archive 8 Sept. 2007

RE: The Truth i numbers article

Hi. I've just noticed that the article discussed for deletion wasn't mine(from september) but one from April of this year. Any idea when I may know whether my article is going to be deleted or not?

tnx

U5K0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by U5K0 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What's your view? Notability

You had some insightful observations along the way during the recent excitement at WP:N, so I was curious as to your thoughts on the developments.--Kubigula (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. We haven't hit an impasse recently - things seems to be moving along pretty constructively. In fact, it's been almost too collegial and constructive; I half expect villagers with torches at any moment.--Kubigula (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Your username

Hey, I noticed the note at the top of your userpage. Since User:David Goodman hasn't ever made any edits, I think you can have your username changed (and your edit attributions changed along with) here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I think that may have been me, and I lost the password. But since I seem to be known around here as DGG by now, maybe it's simpler to stay put--though I could still use it in the sig. let me think about it. DGG (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you'd like to do. I just thought I'd bring it to your attention, after I saw you around AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahiram (King of Byblos)

Well done! -- Avi 03:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Input needed

I have written Earlbaum associates for permission. I do not understand what to do with it once I get it. How do use a GFDL license?

User:mlcommons 19:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC) What article are you asking about? As a general answer, see WP:Copyright. DGG (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment

Thank you for your comment on my RfA, which was successful. I have a lot of respect for you from encountering you at AfD, and it meant a lot to me to see your support. Lyrl^Talk _C 01:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Prods

There is no clear notability std for British footballers, so rather than taking unilateral action and just say 5 days have passed and deleting them, it is better to bring them to afd and let those whose standards differ on their notability hash it out. Or would you support prod deletes in areas of questionable notability areas? Carlossuarez46 21:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, it's still a learning experience - and I do welcome your critiques and questions. Even though we often disagree I still admire you - your civility and willingness to discuss things constructively are rare indeed. For better and worse there are enough gray areas that if we put things into afd perhaps they'll become clearer. Still let me know if you find a German article wanting translation - I did a Spanish one recently incorrectly tagged A2 (it didn't have a counterpart on es.wiki). Carlossuarez46 21:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• I'll keep that in mind next time, I also considered doing all of the football (soccer) people together but those group noms tend not to find consensus one way or another. You working your way through the speedies? Carlossuarez46 21:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevance mediation

If you'd like to join the mediation, I believe you should post a formal acceptance of the case's mediator at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-16 Relevance of content#Mediator notes so that the case can get under way. Thanks.--Father Goose 04:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability of schools

I should welcome your comments on User:TerriersFan/Schools that should be made on the talk page of that page. To start the ball rolling I'm alerting you and User:Alansohn but views from anyone else are, of course, welcome. TerriersFan 00:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

True origins

I made some clarification on the definition of the aims of the project after some good input from some editors passing by, I also added links to the banners and created a page of guidelines to reliable sources. I think that the aims are more clear now but I could really appreciate your opinion when you have the time, I am going now and come back tomorrow, no hurry. If you think it should be reverted to how it was before please let me know, you have abundant experience Thanks Jenny^Len 00:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Fictional Q-ships

Thanks for your support and encouragement, though I believe that deletion is a sure thing now. Playground politicking and lawyering isn't what attracts me to Wikipedia, so I've never had to face this clique of users before, I really don't know how anyone can convince them from their self appointed mission. Live and let live just doesn't seem to be in their nature.KTo288 14:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC) advice on your talk page. -DGG

what wikipedia is not

In response to your recent non-deletion of world's largest airlines I ask you, what's the point of having what wikipedia is not, if it doesn't define what wikipedia is not? Pdbailey 23:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Some lists are encyclopedic, some are not encyclopedic. We'll see what the community thinks on this one, that's what AfD is for. DGG.

could you help me reformat it and reopen it? I thought I had used the template right but was apparently unable to get it to work. I was looking to object based on, WP:NOT#STATS which reads, "Statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readibility and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic. Infoboxes or tables should also be considered to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists."Pdbailey 16:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I can repost it for you, but I urge to to reconsider. It did get listed at AfD, but without a reason given--and in consequence, it was speedy-kept. But it was kept not only because of that but because of the comments of several other editors besides myself--and good editors-- about the merit of the article. Consider that it was already in the form of several structured tables, and a key word in the paragraph you quote is "may". Many such tables should be and are deleted--and I have voted to delete in many instances-- but some are kept. This is, quite honestly, one of the better ones. Even if you disagree, it is not really that likely to get deleted. See the discussion.DGG (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw only two editors comment on the merits that I was criticizing, and I think the lack of reason was harmful. I just relisted it and BillCJ took it off claiming that you can't relist. I see no ground for not giving me 24 hours to give a reason since I'm not an anon editor and assume good faith would appear to suggest i be given a chance, but the good faith assumption appears to be out the window (I'm not trying to imply that you are not assuming good faith, you have been an exemplary editor on this topic). Pdbailey 17:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. Now I hope the process can run it's course and if it's a "keep," at least the nomination will have had a reason to consider and the discussion will have been allowed 5 days. Pdbailey 17:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm still having a hard time with this, and since your an admin, I figure you probably know what I should be doing. First, does it matter that it isn't listed on the page after it was removed? Second, did I list it right on it's page [1] and on the articles for deletion page [2]? Thanks for any help! Pdbailey 21:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I figured it out the linking amongst the deletion pages for myself, sorry to bother you. Pdbailey 22:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, and now another editor re-added the link to the deletion discussion, so that's taken care of too. FYI, I asked you a question over at the deletion page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World's largest airlines (2nd nomination). I mention because I don't think it's typical, but I don't know. Pdbailey 13:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A question for you: User Cats

This is not intended to be as nasty as it will sound, so please keep that disclaimer in mind when I ask you:

Have you ever voted to delete a user category?

As I said, I am not trying to attack you, or to impugn your motives, but I cannot ever recall you advocating the deletion of a user category in UCfD, and I have seen you support the retention of some categories that I simply cannot fathom any possible value in retaining (which speaks to a fundamental difference in our philosophies). Do you believe that there are user categories that should not exist, or are you of the belief that almost anything goes, short of outright attacks towards others? I really am curious, because while I generally believe in deletion of marginal cats, I sometimes vote to keep them, because I see collaborative potential in them. I'm curious if the reverse is true for you. Horologium t-c 03:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• I accept your question as reasonable, and I never think it wrong for someone to ask me to justify what I do. Normally at UCfD there are almost unanimous votes for deletion of most of the categories. I don;t see the point of piling on. Nor do I vote to keep all or even most.--I vote on very few where there is in my opinion some chance of making a difference or at least a protest. For example, most of the language merges this weekend to group xxx-1,2,3,and 4 into xxx are very good ideas, but my support is hardly needed--they will go through if nobody objects.

If you will look at my user page, i list myself in very very few, and only those which I think necessary for the sort of work I do. For example, I know some foreign languages a bit, but anyone who relies on me for translation would not be well advised. Others can decide differently. The longer I'm here, the more tolerant of other people I become--I thought I was pretty much so before, but I have really had my eyes opened to my limitations, one of the great things about WP.

There is no easy way to see my contributions on specific topics--enWP hasnt activated that feature, so I can't check my record. I think I have said to delete in a few cases of really unpleasantly divisive politically nationalistic categories and the like, but there seem to be almost none of them left. There is a difference in our overall approach--I would only eliminate those that need to be eliminated, and keep all the others. I ask you, why not? There's more overhead in running UCfD than in having the excess categories.

this is very much of a side issue for me--my main concern is keeping article content of interest to small groups but not actually harmful. So it's sort of a by-product. At AfD also, my !votes are keep about 4 to 1, though perhaps 80% of the stuff that goes there needs deletion--it gets deleted perfectly well without me, and I'd rather work on the items that need work one way or another. DGG (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I had noted your selective participation in discussions, but was not sure if there was a pattern, or if you only discussed categories for which you had strong feelings. I confine myself to UCfD (for the most part) because I find the other discussions to become deletionist/inclusionist wars; cleaning up user cats is far less binary than that, and improves the clarity and ease of navigation when trying to find appropriate categories. (It's a lot easier to find what one is looking for in a list of 20 appropriate categories, as opposed a list of 100—20 appropriate categories, 20 frivolous categories, 20 support/oppose categories, 20 categories that focus on a single subject or aspect of a subject, and 20 that belong elsewhere in the user cat tree.) That last is a big sticking point for me, as there are too many categories that are subcats of multiple parents, which is a good idea in article space, but less so in user space. The recent discussion about the programming categories is an example; those languages are in Category:Wikipedians by language, Category:Wikipedians by software and Category:Wikipedians by skill. I'll stop now, before this becomes an expository on your page. (smile) Horologium t-c 13:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Rationalizing category trees, in user space or mainspace, is one thing I very much support. The problem of organizing things here is substantial, and the current efforts inadequate. When I came here I thought that as a librarian I'd work on it a little, but my priorities developed differently. Your example is interesting--what I would do is put it into one of them with cross references from the other. I'll support moves like that. Frankly, I am in favor of support/oppose when it relates to WP questions, though I have been known to list myself on both sides. My views on politics and the like are changing--I think I'm getting more supportive of forthright declarations of biases and allegiances. DGG (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for disclosing biases; my userpage clearly spells out (both in prose and through a userbox) where my political views lie, and I also disclose (via prose and userboxen) where I live and have lived, where I have visited, what language I speak, a few of my views on grammar, and what job I held for 20 years. However, with the exception of the bare-bones language (not a regional cat, just "English") and location (nation and state) cats, I don't have user cats for all of that (and in fact I edited one of my userboxes to eliminate the cat, and nominated a group of cats associated with one of the other userboxes for deletion). Part of that is another personal trait: I prefer to be identified as an individual, not as a member of some larger group. If someone wants to contact me for editorial collaboration, I want it to be based on my contributions, not an arbitrary membership of a group. However, I am not hostile to the concept of others using such group identifications as they see fit; I just want to keep it manageable and rational. Horologium t-c 23:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I personally use almost none, except sometimes to highlight a particular WikiProject. My reasons are pretty much the same as yours. DGG (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: TORIG

DGG, I'm not sure if you saw my reply to your question regarding the True Origins project; here's a link to it. I hope it at least speaks to the gist of your inquiry. Antelan ^talk 03:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello DGG, I accidentally saw your message to Antelan. She did not created the project, Daoken did and he is nothing of "Paranormal" he has to do with organizations mostly just that he probably has been so busy setting up the whole thing that is not editing for TORIG yet. Anyhow, your comment was a good call I think, I left the following message at TORIG:

I have seen a comment from a respected sysop that True Origins seems to be focusing in some areas. Obviously not, as I can see open tasks as far as "Road", "SpaceFlight", "Takemusu", "Water Memory", and medical articles. Perhaps because more resistance has been found on "paranormal" related articles, was more concentration on those ones or perhaps because many members have medical backgrounds there was some focus on medicine related articles. This is not abnormal at all and time must be given as obviously each member edits better in his/her own areas of expertise. Just an early warning call to open the targeting scope a bit more guys, this is a very important and interesting project and many will dislike us because we will challenge their legitimacy when not well referenced so be ready for some bad reactions and don't give any reason for been seen in any other way than neutral and multidisciplinary. Just wanted to say my opinion Jenny^Len 09:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello DGG. I am who created the True origins WikiProject, remember that I welcomed you ? The project is truly multidisciplinary, there is not a preference for any area. It may seem that "Paranormal" articles have more resistance to be challenged to provide accurate information and therefore those editions may call more attention. It also happens that a few of our members are of an specific background and have tendency to revise articles within their fields, that is a normal tendency but nothing that I can see it needs more addressing of what Jennylen has already done. I appreciate your opinion and hope you start to actively participate soon Daoken 14:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to see there are some more ambitious plans. I suggest you not use the word challenge in any context. You are simply out to improve the content of some complicated articles so it shows more accurately the history and nature of the topic discussed. BTW, I'm not sure you picked the best name. "true origins" is so non-descriptive that it might be thought to imply some sort of a hidden agenda. I'm trying to think of a better, but it will of course imply my own view of what 'sneeded. This should now be continued at the project talk page. DGG (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There are not plans, but already realities :) Challenge is one of the many abused words unfortunately, what it means is not what you seem to understand, each time you ask for something, you are challenging for an answer, maybe my profession carries me to use words in another meaning than you are used to, anyhow, it is not a word I use at discretion and widely but only in conversation with whom I think is a friendly party.

I know perfectly what the project is about, it is simply about improving the accuracy of historical references and claims,and if possible to promote the use of such citations, simple and straight. True origins is so descriptive that scares some because they assume it is too penetrating, and they wonder why?

The true origin of something cannot be more direct and easy to understand, it is simply the true origin of something nothing too complicated or obscure.

I would like to know the reason why you joined, is it for a better look or for curiosity or for actively be involved? I was waiting for you become an active member but instead I see a different attitude, it sincerely surprises me.

I invite you to exchange ideas at the talk page of the project as you proposed, I replied here for the sake of continuance, now we can meet there when you may feel for visiting. Thank you for your opinion, it is always welcome. Daoken 20:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Afterthought: What you say seems to tell me that you have not been at the project for awhile, please do visit and read all the info.Daoken 20:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

comment--will comment there, but I think something is necessary here. I joined for two reasons--first, because I am very interested in improving the accuracy of the material on traditional academic subjects, including history. Second, because I often join maintenance projects to see what is going on--I have (like others) joined projects aimed at inclusionism and at deletionism, because both approaches have merit but can be taken too far. Sometime I can help coordinate the work with what is going on elsewhere. In practice the articles I work on are those immediately challenged at AfD--and the procedure there is unfortunately very much a challenge. If I have more time. I look at some newly submitted ones of interest to try to get a least minimal sourcing. And I try to work on a few where there are interesting discussions of he nature of sourcing, or where I otherwise can make some particular conribution. I do wish I had time to do much more actual writing in article space about the things that interest me, rather than rescue.And there are some specific things I can help with. But to some extent Im here to give advice, such as that your definition of primary and secondary sources is totally discordant with the one at WP:RS. Anyone who does not like my suggestions tis free to ignore them. My advice is that in general in pays to go very slowly and carefully with new projects. DGG (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:TORIG is now WP:TIMETRACE

WikiProject True Origins WP:TORIG is now WikiProject Timeline Tracer WP:TIMETRACE also WP:TIMET. This follows many opinions that teh previous name of the project could confuse or provide negative feelings in some users. Daoken 02:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

good choice.DGG (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks hope it serves well Daoken 02:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

non-refernced biographies

Please see my rationale here.

You stated: "Several other editors have noticed similar articles prodded without justification."

After reading my rationale above, could you please tell me how you can say that I don't have justification?

You also stated: "being the member of a national team in any sport is notable". Again, I'm not questioning notabilty. Anyone can put an article up here stating that "Joe Blow" is a member of the Antartic National Volleyball team. My issue is - if it's so - then prove it. Theoretically I could put up an article tomorrow claiming that I'm a member of the US National Ski team, unsourced, and that's OK? A person coming to Wikipedia for facts shouldn't have to be going to a dozen other sources to prove what's on a page here. The source should be in the article itself.

You stated: "Unreferenced is quite clearly not a reason for deletion, either by prof or afd or any other method."

This statement goes directly against Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Notability (people), and specifically Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. "Unsourced' or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles." You may point out this is simply for "contentious" material, however "contentious" doensn't just mean controversial, it can also mean "contested", "the ability to being contested" (or in a broader sense,; litigated; litigious; having power to decide controversy).

You stated: The criterion is "unsourcable", not unsourced. Please see WP:Deletion policy.

If you're referring to "content not verifiable in a reliable source" I beleive that the others that refer specifically to biographical articles (as above) give more detailed and specific rationale that states quite clearly that for biographies the cirterion is "verifiable sources".

You stated: "the rationale for proposed deletion is an article which clearly would be deleted if taken to afd, but which you think nobody is working on or will defend."

WP:DP "An editor who believes a page obviously and uncontroversially doesn't belong in an encyclopedia can propose its deletion. These pages can be deleted by any administrator if, after five days, nobody objects to the proposed deletion." I do believe that these pages obviously voilate several policies & guidelines and should not be herein. The prod gives the author & others ample time to correct the lack of sources.

You stated: "The thing to do with articles lacking references is to try to find references for them..."

I again refer you here

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons clearly states, "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia... rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." It's not the reader's responsibility (or mine) to go and research articles for verifiability and sources - it's the editor (or article creator). SkierRMH 19:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember that I deprodded only a few of your tags. For almost all, which were articles that I thought clearly would not make it, I left them--and would have tagged them myself. I also mention that I was by no means the only one disagreeing with some of those tags.

I doubt we will convince each other, so I'll save the detailed arguments for a more public place. But to put it simply, I do not think the consensus at WP agrees with your interpretations. And why should it? How does it improves the encyclopedia to delete instead of source when sourcing is trivial? Such tagging simply makes more work for everyone. Basic sourcing is usually rather quick for most contemporary subjects. I always thought it part of my obligation here as an editor is not to try to delete or to keep articles on the basis of formal details, but to see if the subject of the article was in fact likely to be notable and sourceable. Despite what some think, my aim is not to keep as much as possible, but to do in each case what was appropriate for the ultimate content of WP. My deletion log shows I am not the least reluctant to delete as an admin--I remove several hundred a month. Yes, the rules are sufficiently contradictory that one can play a Wizards' duel, otherwise known as wikilawyering, countering each rule with an opposite. There are after all a great many articles for which with ingenuity one could find an acceptable reason either to delete, or to keep. The main principle--more fundamental than any of the other policies-- is that we are here to build an encyclopedia. Often that means deleting clearly unencyclopedic material. But for subjects that might be acceptable, it means keeping the articles and adding sources. Deletion is the last resort. DGG (talk) 04:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:TIMETRACE has been enhanced, give a look

WikiProject Timeline Tracer has been greatly enhanced with Guidelines and Strategy as well as many alternatives which will make your editions more easy to target, easier to tag or comment and much more. Please go to WP:TIMETRACE, give a look in the new tools and get busy helping articles. Remember that this WikiProject is helping the backbone (beyond content) of all articles , Reliable Sources and Verification. Thank you for participating Daoken 11:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Business Wire

Thanks for the feedback and education on editing guidelines. As I'm a representative of Business Wire, I'll limit my comments and suggestions to the discussion page of the site going forward to honor the COI guidelines. Becktold 21:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)becktold

Generational Dynamics

Thanks for the tip on the speedy delete. I'm still pretty new at all of this, and appreciate the kind help. I feel very happy that the whole generations thing is moving along. I don't see the defenders of Strauss and Howe stepping up, so I think we're in the clear. --Dylanfly 22:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Generational Dynamics is not part of the Strauss and Howe nonsense. Although he mentions them, it seems to be the personal promotion page of John Xenakis (who, technically, has a book). How that page lasted one year is beyond me. I guess I'm saying I think a Speedy Delete is okay on this silly page. Follow the links to the man's promotional website and you'll get the drift. This isn't a "book" in the sense of Generations. --Dylanfly 22:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

DGG, the article was deleted before I could pool together my resources. What would you suggest? Thanks MichaelEaston10 13:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Adivce on your user talk page -DGGDGG (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

prod problem

Hi DGG, how are you? I recently prodded the article Rat-Cha, and the prod duly expired. Normally, an admin would have just deleted it the article and that would have been that. However, before the backlog could be dealt with (or whatever prevented it) an IP removed the already expired prod from the article. I asked the admin who closed the cat of that date's prods if he could delete the article, considering that the template says the article may be deleted at any time after the prod expired. He simply informed me tersely on my talk page that "once a prod has been removed, it doesn't go back on. Take it to AFD." I had just prodded, and then dutifully brought to AFD the contested prods, of at least 5 other articles in the same date. I find being treated so quite appalling, considering I'm no newb trying to revert to a contested prod still in the waiting period. VanTucky ^(talk) 04:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Such are indeed the rules, and WP:PROD is clear about it. Prods only work for uncontested deletions--if they turn out to be contested, then afd is the way to deal with them. Even after they have been deleted, any admin is supposed to restore the articles at the request of any user--so even had you moved faster, the same process would have occurred. There has just been on Deletion Review a case re-stating clearly that restoration of a deleted prod does not have to go to deletion review, but will be done on request. I'm not qualified to comment on breeds of dogs, but I do recall that deletions of most such articles are contested in good faith & have to be discussed on the merits. Just send it on to Afd--if you are right, it will be deleted easily enough. At least there will be the consolation that after an AfD it can then be speedied if re-created. DGG (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Hello! I read your post in the discussion about Dawn of the Dead. Anyway, I've found many of my conversations with you to be respectable and as you can tell, I am to a large degree just outraged about the whole ANI thing, especially since it followed what I perceived as somewhat harassment from Eyrian (i.e. two editors with similar habits going after me unjustifiably) and it just raised my suspicions level greatly. Anyway, I posted a reply to your comment and would be more than happy to focus on the article at hand and if the illegitimate accusations leveled against me are retracted, I certainly would be entirely okay with striking the more accusatory posts from that discussion as well. I am alwasy open-minded to acceptable compromises and paths that are constructive; I just had enough of the nonsense that had come my way. If you have any additional advice, I am of course receptive. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

once things get to this point, the best course is just to keep the peace and hope the other people will also--insisting on withdrawal of each others accusations usually inflames the controversy, as does bring a third party into it. Corpx is correct. Dont feed the flames. If I had ever said anything like this, I would just straight-out apologize. Channel frustration into good arguments on the merits of the articles being discussed, as you did later on in the discussion. DGG (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. It just irritated me that I would get "reported" when some editors used similar tactics in those things and seem to be ignored. I'll send a positive gesture Corpx's way. Maybe if we can work on something amicably together, we'll get along better in deletion discussions? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

yes, but you will have to always think twice about what you post. A useful thing here as in many other contexts is to write, but not post until the following day--after reconsidering. It's kept me out of a lot of trouble myself ;). Another useful thing to consider is to limit exchanges--after 1 statement and a follow up, there is rarely much point in continuing the same line--if you have not made your view clear by then, further rounds won't add much. DGG (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikicrats

Could you look at this discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pcirrus and reinstate an article I wrote. Pcirrus 22:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC) (now a redirect, a reasonable solution-DGG)

==Should we delete this list== Some people are selective they would like to see only lists of their own domination, what do u think does this list warrant deletion or should we let it stay?[3]--יודל 13:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC).

Sorry to bother you

I am really sorry to bother you but I don't know any other administrator, I don't know you also but I know you are an administrator because you are in the list of a project I was helping. I could like to know if you can tell me what I can do in my ordeal, here is the story: (details in edit history) If you can answer anything please send me a mail because they have blocked me even the talk page. Thank you in one way or other you decide to act. Vanished user 18:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as i can tell, that organization is not likely to be of any

constructive use. I strongly suggest you withdraw ALL pending legal actions, and e-mail unblock-en-l at lists dot wikimedia dot org, as Nick suggested. Whether or not you intended to include the user mentioned, he has in fact been notified by them that he is included. DGG (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC) (further details in edit history)

List of Akatsuki members

The List of Akatsuki members AfD you participated in has been brought to deletion review here. Please take a look if you're interested. I'm guessing you saw the DRV already, but since I'm notifying the other AfD participants I reckon I shouldn't leave anyone out! — xDanielx ^T/_C 19:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

London streets

Have replied on my talk page so anyone coming to me with a similar point can see my answer — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curzon Street

Can you please revisit this discussion. I have done some digging and have found that the street has a very prestigious history, which I have added to the article, including several references. I believe the page is now of a quality whereby it should be kept. -- Roleplayer 22:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Requesting help

Hi DGG, I wondered if I could ask for your help with an article. I am trying to improve the article on Kevin Eggan, the Harvard researcher who developed a method of creating stem cells from skin. He was profiled by Nature, and has been written about in nearly every newspaper in the country (literally, a Nexis search reveals 486 articles), because his breakthrough reshaped the debate on embryonic stem cells. I'm at a bit of a loss on how to defend this article any further. As you have a more academic background and more familiarity with WP:PROF than I do, your help with this article, if you have the time, would be greatly appreciated. --JayHenry 00:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC) (some info added--DGG)

Response

Howdy! I've responded to a comment of yours on the DRV for Flyaow. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No response? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

responded there--sorry for the delayDGG (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Dowell Myers

The sources listed in the Dowell Myers article seem to be mostly from his own shop, the type of sources that are not considered reliable. The few others, including the one that I added from Multi-Housing News, support very narrow points. Could you support on the Dowell Myers discussion page your statement that the sources for the Dowell Myers article are sufficient? Thanks. --Bejnar 22:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi this is BPRoy

Did you check the year? What was that 2004? 2005? Those articles have probably been deleted. I don't remember, but I think some of those 'fake articles' were identified by the other people on that chat page. I haven't made one of those kinds of articles in two years, so I don't remember. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BPRoy (talk • contribs) 00:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language proposal at MOS talk

Hi, thanks for you input. I've removed "artificial" from the draft. "Singular they" has gone in and out and in and out (not my doing), but I may well remove it when it comes to interpreting the debate. At this stage, I wonder whether you feel able to offer support, partial support, or remain neutral, or would like to object. Perhaps you could provide two answers: with and without the singular they clause. Thanks. Tony 06:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I regret that I still cannot support--see my discussion there. Essentially its not just this, but that I find much of the mOS to be excessively rigid. Just my view. DGG (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

Light crossposting is acceptable, but when the crossposting specifically targets editors whose position is expected to result in one side, and does not inform editors whose positions can be expected to disagree, that becomes too much like canvassing, I am afraid. -- Avi 14:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I can only judge really the effect on myself; the editor had notified me, an editor who had disagreed with him and said delete. I took another look, and decided to support on the merits of the improved article and the subsequent arguments --otherwise I would probably not have revisited the discussion and seen the additional material. That's the proper and desired result of notifying people. This could not even have been expected--most of the time when asked to revisit I find my earlier views confirmed.DGG (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, thank you. -- Avi 20:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

AfDs

Thanks for your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hague Justice Portal. I think an AfD can be notice to people who care to improve artciles per WP:HEY. P.S. I have put off an RfA for myself for a few more weeks. Bearian 19:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Biography (Science and academia) issue

Hi DGG. Saw your user name at WikiProject Biography Science and academia: I was wondering if you may be able to assist with a quick look at this issue: Talk:Mike_Morris#Usenet. Thought I'd ask for your input before bringing this up for verification at BLP--I'm a bit concerned since this involves what seems to be (at least without verification) like unsubstantiated speculations in a biography of a living person. Thanks in advance. All the best, Afv2006 02:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

CSBot and disambigs

I've just left a note on CSBot's talk page about the disambig bit. — Coren ^(talk) 02:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Burials at Brookside Cemetery, Englewood

I have replied at the AfD, since I think you made a mistake in your comment there: there is no guideline, despite what Alansohn claims, but only a never used style guide. You are of course free to maintain your "keep" opinion, but the reason you gave is incorrect. Fram 07:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments Please

Could you please have look at this when you get a chance. Cheers. Twenty Years 09:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA questions

Hi DGG. I'm disappointed to see my question deleted unilaterally on the RfA page, when I was trying to be as straightforward as I can on a hot-button topic. There's no need to escalate it to an edit conflict. If you continue to disagree with my judgment, you may use the answer section on that page, or discuss with me on my talk page. Let's have a civil discussion. Thank you. Xiner (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you were an Admin involved in this...

I would like to bother u and ask u to clean my name, he says that some unethical suspicions are raised because of my latest edits regarding the messianic articles, since smoke is a sign of fire, i beg u please help me to set straight my record. I promise u that i do not have 2 user names in any shape or form, u can check that all my edits have only one ip address and User:Yidisheryid is the only name used of that ip adress. [4]. Thanks--יודל 16:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Stuart Dauermann

There is an attempt currently under way to delete Stuart Dauermanns biography, i understand that much info is based on sites fond of his work, but this man seems very prominent and notable in those circles as the Google Results make the impression, can u help save it? by correcting the problems if u find some on it. Thanks--יודל 22:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

 

Small-world Experiment page

I recently learned that the Small-world Experiment page is scheduled to be reverted over possible copyright violation issues. As the person responsible for the suspected copyright infringement, I have posted a clarification on the talk page. Hopefully this clears up the issue. For further clarification, you are welcome to contact me. --Jerfgoke 20:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC) I've replied at length to your question about this on the article talk page Talk:Small world experiment. Please also see [5] for how I proposed to deal with this. DGG (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

re:hadith

Yo, got your message man. Anyway, I see where you're coming from as far as improving the articles. For the time being, I would recommend reading this archived discussion as any points I could make were already done to death in there. As far as substantial later literature on each hadith, that could be said for almost every hadith ever recorded. The issue is, I don't think those are any more notable that say, hadith about where to place your arms after coming up from rukoo or length of a woman's idda after divorcing during her period; making an article about individual hadith almost seems a bit excessive. The ones I nominated are a good example; if we were to remove all the original research, there would be so little (or maybe none at all) content that it would make more sense to me to just merge is with existing Sunni-Shi'a relation articles. Regardless, I respect the clarity with which you've addressed the issue and if you feel strongly then i'll defer on those articles you remove the prod on. Please let me know what you think and thank you for coming directly to me with this. MezzoMezzo 14:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, this is not my own intellectual tradition--I know much more about the Christian and the Jewish literature--and I think the hadith correspond most closely to the sugya of the Talmud; there are no present plans as far as I know to do them all, but I think it would be possible and even beneficial. There wouldn't really be enough detailed commentary in English except for some portions, though there certainly is in Hebrew. I think the really best approach to the Hadith is to eventually do them all, but do them better and do those of most general interest to users of the English wikipedia first. Surely there is modern commentary? Surely there is more traditional commentary than the few ones cited? There may not be enough in English for hem all, but there should be some, and key parts can be translated. Which should be done? I think there is interest in the ones relating to the origin of the split between the Sunni and the Shi'a--most English readers are now very well aware of the different traditions. How to organize them is a problem I cannot deal with in detail; I agree with you that they could probably be merged--but I think not into the general articles, where they will get lost. But the important thing is not how the articles are divided, but what they contain. I recognize the utility of quotations for the exact statement of the traditional views--we are hardly likely to improve on them. But of course they should be shortened, and connected by explanation, and by detailed citation of the modern views. I however would not be competent for this--except perhaps for some obvious shortening. I similarly think there is general interest in the ones on relations with non-Muslims. The ones on sexuality and the status of women are also of some more general interest in regard to the interest being taken in the liberal tendencies within Islam. I can see though why they might be considered more controversial--more specifically focused on maintaining or justifying a point of view. (and similarly with the ones on criminal law). Personally, I'd like to see more extended discussion of the Muslim views on finance and banking. I appreciate your flexibility, and I will go back over the ones I've been examining with a closer attention to relative importance and priority. I may put back some prods. But then I leave it to you and the others who have the necessary knowledge to improve them. DGG (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I see I promised a little more than I can perform--I cannot myself sort them out--I can only de-prod them all, (except for he ones that seem to deal only with the relationship of the two pilgrimages, which I do not see being of general interest), and I suggest that you figure out how best to merge them: I would suggest as "Hadith related to sunni/shi'a" for example, with redirects from the names of the individual ones. there is certainly too much overlap to keep them all separately. DGG (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh I get it, just dump it all on me now, lol. I see what you're saying with the merge though, at least preserve them. I'm a bit caught up in a conflict of sorts right now, as i'm currently being stalked and harassed by a group of sockpuppet accounts and IPs and, until I can get some sort of response from site admins, there's not a lot I can help with right now. I'll make a deal with you, once I get this sorted out i'll come back here and we can try to formulate a plan on how to best deal with this - leaving the discussion open to anyone else who wants to help, of course. Let me know what you think. P.S. You may want to archive your talk page because it's mad long. MezzoMezzo 16:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a workgroup (also called a task force--see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces )on Hadith. The advantage of using that route is that the decisions of such groups are taken quite seriously as suggested guidelines. I'll be glad to observe, but I do not know the literature well enough to contribute.DGG (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ironman Live

Hello, DGG ... I'm having a problem with a vandal on the article Ironman Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ... Chriscross79 (talk · contribs) has only edited this article, and keeps reverting my reverts ... thnx for any assistance, and yes, I was going to tag it for deletion earlier, but it sorta improved, so I backed off. —72.75.74.236 (talk · contribs) 22:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

ANI I just started

User Dannicali just insulted myself, Mandsford, and others (I'm not sure if he mentioned your specifically, but if not, then it may be implied) and so I started a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility_by_User:Dannycali. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

when people say foolish things, let them. Ignore them and say sensible ones. My advice is not to waste time with this but instead to find some good sources and add them, like you did before. we have enough work defending the articles. show how foolish the objections are by improving t he articles to a degree that is beyond reproach--it is the only thing that matters. IAI=Ignore all Insults. (my own policy) . DGG (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay and thank you for the encouragement and reply. I just thought he should be reminded to keep civil and sign posts and I felt that if I just said that, I'd be ignored. Thanks again! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Let other people remind him to sign posts. someone always will -- and in fact, someone did before you got there. DGG (talk) 06:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there may be larger issues with that editor, though. He apparently has some history of being warned for incivility and even tried to edit the Vince McMahon article to say that he died even though it was part of a storyline! I'll update the ANI thread accordingly with diffs. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI - September 2007

The September 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 09:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Shraga Hager

Hi, there is currently a discussion about the notability of Rabbi Shraga Hager your insight on this would greatly be appreciated[6]. Have a beautiful day--יודל 13:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Generational Dynamics?

Didn't Generational Dynamics get slated for deletion? It was restored, sans flags. Very suspicious. Any clues? Cheers, --Smilo Don 15:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

there are multiple overlapping processes. it was first changed to a redirect to Generation dynamics (lower case d) Generational dynamics was then deleted (and we will get into that next); GD was then deleted as a redirect to a nonexistent page. It was then restored by User:MIchael Easton10. You then flagged it for speedy delete as not notable, which is not the way to go, -- one can not use speedy-NN for either a book or a theory. No admin has been willing to delete it on those grounds, & I have removed that tag accordingly.

As for Gd (lower case). It was proposed for deletion, and then deleted by another admin as G11, advertising. Personally I do not think that was really a suitable basis, for it was fixable, and if it had been complained against it might well have been overturned at Deletion Review. But anyone can recreate a speedy deleted article if they improve it sufficiently, so it was not wrong of the editor involved to try. I don't think he fixed it enough. I left a rather long note on the talk page there advising what was needed, and saying I was not sure it would be possible to improve it enough to pass notability.

I would give him a few days to try and then proceed in one of two ways: either yourself reduce it to measure, as a short article about the book, or send it to AfD. If it is deleted there it will be deleted definitively, and can be speedy deleted if reconstructed even if using another name. DGG (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/300-page iPhone bill

I know this is a subject of interest to you, so I would appreciate your opinion of whether or not you think this is a case of closing against consensus. It is now at DRV Dhaluza 23:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC) got there first (smile)DGG (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Blue Lady

Just curious. If CSD isn't appropriate, wouldn't a redirect to SS France (1961)#SS_Blue_Lady be? Into The Fray ^T/C 00:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

quite possibly, but hard to tell till they write it. If not improved in 2 weeks, feel free to redirect.DGG (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Good deal. Thanks for the guidance, sometimes I'm not clear. Into The Fray ^T/C 00:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Note

You might have asked me (or MastCell) first before claiming that there was off-wiki discussion. In fact, the entirety of the discussion occurred on MastCell's talk page because we edit-conflicted on the close. I agree on the need for transparency on-wiki, which is why I find being called out for something I did not do all the more troubling. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking again at it, you are correct, I over-reacted, and i fully apologize. I'll fix my comments at the Deletion Review. 01:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. Mackensen (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of others' comments

I'm a bit puzzled as to why you appear to have deleted others' comments from a Talk page. Can you please help me understand what happened? Thanks! --ElKevbo 04:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Carelessness, of course. I fixed it, & thanks for spotting my dumb mistake. DGG (talk)

Thanks

Thanks for your help regarding the "Catherine Grand" article. --ŴôôDéļf 12:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Retirement

My retirement is over. I realized that I can still save the trivia. Hey, if Mario returned from retirement, I can to. --Alien joe 19:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I again repeat that I hope you'll make a come back as I think you are an asset to this site. :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested for deleted Fair Use justification

Hi David, please would you be so kind as to retrieve the Fair Use justification on deleted Image:Davewong.jpg? Thanks, Fayenatic (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that quick help. Now that I've left that for her reference, I hope the deleting admin will explain where it fell short, 'cos I thought it was all right! Fayenatic (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Class projects

Yeah, but I thought what we were supposed to encourage was class projects to work on new or existing real articles, not articles called "English Department Wiki Project" and the like. NawlinWiki 00:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Got it -- what you are talking about makes sense. Thanks, NawlinWiki 00:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Using Film to Teach Literature

Sorry, but I don't see anything on WP:WPCC about this page. Could you please explain why this page should not be re-deleted the same way the first one was ("g6 wp:not for use for classes" - NawlinWiki)? Thanks. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 01:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Sorry for being hasty. Hope everything works out okay. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 02:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

William Stewart Agras

Your point is well taken on my part. However, the publications list is a "publish or perish" smörgåsbord that would make any professor proud and the lack of interest by other editors speaks to his notability. Life is too short for Afd. Thanks for your interest in my edits. It keeps me honest. Happy editing! --Stormbay 02:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Milky Way

Hi, I have a question about page moves. The contributors at Milky Way have decided they may want to move that article to Milky Way Galaxy and have Milky Way become a redirect to a disambiguation page. The problem is that Milky Way Galaxy has already existed since 2005 (mostly as a redirect to Milky Way) and has some history, albeit not much -- but enough, I think, to not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. How could we get that page deleted so we can move the Milky Way article there? Does it even need to be deleted before the move? I'd appreciate any advice you could offer. Thanks.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

17:23, September 12, 2007

the way is to list them at Wikipedia:Requested moves. If here is any question about acceptance of the move, list it as a potentially controversial move, otherwise as an uncontroversial one. As you say, the histories need to be merged. DGG (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning

I was only following the advice of those at Talk:Milky Way. I wasn't trying to resolve any editing disputes with speedy deletion. Please read the discussions more carefully before issuing warnings. Nondistinguished 19:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If people agree, list the article at Wikipedia:Requested moves -- but still under "Other proposals": and say so on the article talk page.

I'll reword the notice on your page. DGG (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

He's right, there was no dispute. Nondistinguished was trying to carry out a decision that had a consensus, by following my advice, which turned out to be wrong. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

19:58, September 12, 2007

Technical book categories, any input?

Any insight on technical book categories would be appreciated.[7] KP Botany 01:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:TIMETRACE

Hello, I wonder if you could, while editing diverse articles, check if they have sources in their history or chronology (or when they mention any important date. If they don't, could you please place inline {{Timefact}} calls where those citations to sources are missing, this will display . If you find an article with too many inline calls to place or totally lacking needed history of the subject, you can instead place {{histrefm}} at the footnotes of the article's main page, just before Categories. If you could add this to your routines, it will most certainly help WP:TIMETRACE. Thank you for your help. Daoken 06:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MrFizyx/songs/List of songs about weather

Hi DGG, thanks for your support in the above MfD and your support in general for song list articles. Although we won the debate, I am planing to propose deletion of some of the articles that I no longer plan on working on. Before I do that, are there any of these that you would like to adopt. I think we have done a reasonably good job with articles like List of songs about school and List of car crash songs. Both are now well-sourced and have not been nominated for deletiion again. Please, let me know if any see any titles in the MfD that have potential and that you might have time to work back up to article status. Thanks, MrFizyx 19:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take a look. However, I really do not see how I can adopt any more articles. But deleting them is possibly not the best solution anyway--there are various places and ways to list them for attention. What other ones are you planning to stop working on? DGG (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I haven't decided yet. I may prod a majority of them. There are many factors to consider. Availability of sources that pass WP:RS, interest level of others such as yourself, whether the current list is overly-bloated, etc. It takes a fair amount of effort to fix up one of these. It is a shame more editors don't value having these sort of quirky features on the 'pedia (at least not editors that vote in deletion debates). Where would you suggest we bring them for attention? -MrFizyx 19:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

first step is to compile of list of the ones you think ought to be developed & maintained, and another list of the ones you think are not worth the effort or are altogether hopeless. Are we talking about 5 pages, or 50?DGG (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De Aston School

Hi, I wonder if you would be prepared to revisit you 'weak keep' recommendation, please. In addition to a range of sources being added, it has been established that there is one of a handful of state boarding schools, was founded in 1863, contain a listed building etc. TerriersFan 21:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Evangelical Free Church of Canada

Thanks for removing the speedy tag. Had I been at my computer when the page's creator stated the group's association with Trinity Western University, I would have removed it myself -- that, to me, demonstrated notability. I appreciate your having assisted the editor (and saved me the trouble <grin>). Accounting4Taste 22:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Truth i numbers article

Hi. I'm new to wikipedia. I'd just like to know when would be a good time to repost this article. Thanks U5K0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by U5K0 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Replied on your page- DGG.

Hi. I've just noticed that the article discussed for deletion wasn't mine(from september) but one from April of this year. Any idea when I may know whether my article is going to be deleted or not?

tnx

U5K0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by U5K0 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at all the versions. I do not see that any of the versions are really acceptable. I urge you to work on a better article, and then try to get it accepted. DGG (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

I appreciate it. The nice thing about a collaborative project is that there are other people to pick up after my rookie mistakes. -Chunky Rice 17:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Good points all. I don't shy from scrutiny. It's the fastest way to become a better editor. -Chunky Rice 17:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Might I have your assistance?

I am attmepting to remove an image (Image:Highlander-IE2.jpg), as it is a decorative slipcover for a DVD, not allowable under current fair-use guidelines, and must be removed speedily. I am not sure how to proceed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

according to WP:CSD, disputed fair use claims cannot be speedied. DGG (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama

Hi DGG. I found your preference at the AfD interesting. I thought you were a WP:VER and a WP:NOR advocate! ;-) Incidentally, I should say I appreciate having encountered you both in agreement and in opposition on several issues to date. The tone of several of these recent debates/controversies where we've run across one another could easily have caused the situation to be more adversarial, so I appreciated seeing your independent thought on some of those threads. Take care, OK? ... Kenosis 23:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If the article is wrong, it can be rewritten. But I admit to a morbid fascination with the peculiarities of European copyright legislation.DGG (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Indeed, I'm beginning to think it should be under the German name with redirects from any reasonable translations. ... Kenosis 22:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible incivility in AfD?

See this edit. The user appears to be calling his fellow editors "wierdos"? Not sure if there's a warning for that. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it should be placed by someone without strong personal involvement in defending such articles, which means neither you nor me. Such language does not help that persons position. Relax. Don't look for conflict, even when justified, unless it really is essential.DGG (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the reply. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for a copy of the deleted essay User:Eyrian/IPC, which I used to have linked from my User page. I've not asked for one of these before, but can this be recovered? There's some chat on this subject in WT:TRIVIA and WT:NOT.

I am also asking Riana. / edg ☺ ★ 17:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

sure , I undeleted it , since it had only been deleted as per your request. But you could have done the same--you're an admin also. The method is like any other undelete. Since it is linked from a number of pages, undeleting it makes good sense. DGG (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you're talking about me? To the best of my knowledge I'm neither an admin nor Eyrian. Also, I don't see the undeleted article. / edg ☺ ★ 17:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

right--for some reason I had thought your were Eyrian, returning to continue he discussion--I actually undeleted it, but then deleted it again, and I suggest asking at the Administrator's Notice board, WP:ANB, since I am unsure--he chose to delete his user pages when he left WP, and he may have had the right to do so. As I had frequently been his opponent in debates on this subject, I do not wish to act alone. But it is a useful essay. DGG (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all the same. I've made this request at WP:ANB, and am now insulating myself from optimism. / edg ☺ ★ 18:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I see its in your space now. DGG (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for all your help. / edg ☺ ★ 03:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites opened

Hello, DGG. The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Robin Wasserman

I spotted the Robin Wasserman article and am looking for an opinion. You have prodded Julia DeVillers who appears to be a similar type writer. Would you prod this one? Thanks in advance! --Stormbay 22:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it might. But it really depends on reviews for both of them. I didnt see any in a quick check in Google. they both have hundreds of library holdings in OCLC, but many libraries but all childrens books from major publishers as a matter of course, since there's no telling which will be popular. DGG (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the consult! I couldn't find much but have limited internet resources. --Stormbay 03:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Hindko language writers and experts

I expressed my opinion about notification here. As for the fate of the article, I think that merging the list back into the language article is for the best - with pruning of the massive number of red links down to perhaps a handful of the most likely to be created reds; I think that having some listing is useful due to the small speaker demographic for the tongue. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of that username at wt:RFCN

User:J.smith gave a word description, but the image is at Image:Sunshine 1.png beside the (talk contribs). -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 12:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC). I see, a circle made out of small semicircles. 16:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please restore

Please restore the article referenced at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conversation opener for relist as per request at end of AfD page Captain Zyrain 04:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk page templates

Howdy, I'll ask here to save cluttering the thread: At Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_templates#Small_option_as_default? did you mean the small-as-default was a good idea, or the 3rd page was a good idea? Answer/rewrite there :) Ta. --Quiddity 07:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Expanded my comment there--thanks- DGG.

Saw your note

Hello DGG, saw your note about indicating a person's field of interest in the 'prod' message, and I'll try to do that. All best. --Lockley 16:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Copy and paste move, and poll reopened for viewing deleted pages

Hi DGG, do you know where the impetus for the reopening of that poll is coming from? I've asked Captain Zyrain, but as you have commented on the talk page of that poll, figured you might have some sort of an idea. Also, the Captain has done a copy and paste move of the original poll... - Ta bu shi da yu 08:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

the motivation is disappointment at having one's article deleted. Not that this is necessarily a bad motivation for thinking about policy--it's things like that which usually gets a person interested in AfD and policy discussions in the first place. Normally a person gets rebuffed, and then learns enough policy to work more effectively. Personally, I think it would be good to find a way of making deleted items visible that didn't depend on admins, but I am unable to think of a good procedure that meets the objections. I hope someone will eventually be creative enough to accomplish it. In the meantime, all I can do is personally userify or email if requested. It is a bit of trouble, but I consider it an obligation. (Understanding the need to avoid c&p and the way to avoid c&p is a little tricky, & I don't really expect it of beginners. I am not in fact myself altogether sure of GFDL in WP space--everything is after all trackable.) In short, it's an honest effort, but I will give the ed. some advice on working effectively--he seems potentially a very good person to have here. DGG (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for making me understand. But he shouldn't remove it completely rather replace it with AfD tag. - Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 17:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

you should not have used the db-afd tag in the first place.; that is not the correct way to list articles for deletion. Please read the full procedure at WP:AFD--I know its overcomplicated, and I've been asking for some time for it to be simplified. I put on the correct notice myself, which is subst:afd 17:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)DGG

Image:НД Антонина Алиса.jpg

Hi, you have (possibly erroneously) speedy deleted the image there (yes, its Cyrillic name had to be changed) and did not reply to the comment asking you for the rationale. In short, this picture carries strong positive information about the mother and her daughter, being aimed at refuting the allegations in murder attempt. It has been a symbol of the campaign in defense of the mother (e.g. see the LiveJournal community). So, I think, G10 is inapplicable here. Should I apply for deletion review? --Yms 23:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

By all means apply if you wish--it is certainly your right, and you do not need my permission--perhaps the consensus will be otherwise, considering the widespread publicity. I shall oppose it, as I would all pictures of living children who have been victims of crimes, or what are alleged to be crimes. I can see why the defense would use it, but the child is (obviously) much too young to consent. My advice is to work on getting a somewhat more condensed and encyclopedic article, and to give a link to the site containing the picture. But that's just my advice. DGG (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I just followed the recommendation "Consider talking to the admin who deleted the article (or otherwise made the decision) first" :) --Yms 02:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 18.

I don't think you'll oppose it after watching this video, even you don't know Russian ;) --Yms 04:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've responded there, and will let other people judge. DGG (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the image as JReferee suggested for further discussion at Ifd. . DGG (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello DGG, thank your for your helpful advice concerning articles on Yiddish and Birobidzhan. And thank you for your constructive comments as well. I do think a more general article could reduce some of the AFD articles. Thanks again. Culturalrevival 00:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

and when Encyclopedia of East European Jewry,YIVO, New-York is available next year... DGG (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Bob Mutch

Could you have another look at this article? It sure looks like a CSD7 candidate to me. The references are all weak. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

it just has to assert. I am very reluctant to speedy in that particular industry, because I have made a fool of myself in the past for things that seemed totally unnotable to me. Possibly G11. It was tried before, and the author removed the tag. Why not nom for Afd and get it definitively removed? It will have the advantage of permitting subsequent G4s as re-creation if necessary. considering the edit history, it might be advisable. DGG (talk) 05:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Using the 'deletion review' board

I would like to discuss 'deletion review' policy' with you or a similar admin...thanks!Ryoung122 09:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

sure. either ask me here or email me from my user page. DGG (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

I think there are times when discussions are needed and instead we get 'process'/delay/obfuscation...or worse.

I'm not sure how to use the 'deletion review' board, but I think the below article should be discussed. It has been deleted FOUR times and recreated FIVE times in the past year. Astoundingly, I haven't even been informed of the article's deletion, and I don't know the reasons for the deletion (neither was I the only one to have created this article). Given what I know about the material, I feel the deletion is in error. This shouldn't even be a 'weak keep' or a 'barely keep' but a 'should keep.' This magazine (porn or no) is the #1, best-selling magazine in its genre in the top 1,000 for all magazines and is 'mainstream' within the gay community. I'd like to see both sides explain their rationale, rather than simply waste time on creating material that is going to be deleted. I have, below, recreated the article with a little more substance than prior manifestations. Please note that I did not create the original article, either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freshmen_%28magazine%29

The article exists again, but for how long? Thus, instead of wasting my time, I'd rather pro-actively take this to a discussion board. However, my attempts to post this on the 'deletion review' board were not successful (the edits showed up in the edit history but not on the display). Thus, I'm looking for 'technical support' as well as advice specifically about the article.Ryoung122 12:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I was looking for.Ryoung122 12:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

No hard feelings whatsoever. :) I can well imagine that commenting on RfAs must be very tricky, and I appreciate the fact that you took time to ask questions and consider before forming your opinion. You're obviously exactly the kind of contributor that RfAs need. I hope to do my best to prove your doubts unjustified, but if you ever see me flubbing, I sincerely hope you'll let me know. I intend to proceed very carefully as I grow comfortable with these tools. --Moonriddengirl 11:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you comment...

The P-L conflict raised its head at Talk:Lithuanian_minority_in_Poland#Lithuanian_Schools. Since in a recent revertt summary I've been accused of Polonization, I'd appreciate an outside party to comment - there seem to be precious enough good faith among some editors.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It is time to work for the Lord

Hi DGG, thanks for your help with the article. Let me just say why I used phrasing about how the rabbis "shifted" meaning and "re-interpreted." The rabbis are not merely presenting another point of view, they are fully aware that they are shifting from what they call the "plain" (pshat) meaning. They aren't offering simply another reading of the text, they are writing a midrash to alter the meaning for other purposes (here, legal purpose). I'm glad to keep your edits there, just wanted to let you know this background. Thanks for your interest and help. HG | Talk 18:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC) -- agreed, & you may want to add something to that effect, probably best as a short quote. I made some additional comments towards tightening the article. Great to have someone working on these. I've expressed the opinion at AfD that every individual biblical verse is probably notable and can be shown to do so if it is expanded from he commentaries and some work is done on the sourcing. You are doing just that, and doing it well, and I'll keep track of objections to them. DGG (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, DGG. I missed your note on the article Talk and, now that I see it, will continue there (and copy your reply above, ok?). Be well. HG | Talk 18:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent CSD's of mine

Greetings,

I appear to have had a bit of a bad streak when it comes to the recent CSD's. Usually when I try to check for notability (even if I have to google for it), encyclopedic content, and general tone (the last is for spam). If I have any question, I usually prod it or watch and wait. I totally blew it on Taylortown store. No excuses. It appears that another editor killed the Health and Diet in Elizabethan England and it was rebuilt by Angel. It appeared to be a school project and nothing really substantative when I originally saw it. The tone was totally wrong and had nothing contextual in it. Anyway, I am rambling and probably will go troll the depths of the dead end tags project a bit more. Thanks for the advice and tips! Spryde 20:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Chaudhuri AfD

I made comments there. Bearian 20:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reminder. Bearian 23:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Printing Press

Why did you delete my reference. Then you left me a note stating not to put in non-cited material. I'll leave you another reference; http://inventors.about.com/od/pstartinventions/a/printing_3.htm

The museum in France has the oldest metal moveable print, a book which was Korean from the Koryo dynasty. It wasn't wood, it wasn't clay and it wasn't just a moveable print. It was a metal moveable print.

That is why if you look in English or western history books, Gutenberg's printing press invention always has in as a footnote or start off by stating in "the west" the first metal moveable printing press was by Gutenberg. The only possible question to ask about Asian metal moveable printing press which was around 200 years before is why it didn't have the impact in Asia as the printing press had in Europe. Please don't delete things with out reading the references http://www.koreanculture.org/06about_korea/symbols/11printing_heritage.htm --Objectiveye 22:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

published sources please. not web sites. About.com is not considered a Reliable Source, but you will notice that when it qualifies with the word "Western" it qualifies the word "block printing" or "metal plates""--both of which were indeed used first in Asia. --The Printing Heritage site is a really excellent summary--thank you for finding it-- & I will add it to the appropriate article as an external link. Read it again. It does not mention the word press)

Please look in a dictionary for the meaning of the word "press". The metal plate (as in the example you give, which is indeed widely known and of the highest importance) is what is used instead of type, as was the case for specialized printing in Europe and Asia, and later for stereotype in modern times. the press is what pushes the paper against the type or the plate.

The Western books make it clear, as does this and the other relevant articles, that Gutenberg is not the first person to have used movable type, but rather Bi Sheng. Everything you say is essentially correct as applied to the type, and widely known, sourced, accepted, and included in the relevant articles here. There's nothing to quarrel with except that you've gotten fixed on using the wrong word. As I understand it, there is considerable debate for which one of Gutenberg's inventions is the key one--probably the best view is that the combination of the use of metal type, producing the type from punches, paper, a press, oil-based ink (which permitted two-sided printing), was the real innovation.

Personally, I think that the press was the least of it in terms of the fundamental necessity, but yet it was the part that had not at all been applied before and that in conjunction with the others permitted mass production. Yes, the Chinese--and the Koreans--certainly had a highly developed art of printing without it--and were therefore a different tradition.

It's just the word. Think, ask someone else about what it means, understand, and there's lots of excellent work you can do here on this general subject. We'll be delighted to have you join in the subject once you just get the terminology right. No fault in getting it wrong at first. DGG (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason why the article is getting edited so much is because, the article is not inclusive of the world and Asian history of prints. It appears to be ethnocentric to the west. The article is using one term the "press" to entirely exclude or relegate as insignificant the print history of East Asia. If you modify the article to be less ethnocentric toward Europe it may get edited less. If you have a section on Print history of the world first, before padding Gutenberg on the back. People might not feel as if this is a silly article.--Objectiveye 23:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read what i said. "press" is a word with a specific meaning. All the articles here acknowledge the Asian priority with the use of movable type. You've gotten hung up on it, and you are messing up the pages. Please ask someone else if you dont believe me what the noun "press" means, or any dictionary. We would be delighted to expand the sections of East asia for the relevant things, using the right english words in the right meanings. Stop. Ask. think. And continue tomorrow. DGG (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think if the article included more about the human history of prints especially in the intro section. And not focus on weather or not it is a "press" or press-type, it would be less ethnocentric and others would feel a sense of inclusion. (There would be less edits) Otherwise it seems to be some sort of ethnocentric article, which is excluding the world history of prints by using a narrow definition for the term "press". I'm telling you instead of having a Euro-centric article about the printing press, may be make it a inclusive article about human history of prints and later how it affects the world. I'm sure the article will get less edits if you write it that way. Then if an editor wants to talk about Gutenberg's printing press, that should be added to the Gutenberg article --Objectiveye 23:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, thats my 2 cents......You guys can edit the article however you want to, I'll leave it alone. I understand your way of categorizing, but I think it is just following the same ethnocentric method that western history books in the US follow. It may make some feel as if the world history of prints is being relegated as less significant to the west. I was hoping for a more inclusive version in Wiki. Thanks for the entertaining discussion. I hope more people think about what I said, if they get frustrated with the constant edits by other users. --Objectiveye 23:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

take at look at Movable type and you will see how we have been editing to give proper credit to the East Asian contributions to this group of inventions. That's the place for it--there, and History of typography in East Asia. I intend to add more material there when I have time. DGG (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have Philip Megg's History of Graphic Design in my lap, opened to the printing press section and want to edit this article; can you allow this to happen? —Parhamr 06:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Done. Is everything OK now. DGG (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Marad massacre and 2002 Marad massacre

An edit warring user moved the title to Marad killings and has since stopped editing the page. I needed the two aforementioned titles deleted so I can move Marad killings (the less common title), to one of the variations of "Marad massacre" which is what the Official Thomas P. Joseph commission investigating the incident uses. Hope this clears things up.Bakaman 17:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not completely sure there is consensus on the title--judging by the talk page. You may well be right about what the title should be, but I think it needs to be shown. You should follow the full procedure at WP:RM. And when there is consensus, then use the template {{db-move}} designed for the purpose. DGG (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

World Public Speaking Championship

As I've explained on the page, the assumptions underlying your weak keep are not accurate, nor has anyone been willing to mount a defence that I am wrong. Therefore I feel you should withdraw your weak keep, particularly as Roi has claimed that is the basis for his Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJ999 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Continued there. I may be right or wrong, but I am not responsible for whether others agree with me. DGG (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that DGG makes many persuasive arguments, his post was not the sole reason why I thought the article should be kept. I will gladly elaborate further on why I think the article has merits in the AfD. Please do not hold DGG accountable for my arguments. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD's staling and flames

Hi again. I am afraid we might both be targets of the same User:JJJ999. Bearian 21:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see also this discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Goodbye

I'm retireing, but not because of save the trivia. Is it still news? --Alien joe 22:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly suspicious prods

Dear DGG, please look at the contribs of User:131.94.55.77. This IP is apparently, or claims to be, recently "retired" admin Jaranda. Anyway, the ip prodded a few articles that I checked over. Now, admittedly in their original condition the articles were of a so-so nature, but I did a quick search and they seem legitimate. Ann Moray for example has a large number of items for sale on amazon.com and appeared in at least one Harper's Magazine article in the 1960s. She is also mentioned on official government website on the USO for her service during World War II (link added to article). Average cost pricing appears to be a genuine term that is the titular subject of an article in a scholarly journal (American Economic Review) and that appears on other online encyclopedias like Investopedia. We have articles on Harper's and the AER, so these seem like reliable sources. So, these prods could be made by an upset editor, although I am not entirely sure if that is the case or if it was just their prior case. Now that I cleaned them up some and added references, I think they're okay, but I wanted to defer to a more experienced editor and admin rather than remove the prods myself. If you feel the articles need further work, I'd be happy to add more references if possible. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the sources so they show in references, not external links. Go see how I did it. And see the article talk pages for what they still need. Then , as they are at least minimally sourced, I removed the tags. DGG (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Rewrited articles

Thanks so much! Elmao 07:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for help

Hello David,

In February you removed the tag from my article about Stephen Cohn. For whatever reason it was re-tagged.

Since that time, I have made many additions to the article as per suggestions I have received and the article has been labled as qualifying as a Wiki Biography. It has been given a Start Class rating and has received the support of the Wiki Musicians Project.

Is it now possible to remove the tags which question whether it is a valid biography? It would seem that the tag is contradticting the other tags which have been placed more recently.

Will you remove tha tag and/or give me some clarification?

Thank you -Stephen 18:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed a proposed deletion as Non notable tag in February because Emmy winners are always considered notable; the present tag is "autobiography," placed by a very respected editor. We do not delete articles because of WP:COI, but it is reasonable cause for looking at them carefully, and for alerting readers. But you are to be commended for not trying to disguise the fact, and for writing it in what appears to be an objective manner.DGG (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

American Family Insurance

All I can say is thank you :) Timmccloud 03:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: Now the Wzergens have moved to a sock. I've added a firm warning on their sock talk page (for all the good I expect it will do) and once again removed the non-npov content. This is just an FYI - let's see if the warning works (so I'm an optimst, what can I say), and thanks for your help! Timmccloud 14:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing to apologise for!

Thanks for the feedback, but seriously, you have nothing to apologise for. If my comment had the potential to be misread - which it clearly did - then that's down to insufficient clarity and forethought on my part (one of the perils of text-only communication!). I've seen enough of you on other AfDs and elsewhere to know that you have nothing but the best interests of WP at heart; your comments are invariably well-reasoned and civil, and even if I don't always agree, I respect your judgement and trust your motivation. You're one of the 'good guys' ;) EyeSerene^TALK 09:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for that favour a while back (my laptop's death lost me the results, but I remember enough to know that my suspicions were wrong). Cheers, Pete.Hurd 17:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Editing the front page news

Who writes the front page news? The Sept 23 2007 'on this day' citation below has issues:

1846 – The planet Neptune (pictured) was discovered by astronomers Urbain Le Verrier, Johann Gottfried Galle and John Couch Adams using mathematical prediction, leading to an international dispute over who had priority and deserved credit among the three.

Actually, the Le Verrier-Galle team discovered the planet Neptune on Sept 23, not John Couch Adams. Since the point of the 'on this day' is that today is Sept 23, and Sept 23 was the day that Galle made the observation (suing Le Verrier's data), it smacks of historic revisionism to include Adams...or at least, this should be reworded. For example, if one said:

1846 - The planet Neptune (pictured) was first knowingly observed by astronomer Johann Galle, using data from Urbain Le Verrier. The discovery was noted for using mathematical prediction. John Couch Adams had also predicted the planet's location using mathematical prediction, leading to an international dispute over who had priority and deserved credit among the three.

Still, it's like saying that Alfred Wallace should be given credit for the theory of evolution.Ryoung122 05:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

go to Talk:Main Page to make the error report.DGG (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Luen Ming Fat

Hello. I just want to have back the text that is deleted. Thank you for your cooperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melimited-luenmingfat (talk • contribs) 19:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Replied on your p--DGG

Re:Question for you

I believe he is notable. He is mentioned in Polish Biographical Dictionary, and according to the entry at talk (Talk:Rodryg Dunin) he was "one of the chief pioneers of agriculture in Wielkopolska" and social activist.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC) thanks--DGG

LaRue County High School

I'm a bit new to the AfD process. I saw that you declined speedy on the article, is it poor style for me to AfD it? Mbisanz 23:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC) replied on your p. --DGG

duplicate at DRV

Hello DGG. Just letting you know you opined twice on the Bend over Boyfriend DRV. Not that I think it matters much but you may want to delete the redundant opinion. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 00:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC) fixed--DGG

re: Bennett; thanks!

Thanks for reinstating the Bennett Elementary article for the moment. Honestly, I don't understand why there is this zeal to delete articles around here. Let's see what happens next. Thmoore 02:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

re: Ann Moray

I do not know what the word "prod" means in the phrase "remove the prod." I have read all of Ann Moray's books. They are readily available. Likewise reviews of her books are readily available (New York Times). If necessary, I will post references to the book reviews. --RD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard E. Davies (talk • contribs) 15:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

re: Christian Bartolf

Is there a chance to move the sandbox of "Christian Bartolf" to his userpage? Christian Bartolf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrbartolf (talk • contribs) 15:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Moved to "User:Chrbartolf/Chrbartolf" . I can't copy it, because of the need to preserve the revision history. DGG (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What about blacklisted URLs?

DGG: You asked me to cite an example of a web site that confused Ann Moray with Anne Murray, so I attempted to do so, but received a Wikipedia message that the web site I was attempting to cite is "blacklisted." Even though I cannot verify within the article that the assertion is correct, I feel that it is an important contribution, because readers interested in Ann Moray will waste time chasing Anne Murray (as I have done). -- RD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard E. Davies (talk • contribs) 15:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Broward County Uniform Station Numbering

Just to note that the author removed the prod from this article. I think it should be AFDed but don't have time to write a nomination and list it. Stifle (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

and I do? (smile) But since your removed the speedy--and I agree that it couldn't be speedied or I would have speedied it myself--and it was I who placed the prod, I guess I am sort of responsible--since it's outrageously unencyclopedic, I will do it. Time we got an easier way to doing afds for those like me whose systems can't use the add-ons. DGG (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

re: Bennett

hmmm... ok, the article has been halfway reinstated, and now nothing is happening. How odd. What is the next step here? I'm not wise to these ways.

I've tossed a few demographics in there, but there simply aren't any prominent alumni yet; the school's oldest graduates are only 16 years old! It usually takes a little longer for people to get famous -- or infamous.

Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thmoore (talk • contribs) 00:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

re: Aurum Sulphuricum

This article went through real discussions multiple times (albeit under different names) on the wiki chem project, by people who are actually objective, not just looking for an axe to grind because their precious public debating page got scrubbed. Don't waste my time by nominating this again please, I'm fairly sure there are rules against hasty re-noms, and this has been through two dicussions (under different names) in under 1 week. Time to sit on your hands methinks.JJJ999 02:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Grateful for your comment

I appreciate you taking the time to evaluate the case I made on behalf of the MediaZone article and its AFD status. In no way was I attempting to bypass or ignore Wikipedia standards. I have great appreciation for the site, its editors and administrators. I will accept whatever decision is rendered with respect and professionalism.JohnRobertCrowley 00:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:History of Smoking and speedy delete tags

I just finished trying out AfD, and even though I followed the instructions, the title isn't showing up on the the AfD list--the reasons for deletion are, but not the article's name. When I open the page for editting, the title is there and appears the same as the other article under review for deletion... I don't know how to fix it. Help?TeamZissou 10:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello again... I got it fixed with the help of  superβεεcat , so no worries. Sorry for bugging you. TeamZissou 10:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Re State of Play Conference

must I still rewrite the decriptions from the website if I have included them with permission? how do I say that I have included certain text with permission from the owner of a site or thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianpyne (talk • contribs) 15:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Adnan Oktar

Based on some of our work together in the past, I though of you as good evaluator to assist in the dilemma at Talk:Adnan Oktar. I visited this page in response to a request at 3rd Op. --Kevin Murray 17:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Blacklisted Web Site

Here is a web site that confuses "Ann Moray" with "Anne Murray." When I tried to cite in the Ann Moray article, the citation was rejected because the web site is blacklisted: Well, I couldn't send it to you this way, because I got the "blacklisted" message. ```Richard E. Davies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard E. Davies (talk • contribs) 20:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Klenner AfD

I took a second look after your message, and I changed to "Keep and re-list individually." I did look at all of the articles, but I think I may have been a little hasty in lumping them all together in a "delete all" vote. I don't think they are ICU candidates, but if you feel otherwise, bring 'em in. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll comment --I think some don't even need ICU, they';re OK as is, and some are hopeless. The 2 or 3 with notable careers are notable however misguided. And I apologize for my comment about reading them, it was out of place. DGG (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sooo bad...

Thanks for cleaning up after several of my poorer decisions and speedy delete tags on articles like Anne C. Klein, Brantly Womack and others. Sometimes I get out of hand with the sweeping knife of tagging and (apparently) forget what I'm actually doing or the appropriateness of the tags. Really sorry. I swear I'm trying to tighten up and improve my judgment but I appear to be failing tonight. Thanks again. Pig^man 05:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips and kind words. You're right, I have been going too fast. After a fairly long WP hiatus over the summer, I'm still trying to find my rhythm. And I finally, just before you suggested it, realized I needed to alternate my focus regularly to avoid the tunnel vision that eclipses my good judgment. Unfortunately, I seem to be having an attack of "why are so many crappy articles begun on WP?" This easily segues into "Almost all new articles are crappy and irredeemable." This is obviously a Very Bad Attitude for good decisionmaking and editing. I'm sure I'll find a balance and am unlikely to destroy the project in the meantime. BTW, the link you gave for Durova's COI/Copyvio project/thing is redlinked. Durova's userpage/talkpage isn't helpful in finding it. Would you mind digging up the correct link for me? I'd appreciate it. I do on occasion come across batches of articles like that. Cheers, Pig^man 06:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Sorry, it's WP:BFAQ. DGG (talk) 06:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Lehi in the Wilderness: 81 New Documented Evidences That the Book of Mormon Is a True History

I added significant information to this article. I think this article can now stay on wikipedia.Cmmmm 14:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC) -- Just a blurb. We cant use these. They are not a RS, see my comment at the AfD. DGG (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Before another revert war starts...

What do you think about [8] and [9]? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't believe the quote is needed at all in main article; I think usage of quotes is highly problematic - both in terms of copyvio and in terms of undue weight POV pushing, as editors try to smuggle in POV tone and facts not appropriate for our articles. Hard to verify translations only compound the issue.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha! I saw "revert star wars"!!! SOOO tired, no more wiki. - CobaltBlueTony 19:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC) -- an excellent rewording--we should use it!! - DGG

In general, for all articles subject to POV, I generally think the judicious use of quotes is the best way to avoid POV. Obvious, they have to be properly chosen, but I would rather use other people's words than for us to summarize. Quotes of up to a paragraph or so are in my opinion fair use. My view is not necessarily the universal one here, but I do not see how using summaries improves objectivity, Maybe I'm just overly academic, but I consider the art of nonfiction prose to include the smooth integration of appropriate quotes. DGG (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What about those edits? I consider them disruptive (weaseling and removal of referenced info, not to mention a series of edits bordering on 3rr violation).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted, but you might want to check whether some of that material should be incorporated. DGG (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Some, likely - but I'd prefer for neutral party like yourself to review the edits and decide what should be done. I am sure I am much more POVed than you, and I am afraid what I see as neutral may not exactly be so.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I havent the knowledge of what counts as a neutral source--it rather shows your own NPOV to add back some of the material that was added in apparent opposition to you. I try to do that whenever i reverse a major addition or deletion from someone I'm not in agreement with. DGG (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Strenge enough - without a knowledge you dide remove perfectly referenced text and accused me on vandalism [10]. Let me ask you question - why did you do so? The book is academic (issued by Lithuanian Army Accademy), well referenced, based on documents and as an opposition to it is given only some (let me note - unindentified as notable) Polish webpage. Another Polish webpage, used as evidence, has quite strong antisemitic notes. I wonder which one of the three is more notable? And whether would you restore the academic source reference (somehow lost in between Piotrus edits) or stay to the one of webpages?--Lokyz 00:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

--I reverted the addition of a large mass of apparently contentious material, with wording that is clearly abusive, pending adequate discussion on the talk page. The two of you go decide what stays in--not me. It's the people who know who have to agree--all I can do is remove material about which there is obviously not the least agreement. Suggest each possible item, and then discuss them one at a time. If you can't agree, follow dispute resolution yet once more. (you may notice that I have objected to some of the proposals of both of the people here as lacking consensus) All I can see is that it is lacking consensus. Insisting on material that lacks consensus is not acceptable. If I said vandalism, i apologize--that was excessive. I should just have said without consensus. DGG (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

if so the article should be reverted to the state before major manipulations with unreliable sources approx. here [11]. Because the revert you did restored inadeqate state - where most of references supported academic book was already distorted by POV.--Lokyz 00:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I count on you two experts & others working on the article to decide on these things by agreement on the talk page. That's your job, not mine. suggest what you want to add, and see if the other guy agrees. You don't need my agreement, you need each other's. That's what consensus means. If both of you agree to roll back further, or whatever you agree on, that's fine with me, as long as all the editors on the page agree. All I care is to see you agree, not edit war. DGG (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit war was announced after i did made two major edits so it was foreseen. Not going to the amxx - I do have two questions - 1. are you gonna appologise me for accusing on vandalism, 2. what are your suggestions, how can i remove antisemitic material provided as an reliable source in a WP article? Cheers.--Lokyz 00:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for a reminder. But it's still unclear to me - am I a really vandal?--Lokyz 01:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC) no, neither of you are vandals. I apologized for that two sentences back. You are just failing to obtain consensus before making what you know to be disputed changes. Try--you might agree at least part-way. Enough of this here, please. DGG (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

So if I'm not vandal (did not see that previous two sentences line) how about removing that rvv edit ? As for me this was the last question (nevermind that about antisemitic source, I did not felt like getting an answer anyway. Good night.--Lokyz 01:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I am still waiting for Lokyz to address my points on talk. But I have removed the source that has been criticized as unreliable, in effort to show good will. We will see if that gets me anything other than more personal attacks.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

DGG, did you know that you restored and the most shameful anti-Semitic web page as the “source” (and became the second administrator who used such “source”)? Actually I look forward that you, if not conduct self revert, at least acknowledge (clearly) that you conducted inappropriate revert. As spread of anti-Semitic “sources” are not tolerated in Wikipedia.

And one more, I requested some clarification here, but for some reason you did not responded. I look forward to hearing from you. Cheers, M.K. 12:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've asked you for specifics on your talk page. Unless anti-Semetic bias is relevant to the situation, I do not see why it would prevent use. A great many European historians have arguably been anti-Semetic. You may want to discuss that point on the RS noticeboard.03:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In other news, would you have any idea why I was called a vandal here? There is a section on talk. Your comments would be appreciated, as always.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

apparently just routine habit. DGG (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Me again

Hi, I see that the truth in numbers article has now been deleted. I have however noticed that Underdog pictures aparently has a user account on wikipedia and posts updates on the movie's production on its user page. Would it be ok if I put the article there? tnx for the help U5K0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by U5K0 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Do not edit other peoples' user pages--conceivably you might post it to that talk page. But it would be better to move it to a subpage of your own: this is called userifying articles -- and is permitted only if the intent is to actively work on them to improve them for reinsertion onto wikipedia. Since there will presumably be additional stories as production continues, this is not an unreasonable goal, and you should explain what you are doing.. DGG (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Blacklisted reference for Ann Moray article

I don't find your e-mail address, although I do find the statement that it is posted. However, the blacklisted web site is the first reference on the first page of Google when you enter Ann Moray. It is something like "lyricsandsongs." Richard E. Davies 20:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Richard E. Davies

Why do you deal with topics you are not at all knowledgeable about

Why DGG? Do you love to show off? Well, that is very human. On a serious note, please prove your credentials with respect to Indic languages and programming languages. I request you to hand over these delibrations to relevant experts. Hi pedler 13:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler

What is the procedure for removing a users admin rights in WP? I would like to move a motion to censor DGG's admin rights. Hi pedler 14:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler

If you do not like what I have suggested, you do not have to follow the suggestions. But I first suggest that you work with me in getting these pages satisfactory, Just what is it that you want? I have suggested several ways to get satisfactory articles on the companies you are involved with. I have not the least intention of trying to write the article on Hinari (word) -that's your lookout . But I certainly disapproved and still do disapprove of your attempts to delete the article for your competitor Hindi Programming Languages, and even a company in a different line of business but using that word in its name, (Hindawi Publishing Company -- or to redirect them to your own Hindawi Programming System. I remind you once more of WP:OWN and WP:COI and WP:BFAQ. But if you think you'd rather complain, a customary way to start is at [[:WP:AN/I].DGG (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear DGG sir, Why are you writing to me in the manner you are doing? I would also like to remind you of WP:OWN and WP:COI and WP:BFAQ with respect Hindi Programming Language. As about Hindawi (word) -- its _not_ hinari. Sir, you act in haste. Please stop doing so. You are a PhD in molecular biology and a librarian - I respect you for that. But _PLEASE_ let an expert in linguistics handle "Hindawi" - Besides its a "language" and NOT a "word". You are creating worng information on WP, Sir! Hi pedler 09:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler

DGG sir, two more things: 1. The copyright violations by Shamit Tomar in creating Hindi Programming Language are going to be discussed. Shamit himself has created those pages Sir. 2. You had mentioned Hindawi Publishing to be an Indian publisher. What was your source of information for point number 2 Sir? Or was it that in your haste of meeting out the personal vendatta against me you did not even care to check out the respected publishers website -it only has offices in USA and Egypt. Slow down Sir. Let WP be an encyclopedia and not a yellow page of commercial entities. And sir, how can I move a request for censoring your admin rights with respect to such hasty behaviour and with regards to your involvement in wrongly editing material about which you have almost no idea? Hi pedler 09:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hi_pedler"

once more, and I hope for the last time, I remind you I have not been editing the article on the word. As for any copyright violations in the programming language--in whichever direction--they can be discussed in the articles if you can find a reliable third party published sources not connected with either company that discuss them--the actual status of the intellectual property in the language is no concern of wikipedia. And as you observe, I have no personal knowledge either of the publisher, but I will check and edit the article if I have made any errors in summarizing the data. We do not edit here based on person knowledge, but on sources. Thats what is meant by COI and NPOV and V.

As I told you, if you think I am abusing my power as an admin, you post to WP:ANI. But I do not know what adminstrative act of mine you are complaining about. Admins have no special rights as editors. If you think I am merely editing incorrectly, you discuss on the article talk page. If you are unhappy with the result there, you follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. And neither do those who have a personal interest in the subject. Further discussion about the articles should go on their talk pages, not here.DGG (talk) 10:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

LUNARR

Hi, I'm wondering if you could undelete this article for me and put it in my user space. I think I'm the one who speedied it the second time, but I see that there's an article on the creator in Portland Monthly, so I wanted to see if there is anything salvageable from the old article before I recreate Lunarr (which is how it's capitalized in the article). It might not be ready for prime time yet, but I wanted to make sure. Thanks! Katr67 18:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

restored to User:Katr67/LUNARR with the history intact. When you are finished with it, let me know & I will move it back and delete it again. DGG (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks bunches. I'll be working on it at User:Katr67/Lunarr/Temp as soon as I can understand what the thing acutally does. :) Katr67 19:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Chasnalla Academy

No problem. Anytime but it still plenty of works. Also, looking a little above, you might want to look at this and see if it's familiar. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears you are working at the behest of DGG. The article is well refernced, it is a GPL'd FLOSS, this piece of software has been recognised by the industry and the Govt. of India. Please do not post wrong tags without justification. Hi pedler 10:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler

I had not seen that article. It seems to have been deleted back last November. I had only recently joined WP, and did not comment on the discussion. Neither did Ricky. Five other editors did. DGG (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course...

I don't mind if you tweak the essay! I've appreciated all of your advice and guidance with this, and always look forward to any other ideas you have! (And, that fix was really perfect, just the right wording!) ^Ariel♥Gold 05:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

archive

Thank you for your vigilance. The archive has taken place for the Sept-Oct time period. Rest assured that I read all communications. Thanks. --- Taroaldo 21:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Tirol creme

Hi DGG. Regarding: [12], I'm not an admin, though I did remove the speedy tag. I agree with your prod. I speak a little German and used Google.de to try and dig around for info about the product, but couldn't find anything. Cheers and happy editing, Into The Fray ^T/C 21:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You, actually, are at least in part responsible for causing me to think twice in the deletion process. Based mostly upon Blue Lady (though I didn't wait exactly as long as you suggested before redirecting it ;)) and ... a prod tag removed of mine, I think. I started here running around all willy-nilly with Twinkle and tagging a bunch of stuff that prolly didn't deserve it. Anyway, since you're a librarian and I'm working on some research for Tony Kahn, I thought I might take this chance to ask you if you have any recommendations on identifying some sources from which I could build some more biographical information? I have Mr. Kahn's ear, as it were, but I'm digging for more secondary sources. I've searched through the NY Public Library and the Library of Congress. Given that he's a Bostonian, I suppose I should check there too. Anyway, any advice you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Into The Fray ^T/C 22:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Emily Cummins

Hi. You recently declined a request to speedily delete Emily Cummins, recommending instead to properly source the article and demonstrate notability (because, well, it needed work). Being an uninvolved editor until I saw it on new pages patrol, I thought I'd take a shot at trying to get the article up to snuff. If you have a few moments, can you take a look at it and drop another opinion on its talk page, especially about the "unsourced" tag? Thanks! -- ArglebargleIV 01:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dave, sorry to be a pain but i needed your advice, regarding Emily Cummins, does the news source need to be national or can it be regional? the competitions which she won were on national levels and Emily was the youngest in the women of the future competition,so it was a massive achievement for her to win, as the competition was open to under 35's and she was 19...i dont think this is classed as a student level accomplishment, is it? She was also invited to buckingham palace to meet the queen to celebrate women in business - there is an article on this - will that be useful? She also speaks at many events about being a inventor and an entrepreneur, to inspire young people - do articles on this count either? I have been looking at Tom Thurlow's page trying to see what Emily's needed to be kept like Tom's is. (I am new to this, so trying to pick up what is needed etc, i hope you don't mind me asking)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Emily_Cummins" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim2709 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Not so fast

Planetree Alliance is a blast from the past. I wrote that three months into being an editor, and yes, I think maybe my head was turned a bit by it. I wasn't sure how to write that, and I recall having some trouble with how to do it. I tend to not only be inclusionist in terms of material to be included in an article, but I like quotes, maybe more than most people. It seemed to me that quoting the 10 "components" was the best way to help readers understand what they were. I just went over the article and made a slew of small changes.

But your reaction was over the top in the opposite direction. Have you ever been in one of these places? Do you not see the difference between this and the way hospitals were 10, 15 years ago? I've been in Greenwich Hospital (Connecticut), not actually a Planetree member, but a hospital that has done some of the same things. These are like hotels. An organization that is clearly influential in these changes is pretty obviously worth an article. The organization does seem to be making important changes in the way important hospitals conduct themselves. Are you aware of the position of NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University among hospitals in the United States?

The Planetree Alliance appears to be all about the philosophy, and they help hospitals implement the philosophy, so I think the philosophy needs to be given some extended treatment. It's somewhat (not entirely) like having an article on Ten Commandments or Bill of Rights without listing them. I don't regard that as promotional at all, but an adequate description of the ways the organization tries to change hospitals. Keep in mind this is a nonprofit, so while the executives might get nice salaries, the association is essentially set up for the benefit of the hospitals in it. Therefore, maybe my guard was down. On the other hand, I couldn't find anything negative written about the thing. Please -- look at the sources. They're adulatory. See these other sources that were not cited in the article. Go on, if you're going to criticize, read them: [13] [14] [15] (granted, that last one is an opinion piece). Look at Google Scholar [16]. Find the negative information that might be put in the article. You point it out to me and I'll make the edit.

Look, I did, after all, write, In addition to presenting itself as an altruistic organization, it promotes itself on its Web site as a tool hospitals can use to attract more patients.

I think the list article is fine, although I think it could be merged with the main article.

And rather than just be a deletionist, why not try to improve the article? Who was it that I recall saying that ...? -- Noroton (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't notice that I had not placed the tag, but wrote to you instead? I see the improvements. But basically, it remains a set of advertising slogans and nothing more. I do not think they originated most of what they promote. Though I have a great respect for informative PR, I have the opposite feeling as you to quoted statements of "philosophy" of an organisation--I've had a lifetime of such talk from schools and publishers and libraries and hospitals and all the rest, and it's totally meaningless--what's meaningful is accomplishments. We can talk about NYC hospitals offline. DGG (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, if you're going to complain that airy statements divorced from reality are not worthwhile in articlespace, don't make airy statements divorced from reality in talkspace. If you'd actually read even the first source I cited in the comment above, you wouldn't have written what you did. Who do you think sees more PR in a day than the PR you see in a month? Probably the reporter who wrote that article for the Illinois paper. The reporter who actually checked out whether the PR was totally meaningless. The reporter who asked the other Illinois hospital about how patient satisfaction rates went up (careful to note that an independent organization conducted the survey). The reporter who wrote about the concrete changes at the hospital. I do not think they originated most of what they promote. This took seconds to find by searching "planetree" and "hospital" in Google News Archives [17]: "Open since June 3, the Planetree Model Hospital Project is being billed by its creators as "the nation's first consumer-oriented hospital unit. ... " Admittedly, that's what the Planetree people said. But they said it 23 years ago: Model Hospital Where the Patients Live Easier Sep 17, 1985, Los Angeles Times.

DGG: It remains a set of advertising slogans, nothing more

Local rag: [18]

Some of the changes Northern Westchester has made over the past six years are simple and relatively inexpensive. Patient rooms now have whiteboards, on which are written the names of the medical staff members who will be caring for them and the procedures patients can expect. Patients have easier access to their medical records. They can generally order meals when they want them and choose from a menu, rather than have a tray dropped off on a table.

Nightgowns with pink flowers and pinstriped pajamas have largely replaced thin cotton gowns. Integrative medicine — like aromatherapy, acupuncture, reiki and guided imagery — are offered in conjunction with traditional medicine.

Special attention has also been given to the ambience. Announcements on a public-address system are used only for emergency situations; rubber flooring further mutes noise. An instrument called the Yakker Tracker monitors decibel levels on the floors, and there are signs reminding staff members and visitors to quiet down. Original artwork, donated by a local museum, lines the hallways. [...]

Both Four Winds and Northern Westchester Hospitals are affiliated with Planetree, a nonprofit organization based in Connecticut that seeks to transform health care by understanding the perspective of the patient.

Most of the verbiage in that section you don't like was made up of examples, tieing them in to the components of the philosophy and presenting the whole so that you might be able to relate the parts to the whole and to each other. For the importance of the philosophy, see this hardheaded take on it, which also ties in with what one of the hospital execs said in the article above. But you'd have to follow the links to see it. Why don't you go visit your local Planetree hospital and get a free neck massage while smelling the cookies being baked and listening to the piano? Then tell me it's all meaningless PR. Do the reading and quit bugging me. -- Noroton (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that though NWestchester is on the list of their hospitals, the NYT, properly avoiding advertising, didn't mention that. This isn't the place to evaluate hospitals. DGG (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The article quoted above did mention it. See last italicized paragraph above. I was flipping through Men's Health magazine in a waiting room today. I think it was page 82 of the October issue where Planetree was described for a few paragraphs in relation to the design of hospitals. The article reflects the sources, but I think I might add information from some of the sources mentioned here. -- Noroton (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)