User talk:DGG/Archive 15 Apr. 2008

East Granby High School
Cheers for removing the A3 notice on the above page - I'd put it on when there was no info there, but the author has now added to the article. I just hadn't re-checked the article! Booglamay (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * yep, thats a reason for not speedy tagging immediately. People often do add information. by the way, a case can be made that even the infobox at the start was enough infomration to justify a stub. Thanks for following up.  DGG (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Need help with protected template
A have noticed that Template:Infobox Ethnic group has no genetics information tab. Probably it would be a good idea to add such tab, so the participants of our project(and others if interesting) can provide the information about frequency of haplos(and other notable genetic info) for each ethnic group. Sasha l (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * suggest discussing on the talk page there first. I'm not sure the information will be always capable of being summarized to the extent of an infobox entry. DGG (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Apology for additions made to Generation Y article
Dear David,

I am writing to apologize for the additions and alterations made to the “Generation Y” article in the past two months. At no time was Peter Sheahan aware of the edits being made on Wikipedia. Any information uploaded to Wikipedia in future will adhere strictly to the Wikipedia guidelines.

Yours sincerely, Samuel Michael Carter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Michael Carter (talk • contribs) 03:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate this, and i enlist your help in making this a good representative article with varied sourcing. For example, Perhaps you can help us find some good third party published sources giving a list of what they think is iconic--there might be many, and then we could refer to them all. I don't see how

Holger L. article
Fine, I realize that if you are notable in Denmark you are notable in the world. But he is not. Please do not delete my PROD unless you have proof with citations from verified sources that this individual won "50 gold and platinum records". As it stands, having done something for Ace of Base is hardly meritorious for a biographical article at WP.

Second, I googled his name and can't find anything from any good reference sources that can verify the "50 gold and platinum records". Anything found was from www.popmusic.dk (His website), his MySpace page and some of his audio forums posts (Which are not reliable sources).

Third, I am always apprehensive when someone comes to WP and all contributions are solely directed to create a biography page. Especially when this user is from the same country (Denmark). The proof is on the very first edits to this article in 2006.

Fourth, WP is not a place to advertise yourself and your web sites; Holger would be the only one with an interest to create this article and the only one to benefit. The fact that someone form Denmark did it, is by itself dubious at best.

Here is the new reason I put on the tag: "Notability has not been established sufficiently enough to merit a biographical and historical article page about this individual here at Wikipedia. In addition, this page appears to be more like an advertisement for his websites and a vanity page. It should be deleted at once unless the platinum and gold records can be verified with citations from reliable sources".Jrod2 (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:PROD is only useful for unopposed proposed deletions. Anyone may remover a prod for any reason, good or bad, and it is therefore useless to put it back. The recourse is AfD--see WP:Deletion policy. I see you have already correctly sent it there,  and i will discuss it there.DGG (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

User:NewAtThis
re: your comment, see ANI and RFCU. It's quacking louder and louder. Save your breath err, keystrokes. S/he isn't getting it/doesn't care/is having fun. Have a good day! TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 11:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no expertise at working with sockpuppet cases; all i can do is offer advice on deletions, assuming the possibility of good faith of the person involved. In this instance, the bizarreness of the nominations was remarkable, but the ed. also seems to have been deliberately imitating a very respected ed. here who was making some misguided but principled analogous AfDs. Agreed it is strange behavior, but I let others figure out that side of things. there have been too many serious admitted recent errors in such identifications of sockpuppets.  DGG (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, I just figured I'd save you a ton of time and effort if it was all going to be for naught. Personally I wish people wouldn't wiki out of boredeom, it just creates more work. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 19:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * what I am doing is going back over  all the pages involved in, because some of the problems about pages s/he found were real, and among all those pages nominated for deletion, a few--a very few-- do indeed need to be deleted.  DGG (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I went through some contribs earlier and referenced some of the fairly easy ones to source. Didn't need to be tagged for refs if they could be sourced in a 2 second google. Sock now confirmed if that affects what you need to do at all. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 00:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Cabal deletion
Hi, I've responded to your comments on ANI. It wasn't an April Fool's joke, I was and still am completely serious about deleting them. If you want a DRV, that would be fine by me, but it seems that the only users defending them are the ones who belong to their own groups. Cheers, Keilana | Parlez ici 22:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not defend them. I'd love to see those pages, and the Bathrobe Cabal too, out of WP. But I wouldnt d it unilaterally against consensus. Even you and me both isnt enough to override the consensus. The qy is, how could you think you had the right to do so after a close? WHat I think you ought to do is to revert your deletions, and take it to deletion review instead. The principle that we admins dont act arbitrarily to follow our own views of WP is more important than those 4 or 5 pages. DGG (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I acted in all honesty ignoring the rules to better the encyclopedia. I think that if anyone really objects to it they'll open a DRV, but if it can be resolved without any more waste of community time, that is the route I'll choose. Regards, Keilana | Parlez ici 22:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't about "cabals" generally. This is about a particular group of linked user space articles that was starting to get out of hand. I see it the way I see a disruptive user or articlecruft. The general question is not and can not be answered by a debate such as the AN/I one nor would I think anyone be presumptive enough to try. Strangely, the BRC seems to have its own unrelated issues - divisions within it are starting to have effects on RfAs and even meta nominations, as people who've found a reason to disagree with each other in there oppose each other outside almost to a point. Orderinchaos 23:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * commented at AN/I. and I'd be glad for another MfD on the BRC, but not today.  DGG (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Commented there as well, do you think a DRV is the best option? I'd personally rather hash it out on ANI, but if there's a need for more...formal discussion, then it should be opened. Keilana | Parlez ici 23:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC) we will ever be able to produce our own list without OR about which of the various proposal are important. . 06:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Cabals
I've started an informal consensus survey which I hope will help us come to a conclusion on whether the cabals should remain deleted. You can express your opinion at this page (link). Thank you. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 12:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, an interesting read. I hope the unhelpful ones are rooted out, but I've no time to participate in the discussions much, as I'm extremely busy in my real life, and it'll likely get worse soon... · AndonicO  Hail!  13:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you OK with the closing of the above discussion? I have no position on the underlying pages, can't even say I've really reviewed them, but I have a real problem with the process; particularly as taking an ANI thread to DRV isn't in process either (although it was suggested by the closer). What are your thoughts? The close was made 6 mins after a comment by Orderinchaos, so I don't really think discussion was over. Asking your opinion because I don't want to make too much fuss but fairness of process is pretty important to me.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Now in a new, exclusive flavour! Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  21:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not happy with anything about this: i dislike the traditional cabals, the new ones being discussed, the joint MfD on them, the decision to make an early close of the MfD, the actual close at the MfD, the AN/I discussion, the reversal of the MfD at the AN/I discussion, the canvassing during the AfD discussion, the holding of a poll during the AN/I discussion, or the close of the AN/I discussion. I cannot defend those cabals,or any of the traditional ones, but neither can i defend most of the later actions.   The question has become split: what should be done about those pages, and what should be done about the actions of individuals in discussing them. Considering my respect for many of the people on all sides of this who I thought were doing things badly wrong, I decided to get away from WP for a few hours, for i could see no way out of this.  My current reaction is amnesty towards everything, blame it on April 1,  restore the pages, and renominate individually. Maybe the RfC can do that, but I doubt it. I've commented there. I'd appreciate no further discussion here; this whole thing should not have happened.    DGG (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

G11 speedy?
Hi David, I always trust and respect your judgment and interpretation of our deletion policies. Could you kindly share your opinion on what I think is an invalid G11 speedy? I posted a detailed comment with my reasons. I'd be most grateful if you have a moment to consider this. Thanks, - Neparis (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that it really was informative not promotional, and just needs references. see what the deleting admin says; if no reaction or declined, easiest way to go is to write the article in your user pace, complete with references, and then ask for restoration at deletion review. I'll see it there as a matter of course--I check that page every day. DGG (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, David. I was planning to add further citations to RS, such as the J.Chromat.A reference. I foolishly failed to keep a copy of the article while it was in development. I'll see what the d.a. says. - Neparis (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Evolutionary theory of sex
Hi there, I wasn't sure if I was interpreting your comment correctly, would it be possible for you to check that I understood your meaning? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was talking more than about this particular article--so it might have been confusing. Ive clarified it there. DGG (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD notice
David, FYI: Articles for deletion/The Organ Review of Arts -Pete (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC
I've started drafting a user conduct RfC that you might be interested in here. If you'd like to participate in drafting it, please feel free. Cla68 (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Gooddays
Since you recently blocked twice, you might want to look at Suspected_sock_puppets/Gooddays_%282nd%29.  MBisanz  talk 21:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks--any negative or inconclusive results there do not affect my blocks, which were for continuing disruption, not sockpuppetry. DGG (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2008

Communist Propaganda AfD
I do think you have missed the point a bit on this one. Did you read my entire !vote? "not a notable scholarly subject, because nothing (or vanishingly little) has been written about what is common to propaganda from various communist countries, parties and communist organisations." I happen to be fairly certain that such sources do not exist - except, maybe, in long-discredited John Birch Society pamphlets. More to the point, none have been produced.

As I said, "Propaganda in the Soviet Union"/"by the Soviet Union" are perfectly acceptable articles, and not under discussion. Please note that the Western propaganda redirect sends us to the Chomsky theory of propaganda in advanced capitalist societies, which makes precisely the above sort of argument - that there is a common thread to the propaganda output in these societies. Note also that it is presented there as a theory, as well. Were any similar theories to be found in reliable sources about propaganda from societies and parties as diverse as Cuba, the Soviet Union, North Korea, the Communist Party of South Africa, the Shining Path, and the Socialist Unity Centre of India, or even any sources that claimed to make that connection, as the Chomsky theory does for other equally diverse societies and organisations, the situation would be different. Otherwise we are left with people using "communist propaganda" as shorthand for particular, different, communist parties. Jumbling them together would be unacceptable synthesis, and get anyone who did so a failing grade in most undergraduate courses.

I was particularly disappointed and dismayed. because if one of our most experienced commenters on deletion debates does not see the danger of "articles titled with weakly-defined referents, which are then used as soapboxes for whatever form of original research people with a bunch of different POVs turn up with a single Google search on the title phrase", then we are indeed in trouble, and it explains the losing battle some of us are fighting trying to keep advocacy swill of various flavours out of the mainspace.

Could you perhaps revisit your vote? -- Relata refero (disp.) 08:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * replied on the AfD page: the subjects overlap.
 * I'm now going to be heretical--I think the best way to deal with some issues is a policy change to permit ideological forking in articles. I think we do it implicitly in some cases already, and that we might as well do it explicitly. Otherwise we end up with uncomfortable attempts at synthesis which if they ever reach a compromise, do it by reducing an article to meaninglessness.  Instead of subheadings "criticism" we should have "X views on" and "Y views on." But I'm certainly not arguing the afd on that basis, for such is not the current policy. DGG (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I spelled out there, I still think you're wrong :)
 * Anyway, I'm actually thinking very hard about what you just threw out up there. If we can't keep our mainspace free, perhaps we can keep certain articles free. Hmmm. -- Relata refero (disp.) 15:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Your message
Thank you for your message..I had marked a few articles for deletion either through Prod or AFD.These are basically unreferenced articles for which I could not find sources after a search in Yahoo and Google and did not have a single reference the articles were created in 2006.Hence marked them for deletion.'''As you create the article, provide references to reliable published sources. Without references, the article may be deleted.''' is what comes on the screen.Further unreferenced material can be be challenged and removed.That is exactly what I doing.Please let me know if anything is wrong. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between "may" and "must". All that statement says, it that, without references, someone may nominate it for deletion--which is certainly true. Deleting them will however not necessarily help the encyclopedia. Documenting them--that would help the encyclopedia. Therefore, deletion policy for articles, says only that articles can be deleted if they are unverifiable. Unverifiable, not unverified.  I'm glad you are at least looking at Yahoo and Google, though, for your reasons have not made that clear. Remember though  that it many cases documentation shows up at GScholar or GBooks or GNews that does not become evident in Google. Remember also that only a part of the web is actually crawled by search engines, and that other techniques are necessary. Remember in particular that only certani types of articles will be documented online in the first place, and a minimal search for these involves a print library of research quality--if you are not in a position to do such a search, you should not be marking articles where the only material will be of that nature. Remember that if you send something for PROD you are requiring at least one other person to undertake an independent search, and if you send them for AFD, at least 2 or 3 people will need to do that also. If sources are then found, you've made lots of extra work for people.  With all this in mind I'll look at your future nominations. My view is simple--if an unsourced article does not have evident sources available, and it looks like it will never be possible to find them, or it looks like even after finding them they are unlikely to show notability, then nominate it for deletion. There's probably 100,000 articles in that category, and that will keep us all busy. DGG (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed response.I agree with that. WP:V is crucial and this only for articles for which sources are not found and further only for articles with zero ref. Further the problem with Wikipedia is of realiabilty and hence WP:V needs to be followed and any user/IP can edit now not all articles are watched.Actually I copied this rationale from another user But this rationale '''This article is unreferenced, so it fails wikipedia's most fundamental policy, of verifiability. The edit screen for creation of a new article clearly warns editors that unreferenced material may be deleted, and this article has been tagged as unreferenced since June 2006, which is quite long enough for references to be have been added. However, they haven't been added, and now it's time for this article to be deleted as unverified. A new article on the subject may of course be written in future, if it is referenced to met WP:V and to establish notability.''' BrownHairedGirl I saw in one of the prods that user had put.Further we have no deadline but to say even if a citation did exist but none was put for over an year and it was not available and subject/person/company was largely unknown ie not notable to an average reader and it did not come any Google/Yahoo search.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just want to mention that "Largely unknown to an average reader" is not a reason for deletion. It's in fact one reason why the encyclopedia exists--for specialists to contribute what they know for the benefit of the rest of us. The wiki is a particularly good arrangement for this.  DGG (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant was totally unreferenced without a single reference and finding the reference is not easy after a normal search for any Editor who is not real expert in the subject and it at times raises questions about WP:V.It raises questions whether it is a hoax or is the subject notable,facts accurate etc.The article has been created more than a year ago.I agree with you "Largely unknown to an average reader" is never will be criteria as that is why the encyclopedia exists.Please do not feel I am deltionist or so.Thank you for your time and patience in replying. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

DRV Question
Hi, quick question since of all those involved with DRV, you're the one I "know" best. If an article has been previously speedied but the title has not been salted, does it need to go to DRV before I can re-write it? I'm asking specifically about the American Sephardi Federation, which was not written by me and speedied in Oct 2007. It doesn't appear to be in the Google cache so I don't know what the speedied version said. I've found RS coverage that definitely shows notability and would like to re-write. I'm happy to do so in my sandbox and then 'apply' to have it reinstated, but I'm not sure what process it. Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 21:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You can simply rewrite it if you can make it better. The only real reason to go to DRV is if it's necessary to prevent it from getting immediately deleted, such as reinserting the same version because you think it's OK as is, or because it will possibly be controversial.    I have moved the deleted version to User:Travellingcari/American Sephardi Federation to get you started, but as you will see there's not much in it to help. When you have expanded & referenced it, just move it to the proper title or ask me to do so. DGG (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, what an extensive article! I really don't understand why people don't at least type more before hitting save to avoid speedy. I've found enough to make it a viable stub, if not Start-class and I doubt it's going to be controversial. If worse comes to worse and it goes to AfD again or something, I could do something about merging it to the Center for Jewish History article but I honestly doubt it will come to that, I'm confident that I have found enough to have it remain as a viable article even if it's a stub to start out. Thanks for your help, I'll let you know if I need help making the move. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 22:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's back, American Sephardi Federation. If there's anything you think I need to do to ensure it's viable, please let me know. I know the history section needs expansion and have tagged it accordingly. Thanks for userfying for me. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 23:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Very good job indeed. Your standards are among the highest on WP. DGG (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, means a lot coming from you. I despise the term 'culture vulture' (prefer culture geek) but it suits me. I'll do everything I can to find enough information on cultural organizations/museums/etc. to ensure they meet notability guidelines as they're currently very underrepresented on Wikipedia. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 23:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

A related question for another member of CJH, it appears from the log that Leo Baeck Institute was nothing more than a URL, can you confirm? If so, no need to userfy, I don't think that will help me much ;) Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 16:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, just a link. DGG (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed ;) TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 20:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Dennis Fairclough
Hi DGG. You recently de-prodded Dennis Fairclough with an edit summary saying "Look for sources before nominating for deletion." With all due respect, I do look for sources before prodding or nominating at AfD, and I would ask you to do the same before deprodding. In this case, I could not find any sources that indicate he's notable for either his professorship or role at Novell, and I've nominated this article for deletion. Jfire (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * yes, that's what's you ought to do. It is perfectly legit to deprod if one thinks there might be sources. Upon quickly checking an earlier version of the article & Google, i found & added some, though i can't say I'm happy with them--but remember, this was pre-internet. DGG (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ann Farnsworth-Alvear
Can you remove the speedy delete tag from this article when you get a chance? The subject is obviously notable. Many thanks. Stanley011 (talk) 05:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Done. It might also help to add any other books she has written, and a statement of her exact rank at Penn, and previous positions. DGG (talk) 05:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Blaylock's statement in his newsletter
I agree that Blaylock's own newsletter is not the most reliable source, but it is better than no source at all. If a Wiki editor confirmed Blaylock's practice in North Carolina by calling the Medical Association, that would be Original Research and therefore not allowed. A published statement by a news reporter would probably be acceptable, but where do you think the reporter would get his information? From Blaylock or from a Medical Association that got its info from Blaylock. If all self-serving sources were directly or indirectly rejected as Wiki references, most of Wikipedia would have to be deleted. If Ford Motor Company published a spec sheet that alleges its subcompact gets more than 30 MPG, that would have to be deleted as self-serving. If Nintendo asserted that it's Wii Remote contains a motion sensor, that could not be used as a reference because it is from a self-serving source. Why not leave in the North Carolina statement and if anybody finds a reliable published source that disputes it, the disputing statement can also be added. Greensburger (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC) I would normally accept it, except that it has been specifically disputed on the talk page. A reporter would verify the information. As we are not in a position to do so, and as the question of whether he actually ever was a neurosurgeon there is relevant to his general credibility,we need something more than this to establish it. DGG (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Judith keene
Out of interest, what do you believe is the claim to notability in this article? Nuttah (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just what it says, commandant of cadets at a US Military academy. As I mentioned, I have doubts whether it will pass AFD, but I do not recall a similar discussion there. This is arguably different & much more important than president of the student body at an ordinary college. DGG (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough I'll AfD it. IMO opinion none of being the rank of Captain, having a couple of minor awards or doing a job have ever been considered notable or even being claims to notability but we can test consensus again. Nuttah (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wonderland Online
I say this because I like your enthusiasm for making Wikipedia a better place: I created the article all of three days ago, and only have marginal computer access over weekends. That being said, someone did add a lot of information to the page while I was gone (it needed grammatical overhaul, but let's be happy that people like adding to Wikipedia), which I formatted. I appreciate your advice, and will try to include references to the original where appropriate.

In terms of notability, I can understand your apprehension, since the game is a whole two days away from Beta Testing. Let me respond by putting it this way—had I not included that phrase, you wouldn't have noticed the page at all, and just thought it was another stub on its way to development. Seeing as Beta Testing is starting so soon from now, I think it would actually be quite appropriate to have the article be created now, as potential players are going to be looking for information about the game, and Wikipedia is known throughout the gaming establishment as having useful information. That being said, I've taken down the deletion tag and provided an explanation; according to the rules of it, you should wait a while before you can put another one up. I hope that you decide you don't need to.--Fuen Fuboo (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * deletion processes here are a little complicated, see article talk page for explanation. I'm not sure it would be notable even in beta if not released and not reviewed. Our role is to provide information about things already notable, not to help make things notable. AsI said, though, if the Chinese version is released & reviewed you should include it, for it might be notable. DGG (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I know that this is just my paranoia, but I'm pretty sure that you got someone to propose the article for deletion again. Rather than, I don't know, giving me more than fifteen minutes before trying to get rid of the article, why not let me get to work on it and see how it turns out?  I'm not saying that you have to wait indefinitely, but deleting an article after three days seems a bit inappropriate.  I would say that the fact that verifiable sites like GameSpot and IGN have blurbs about the game show that people in the know think the game is noteable.  However, if that doesn't convince you, then I will say this: you must also, then, delete the pages for Luminous Arc 2 Will, Rondo of Swords, Trickster Online and every other CD, game, or other media that has not yet been released in the United States, since, because they do not yet exist, they cannot possibly be notable.  You'll also have to get rid of every article that does not provide references, since that seems to be your reason that this game does not reach notability.  Please consider how many pages you will be forced to delete if you start this chain reaction.--Fuen Fuboo (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * People do as they please here about nominating for deletion via AfD. Anyone with an account can do it, and there are a great many people who watch articles on games. If I had wanted to nominate it right away, i would have done it personally. I have no reason to ask other people to do my work for me.  The place to discuss the article is at the AfD.  I do not set the standard there. the community at large does; there are several million registered users, and I have very little influence on any of them.  DGG (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

thx
Thanks for your kind words about the update summaries. I'm sure there will be teething problems, but it might be the start of a larger effort to coordinate MOS and policy pages. TONY  (talk)  04:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:N/CA
I've had a go on the talk page at addressing the NOT#NEWS concerns by limiting the use of tabloid newspapers as a means of establishing notability. The problem is trying to work a guideline that satisfies some of the concerns of both sides of this particular issue without contravening wider policy! Fritzpoll (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted content
Hello! I thought I should point you to this request, made by User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles over at Articles for deletion/United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet Universe) (3rd nomination) (which you participated in - that, and the shiny box on your userpage, prompted me to ask you and not someone else). Jobjörn (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: PD sources
Thanks, I saw that they were military and government but wasn't sure if that made them qualify. Does anything else need done on account of it being a cut+paste, or just wikified? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * just wikified. This source is used for a great many plant pages in WP, without significant editing except for wikification. Please not that the .gov alone does not indicate it is necessarily US govt, but in this case it is. The indication here was the .fws. in the url. DGG (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm going to clean that article up when I get the chance. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My question on the RfA
There is method to that non-free image question. I'm not saying anything in particular about the article in question - I picked it at random from Category:Articles with excessive non-free image content - I could've chosen Hossein Alizadeh or Scrameustache, but I thought I'd choose something fairly familiar and easy to understand.

The reason I'm asking it, is I'm very intrigued to know how accessible WP:NFCC is - because it's a core policy, and doing a lot of non-free image work recently, I've been surprised to find very experienced users and even admins making edits that violate it - mostly because they don't understand it, but sometimes (astonishingly) because they don't agree with it. The use of non-free images against policy has become ingrained into enwiki, and making articles policy-compliant is a difficult task. I am wondering whether we need to re-word NFCC, not to change what it is, but just to ensure that editors understand, especially when they're uploading FU images.

As for the question? There is a straight-down-the-line adhering-to-every-tenet-of-NFCC correct answer, and there's a few acceptable answers which at least show that the editor broadly understands the policy, and then there's a lot of wrong answers. As for RFA, I doubt if I'd actively oppose an otherwise good admin candidate because of their answer, but it might tip the balance if I wasn't sure. Black Kite 00:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, interesting experiment--did you realise the tag was at the top of the page & the other 2 you mention giving the hint exactly--and the link to the policy--any candidate who couldn't find it would indeed be too incompetent to be an admin? My view of the optimum solution may be different from yours--I think we need to liberalize the policy because the images in those 3 articles do really help people unfamiliar with the work get some idea of what it's about, and the goal of the encyclopedia should be to convey information--within of course the limits of legality. (I deal with the dilemma posed by rules I do not agree with by simply not working with the mater in question--and I course I give people the official advice.)  I would certainly advocate enWP changing its policy to the most liberal interpretation possible within WMF policy, and I would indeed go further and advocate the foundation changing its policy and permitting a particular project to decide to permit all images that are legal fair use in the main countries of the language area and the servers. DGG (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I expect the candidate to find the policy, it's how they interpret it that's important! Your view is why I've been tagging pages with the NFIO rather than simply going in and blasting all the images, except in cases where the images really do fail multiple parts of NFCC and don't help the reader's understanding.  It is interesting that you mention the "most liberal interpretation" of NFCC, and that's exactly my point - it shouldn't be possible for it to have an interpretation.  Incidentally, if you're going to permit copyrighted images, you'll need to design a new logo for the top left-hand corner, because one of the words will be obsolete :) Black Kite 01:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have yet to see a policy here or anywhere that does not require interpretation--and that's what you and I are doing most of the time here. For this particular problem, the ones that seems to be most relevant are "3a Minimal usage. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." and especially "8. Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic."  any policy that includes the phrase "significantly increase" is obviously going to be subject to a considerable range of interpretation. But, as I said, I avoid discussing images, in order to avoid the frustration from working on things where the details contradict the principles. From your point of view, I suppose its where the policy contradicts the practice. In a wiki environment, the practice is the policy. Our version of legal realism: the policy is what we do here. If one wishes to change it, one uses whatever arguments will be persuasive.  DGG (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In the end, I suppose, the only solution to that is the nuclear one(s), either bar fair-use completely, or allow it completely. And neither of those would really improve the encyclopedia, I fear. Black Kite 02:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What is needed to avoid all-or-none is reasonable people who are willing to listen to others, and try to reach the best result for each article individually. But perhaps we don;t have a high enough proportion of them--in which case all or none does have some attractions, unfortunately. DGG (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Nita (national Institute for Trial Advocacy)
I see you declined speedy deletion of the above with the comment "importance obviously asserted". With respect, "importance" is not the same as "notability", as is explicitly stated in WP:N. – ukexpat (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Its enough to keep it for speedy per WP:CSD. There is a difference between passing speedy and passing AfD. DGG (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Victorian Manchester - The Cathedral
Something seems very, very wrong about this page--from the title of it, all the way through the content. I put a couple of tags on it, and I think it should be deleted but am not sure which specific deletion criteria it meets. When you get a chance, please look at it and advise. Thanks. Stanley011 (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * isn't a speedy--it's an essay. I've seen one or two like it. Though this style of writing doesnt belong here, since it has citations, if we cant find that its been published before, it's tricky to justify the deletion. My guess it's from a old guidebook, from the style one put out by the Cathedral. If it was before 1920, it's not copyvio. Best thing to do is to put on a   mergeto tag to Manchester Cathedral; Check WP:MERGE for the details, & I'll check tomorrow that it looks right. DGG (talk) 04:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, put the merge tag on. Typically, what is the next step after such a tag has been added? Many thanks. Stanley011 (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, someone else, and a very good ed. at that, decided to just change it to a redirect immediately--this preserves the original text in the history of the redirect. I'd personally have gone slower, but I don't think what he did was at all unreasonable and unless the author protests, it will settle the problem. I'll keep it watchlisted. DGG (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Comment
I withdrew my comment. I did not understand at the moment the importance of the article. It was after all my mistake. I am sorry for that.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But my comment was not about your view of the article, but your view of me. In any case, I'm glad you deleted it. Are you now goingto change your !vote on the actual article? DGG (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * An interesting debate is going on Articles for deletion/Thetis Lake monster. You might want to join.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * and so I did. DGG (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

On Galt
Please take another look at the article since I just updated by adding additional interviews, articles, keynotes and dates to the article to show notability. Thank you. Artsojourner (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * and so I did. DGG (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have worked on many articles maybe over 2 dozen and only had one other deleted so I know it can become heated in discussion but those smerky remarks make it not much fun on here You know who I am talking about. Who cares about a bike cart any old way LOL. Thank you for your time and efforts I just should not become so invested but its just took so gosh darn long to put together and I could have done so many other things with my time here in NYC. Oh well  Thanks again. Artsojourner (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I sounded annoyed; you have done good work here, but I think, to be honest, you have gotten overinvolved in propping up this one article. But I hope you realised that when I am asked to look at something, I will look, but follow my own judgment. DGG (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wish you'd reconsider your vote on SAMVA USA chart
You voted 'Weak Keep' and its a weak keep indeed. I can't even imagine how you, as an administrator, found reason to keep it. Seriously not trying to be offensive at all, but the article is

A) Original research - it was created by an internet user, and though it has some historical references, the point is these references have been synthesized to create an argument about the chart. If thats not original research, what is? And though you said "the copyvio seems only in the exact reproduction of the actual charts--discussing them is not copyvio" - the text of the entire article is taken from |here.

B) Unverifiable - No third-party sources available. Just a blog link. What's to stop me from creating the 'Greek SAMVA chart' tomorrow and creating a Wikipedia article on it with the text simply taken from my blog. That's both unverifiable AND

C) Unnotable - If its not being discussed or examined in any actual printed material - why does it belong in Wikipedia?

This article violates the entire spirit of demanding a neutral, referenced text on notable encyclopedic topics. Unfortunately, when you look at it, there are now three 'keep' votes - Yours, the article's author, and someone's whose very first contribution ever to Wikipedia has been to come and vote 'Keep' for that article - obvious vote padding.

Sadly that may be enough to force a keep, as not much interest has been takn in the voting. - I intend to blank large portions of the article if it is kept, demanding a third-party source if the information is to be reinserted Brando130 (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You know, you're completely correct. I changed my vote there. What settled it was seeing the source the blog lists for its data, which is the wikipedia article. DGG (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Undeletion request
Can you please provide me with the text of Monstrous adolescent? I want to merge the information about the term to the book it came from, Anime from Akira to Princess Mononoke: Experiencing Contemporary Japanese Animation. -Malkinann (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have moved it to your user space as the subpage User:Malkinann/Monstrous adolescent. It was deleted only via PROD, and there is no objection to moving it back into article space if you can meet some of the objections raised about the article. If, however, you do not plan on doing so, and you've gotten the material you need, place a on the top of the subpage, and it will be deleted. DGG (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I've got about all that I can at present. I'd like to name names for examples of monstrous adolescents, cited to the book, but I don't have a copy on hand.  Is it possible/good practice for me to just redirect the subpage to the book article, and I can look at it in the history if I need to in the future? -Malkinann (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. The article was merely deleted as a {{WP:PROD]], not an AfD, and there are no restrictions on its restoration. Just move it back,and then replace the contents with a redirect Perfectly good solution. If you need help, ask. DGG (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

399 to go
We are almost done, Category:Articles lacking sources from June 2006 is down to less the 400 articles to find references for. I would like to thank you for listing yourself as a volunteer at Unreferenced articles and would like to take this opportunity to invite you to visit the project again and work on getting the last few articles referenced. We started with 5,572 and we are in the home stretch, please come and try to do a couple a day and we can finish it up in no time. Jeepday (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting the article
Thanks for deleting Payapa elementary school the second time around that I nominated it for CSD. I suppose the first tag I applied was not as relevant, eh? :) Although someone (I believe you?) suggested I take it to AFD, which I have done in the past with other articles, and have had the experience of it receiving many 'speedy delete' votes and told to next time send it to CSD, so I have to question what my options are sometimes for articles such as these. :) Gary King (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * wasn't me the first time. If one reads the article carefully, it turns out to be schoolboy vandalism--the distinguished alumni seem to be his immediate family and friends. So as to DENY the satisfaction, I called it a test edit. About options in general, when in doubt, PROD is usually a g ood choice. DGG (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of NCR 5xxx
An article that you have been involved in editing, NCR 5xxx, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/NCR 5xxx. Thank you. B. Wolterding (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Eyewitness Books
Hi,

I noticed that an article on Dorling Kindersley's Eyewitness Books series was deleted by User:Kyorosuke in 2006 with the not-very-helpful edit summary "Sucks":. I'm pretty sure a good article on these books could be written. Provided that the article wasn't a copyvio, would I be able to see a copy of it? Zagalejo^^^ 17:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's short enough to fit right here: "Eyewitness is a non-fiction book series. A few books in this series include Reptiles, Invention, Cats, and Mammals." An appropriate edit summary, I think, but not the least reason why a good article couldn't be written. You don't need any permission for it, though to avoid deletion, it would be wise to write it out in full before putting it into Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. Yeah, I might as well just start from scratch. Zagalejo^^^ 01:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

List of companies of Pakistan
I'm not sure how a nominator of an Afd can withdraw? Thank you so much for removing the red links. Would you consider opting for a page move to one nominated List of major Pakistani companies now that you have removed spam and everything I have argued against? The current name just asks for trouble. 10% of the worlds single traders on one list? -- Bp E ps - t @ lk 03:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, the original article was apparently doneby copying in a directory,which is a very poor idea. It should have gotten fixed long ago--thanks for spotting it. To withdraw the nom, just add a comment to the AfD saying so, and why, just like you did here, & ask for the page move at the same time-- someone will clean up the details. DGG (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks and thanks for all the hard work -- Bp E ps - t @ lk 04:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

re Center for Advanced Studies and the Arts
I respectfully disagree with the judgment that this page was a blatant ad - it is no more so than any of the many pages that describe public and private high schools. It is simply a description of the school. It is a public school which is open to any student of the six public high schools it serves. Thank you. --MorganKing712 (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * From the article, the first paragraph describes it as an arrangement between 6 high schools for a joint program of AP courses. The bulk of the article is a list of the 33 courses now offered. Then comes the address and phone number. What I will do though, is undelete it and put a proposed deletion tag onto it so you have 5 days to find some source for saying something notable about it. I will then probably send it for a discussion at WP:Articles for Deletion so the community can decide, but I want to give you a chance to improve the article first. DGG (talk) 04:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ended up prodded & deleted DGG (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Pay for placement
You kidding? This is rubish, the real article is Pay per click. If you think this is AfD, please nominate it. Igor Berger (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * suggest you consider merging any material and changing to a redirect. I've heard both words. and even if I never heard it before, it would still not have been a speedy on the grounds of not being the standard term. That just is not a reason for speedy. DGG (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate next time you decline my speedy if you can leave your rational and instructions on the article talk page. I just flagged this while on vandal patrol, so to set up an AfD may not be what I want to do, because busy with other stuff. So it would be good to leave instructions for other editors who come across the article. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Pay for placement is a completely different term than pay per click. "Pay for placement" means an advertiser pays a flat rate based on where the ad is placed. Under this model, locations known to be high-traffic cost more. "Pay per click" means the advertiser doesn't necessarily choose the location their ad is placed in, and pays based on how many actual clicks the ad banner receives. They are two completely different systems of purchasing advertising.  Equazcion •✗/C • 06:02, 12 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, I have not heard of it. Been around Adsense since it was born. But read the article. It says that Adwords is paid for placement which is False! Maybe you can add the right information to the article. Or just put the info on talk page. Igor Berger (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can source what you saying please do. I AfD it because the external links are blatant advertising. It is not sourced. And what you describe does not match the article. I Googled and read a few P4P they do not describe as you do but as PPC. Also no {WP:RS]] found in Google. Igor Berger (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * continued there.if interestedDGG (talk) 06:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like its going to be a save with some help from User:DeadlyAssassin. I hate you, whenever you decline my speedy the article gets a keep..:) Whenever I work on an article and it is AfD, even you vote keep it is deleted. This is a jinx! Maybe you should start voting delete on my articles! Ha, Ha, Ha! Or maybe I should start AfD articles I work on to get a keep for them! Have to think about this one a bit! Oh Eq, you were right! Thanx, Igor Berger (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, at AfD almost everyone is wrong some of the time. And I've made mistakes in both directions on speedy myself, about one a week. The only way to avoid error completely is to do nothing at all. But that's an even bigger mistake. :) DGG (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I pay you for placement? Or will it be a violation of COI..:) Igor Berger (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also can I make a suggestion? You should redirect User:DIGG to User:DGG it will be esier to find you. Or will it MfD, right away? Igor Berger (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My RFA has closed
My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence §  t / e  18:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

reply, Richard of Cirencester
Hello DGG, thanks for the comments. I just split up some things that should not have been in the same place (eg, the article you saw had been in the historical Richard's article, where it absolutely does not belong), and I'm now going through the related articles to clean up a bit and make a few other corrections. I'll be back to this article shortly. Sorry I didn't get back to it before you saw it (I just started this the day before yesterday). Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello DGG, I presume that all the links will work out ok, but in case they don't this article is now at De Situ Britanniae (I left a response on its talk page); "what links here" was checked and the articles corrected, and the original location (which became a redirect after the article was moved) has now been cleared off by an admin after I marked it for deletion. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured_list_candidates
Hey, you made something funky happen with Featured_list_candidates. Gary King (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind! I looked around a bit and found the nomination that had it after perusing your contribs. Gary King (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, so I did. Thanks for fixing it so quickly. DGG (talk)`

ME/CFS controversies
Hi,

I agree the article needs more work. I believe that is the same text that was in the Chronic fatigue syndrome article at the time the article was split. Editors are still trying to complete the split of Chronic fatigue syndrome before cleaning up sub-articles. Would you mind posting to the talk page items that you believe objectionable, or what needs to be added for balance? Thanks, Ward20 (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done--I wouldnt say "objectionable" -- I'd say unbalanced, or over-definite. But I dont really want to get into the fundamental questions on this subject--I'm just saying how the article appears to an outsider. DGG (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Very much agree with your comments. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

U R Welcome
I've the utmost respect for you as an editor and an admin. I'll be glad to steer any new editors or articles your way that I can. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim'''  04:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:FLC
Hi. I have replied to your comment at Featured list candidates/List of Los Angeles Police Department officers killed in the line of duty. You don't have to reply, but I explained why I think it should be kept. I also added your "oppose" back in; it had been removed because it was an H2 header and messed up the transclusions on WP:FLC. Regards, -- ṃ• α• Ł• ṭ• ʰ• Ə• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  06:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * sure.DGG (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ice Culinary
Thanks for the pointing out of the style information. We're working directly with Lisa Pisano, the PR director at ICE to build out this page. Iceculinarynyc (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy-
I declined your speedy on Museum of Art BYU. It was an acceptable stub, and the museum is almost certainly notable enough to pass AfD. db-empty is only for articles which contain no content--see WP:CSD, and WP:STUB. as for Department of Psychology, Brigham Young University‎, I think the article could and should be deleted via AfD, but it doesnt fit under db-group, for it can be read as an implied assertion of importance to be a department of a major university. It's better not to take shortcuts. By the way, though not strictly required, it is considered polite when you nominate for speedy or any form of deletion to notify the person who originated the article. DGG (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the updates and pointers...very considerate and helpful! --Eustress (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Begging letter
Hello! I am here to beg a favour. There are kind people who can get me Oxford DNB articles and things from JSTOR (not sure about MUSE, but I haven't found anything I wanted from that). However, I'm after an article which is available on something called "EBSCOhost". I could always buy the journal in question, but I thought I'd ask you first. It seems that this available to libraries in the US. Do you have access? If you do, is there any chance you could get me a copy of this thrilling article? If there's anything I can do in return - I can manage more or less good paraphrases of articles in French, Dutch and German, in descending competence, if there's anything you'd like a translation of - please let me know. Thanks in advance and best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll work on it tomorrow, but I dont expect problems. And yes, i can do MUSE if necessary.DGG (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I did have problems. The paper is too long to be manageable by my set up. Sorry. My suggestion is that you ask for it as an interlibrary loan from whatever library you use. If this won't work, please email me, & i'll figure out something. DGG (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Thanks for trying! Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I was looking for something quite different on the publisher of the SHR's website and saw a link that said free access to journal articles on the new journal website in April. This is April, the access is indeed free, and the paper in question is on the site, so I now have a PDF copy of that paper - and much more besides - carefully stashed away. Apologies for making you jump through hoops on this when, had I been but a little more attentive, I could have got a copy myself with no trouble at all. Who's a silly old Angus? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * you feel silly? I'm the one who should, because I should certainly have tried that also. It's part of my profession to think of things like that, and I generally do. I was so annoyed at the Ebsco download system for acting difficult that I stopped too early.DGG (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Dlohcierekim/GMILF
Hi. Was trying to save this when it got deleted as Gmilf. Rewrote. Would you look at it and let me know it you think it would survive AFD? Or is it just another DICDEF? Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim'''  03:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * At the least it would have to be considerably expanded first, and have some references. Is it worth the effort? DGG (talk) 03:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Thanks. I'm hip deep myself. Maybe the creator can fix it up. Dloh  cierekim'''  14:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

RCIMUN
Hey! I was just wondering if you could give me advice on improving RCIMUN (which you have deleted (db-Group)) so that I can re-edit it to meet Wikipedia's standards? (I would also appreciate it if you could provide me with the text of the article)

Can Efeoglu (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the article, Model UNs have been consistently deleted as non-notable. This one might possible be, if you can find sources talking about it in third party publications outside the College. Given the prominence of Robert College, this is possible, so I've restored it, and marked it for Proposed deletion in 5 days. If you can find sources, you may remove the tag--otherwise there is no point. A further thing you might do is remove what looks like publicity for a coming session. If there were notable speakers with WP articles in previous years, you might add them. Good luck with it. DGG (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of schools
Hmm. Never noticed that one before - mind you, I despair of the ever-changing deletion procedures and rules. I don't read the guideline as saying that you can't speedy delete an article on a school, just that you shouldn't do it if it's controversial. But I wouldn't normally do a speedy on a school, I admit, partly because there's usually a fair chance of them being expanded. So prod is probably safer. Deb (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * you're right it was added onky a few months ago--about the time the balance switched to keeping almost all high school articles, and a few people started arguing the same about primary school (which hasnt been accepted, but they are still arguing). Actually, the best thing to do with all the articles is to merge with the towns. Takes a little more work, though. Possibly we could even use the pictures. DGG (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

West Fargo Public Library
I would like to merge West Fargo Public Library into the West Fargo, ND article (as suggested). Thank you for providing this option! Carrie Scarr (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Carrie Scarr

Thanks
Yeah, early whaling and Svalbard are subjects I don't mind writing about at all. I'd love to visit Svalbard someday, thats if I can ever get the money to do so. I'll try and add more info on the stubs I created, as well as maybe adding a bio of Robert Fotherby, if I can find more info on his early and later life. I'd say he's pretty noteworthy, being the first Englishman that we know visited Jan Mayen and doing I good amount of exploration along the northern coast of Svalbard and the like. Jonas Poole (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No apology necessary!
You were just pointing out something very important and I had provided no evidence to suggest that I had done the Google news search before your comment (should have done that!) and perhaps my response came out harsher because someone else had just accused me of something false in another discussion. So if anything, I should apologize to you, and I do! Thanks for the note though! Cheers, CP 04:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

LAPD line of duty list at FLC
Thank you for clarifying your oppose at Featured list candidates/List of Los Angeles Police Department officers killed in the line of duty. I have replied to your comments, but I think we will continue to disagree although I would like to be able to at least work on it enough to change your oppose to a neutral. Regards, -- <small style="background:#fff;border:#000 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">ṃ<big style="color:#090">• α<big style="color:#090">• Ł<big style="color:#090">• ṭ<big style="color:#090">• ʰ<big style="color:#090">• Ə<big style="color:#090">• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  06:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Army Fortresses in Japan proper
Thank you for your interest in List of Army Fortresses in Japan. Please review Articles for deletion/List of Army Fortresses in Japan proper I have made an attempt to find references for the article and could find nothing to support the assertions made. Consensus is leading to keep and improve, but I am not seeing where improve is an option. If I am mistaken and there are references available please add them to the article. Jeepday (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!
Barnstar of Diligence

Bill Wakeham
Thank you for your work on the Bill Wakeham article. My apologies that I did not do this myself Supposed (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

GlobalScholar page deleted
Hello DGG,

I just noticed that you deleted my GlobalScholar page. I was actually in the process of building it, so the page that you saw and deleted was not yet completed. I still had to put wiki links as well as reference my content. I am sorry if you thought the page was already complete. I was actually about to continue work on it, when I realized it was gone. Please bring it back so I can finish work on it.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsupy (talk • contribs) 16:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have restored it as User:Elsupy/GlobalScholar in your own user space. When you have finished tell me & I'll have a look at it. But there are two problems: first, you need to show that it is already notable, not just that it's a good thing and will be notable in the future, and b/you need some third party reference from a published reliable source that talks about it--a review in a magazine, or whatever, online will do, but not a blog or the like. DGG (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please review the GlobalScholar page now. I've added 3rd party references. I hope this works now. (Elsupy (talk)
 * I've commented on its talk page about the refs, but good enough to go back to mainspace & take its chances. DGG (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you DGG. I will try to find so more reference pages. Don't really understand why you consider TechCrunch an unreliable source, just because it's a blog. They actually get more traffic than the SeattleTimes. Elsupy (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Elsupy
 * I must have been unclear. I think it is a reliable blog. But the practice here is that blogs are generally not considered good sources, except in special cases. Personally, I think we should be more flexible about it, but I must give you advice based on what the community here will probably say. But in addition, I am prepared to argue that this blog should be considered one of the special cases that is usable as a Reliable Source for Notability --I think the argument might be accepted, since it has an article here TechCrunch. DGG (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Posts by Arrington himself in TechCrunch might be considered reliable sources; but not everything you'll find there is of similar reliability. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  22:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * of course--at most it's like such things as the NYT bog or the Chronicle of HE blog--the edited posting are acceptable, the reader responses not. But for details like this, if doubtful, an afd would be the place as I am certainly no expert.DGG (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The GlobalScholar site is still in beta. Most of the sources cited are just giving the plans for what they will do and quantifying the dollar amounts of investments. In my view, that's still a weak case for having an article. If there were reviews of the finished product available in reliable sources, the story would be different. EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest copying all this to the talk page of the article, or to start the discussion at an AfD.  I had speedied it, and all Elsupy & I were discussing initially was whether it was good enough to pass speedy, and it is, for it does make at least a claim to importance. i wish more AfDs got the attention that my page here seems to get sometimes. DGG (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC).

Hello
Hello DGG, I'm having some trouble. You see, I'm nominating an article for deletion, one that I feel serves no use to readers and that is simply trivial listcruft. It has been nominated twice before. Yet I'm having trouble adding the afd template to the top of the article. The steps to deletion say that I have to add but that won't at all work as it will oonly link to the secoond nomination page. What template should I use when nominating an article for deletion for the 3rd time? Regards, Valtoras (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * actually, I have no practical experience--I have never yet nominated an article for deletion after a previous afd has closed with a keep. But I see on WP:AFD the instructions "Insert the afd tag at the top of the page if it's the article's first AfD nomination, if the article has been nominated for deletion before use afdx As I think this is the third nomination, you would use afd3. Perhaps this will do it. However, I did take a look at the article, and I don't much like it either--there are probably several hundred other people with articles in WP who might well be listed. It would seem to be to make more sense to specify that besides the person being notable, there be some reason to include the death as in some way particularly significant. About half of them would seem to qualify for that in one way or another.  Another thing I can think of is the possibility of separating out the  under 21s.  More generally, in principle we can by code make lists of any combination we please, and select out those people in Wikipedia who have lived any particular number of years in any particular profession. Beyond there, we depend on the semantic wiki to deal with causes of death and tabulate information as we would like it. But even then there's an advantage in having prebuilt lists of things that are interesting for browsing. I never encounter a list like that without learning some new things from it. DGG (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

List of sexual slurs
Since you've already been involved with it I was wondering if you could have a quick look at List of sexual slurs. I made some minor changes to the article, which I thought were quite appropriate, but the page creator reverted them without explaining why. Since the changes included challenges to some of the content via way of tags, I reverted his changes and added an appropriate comment on his talk page.. His reponse was an uncivil comment on my talk page and a second reversion of my changes. He seems to be assuming ownership of the article and I'd like to nip this in the bud so the article can be improved as per your suggestions. I'd like to assume good faith and put this down to newbie inexperience but his comments regarding the article make it clear that he's been around for a longer than his edit history indicates. This is actually the third time he has inappropriately reverted changes on the page in just over a day and I think he needs to get the message. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think those terms you tagged may well need some sort of support--you tagged selectively & appropriately. Reasonable "fact" tags should not be removed without discussion unless a citation is added. one of the see also's did have the article deleted--the other one still has an article. I fixed it to your version except for that. I've reminded the other editor, I'm watching the page, & I will not hesitate to do what may be needed. (if you think you can help provide a few references for the article it might be helpful to do so--I think RS for articles like this can be interpreted very liberally.) DGG (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Gears of War
Regarding Articles for deletion/List of Gears of War characters and adversaries, while I personally disagree with your assessment, I am willing to withdraw the nomination (even though I doubt the actual article will see the amount of support and participation that the nomination has). All I need to know is how to withdraw the nomination, and I will do so immediately. I can't seem to find instructions on how to withdraw if there are any, and this is my first AfD despite the fact that I have been here a few months (I try to avoid AfDs because I think the process is flawed). If you can help me with this, I will appreciate it. -- Comandante    { Talk }  18:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * you add a comment to that effect. You are absolutely right that its easier to talk at afd (on either side) than to work improving articles. This is one of the big problems of communal projects--talk is always the attractive option.DGG (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll get on it. -- Comandante    { Talk }  20:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)== Kamina ==

Apologies if you thought i was "trying to be an admin"; it wasnt my intention. I simply dont think copying part of a page over is at all useful; the same could be achieved with a redirect (like you eventually put). If i cover the section of the F-15 page "operational history" to its own page, its providing no more information than a redirect. Ironholds (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that. Rather, if if were were necessary for the admins to do everything that needed fixing around here the project would collapse. What I meant was that you very correctly saw a real problem, but that a redirect by itself could fix it, and you can do a redirect by yourself most of the time, and a merge also. (If it gets complicated, then ask for help. Just keep learning how to do more and more things that way. You're doing fine). DGG (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Marketing 2.0
Hi. :) With regards to this article, I just wanted to note that the article seems to have been created in May of 2007 (in the edit summary, I wrote September--I missed the versions before it!), whereas the suspect source is dated December 12 2007. It seems like if there is a violation, it's the other way around! There may be an older source from which this is lifted, but I haven't been able to find evidence of yet. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll check again & if I don't find something I'll undelete it. Thanks for spotting this, --I must have been working too fast.DGG (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)that

Comber Primary
What do you know so much about Comber and Comber Primary that you have to get rid of it? What right do you have to just take away my work?

Rachypie12 20:29, 21 April2008 (USP)
 * As a general rule, very few primary schools are considered notable at Wikipedia. Typically, nothing is written about them in 3rd party published sources other than purely local ones to give any indication of any possible notability. A few are--generally the very long established ones, one ones which have won really major prizes at a national level. I didn't make the rule, though to be frank I do agree with it--it represents the consensus of what the community almost invariably decides at WP:AFD, which is how we determine what is important enough to be suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. And I did not delete the article--I proposed it for discussion, and another administrator decided to instead incorporate the information into it a paragraph in the page for the town and make a cross-reference--which is an optimum way of handling this. DGG (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fight Club in popular culture
You are in both WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture and Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. Could you please userfy this article for me? I don't have a copy and I want to see whether it can be improved for another chance at DRV. –Pomte 22:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * userified as User:Pomte/Fight Club in popular culture]]. It seems a well referenced article, deleted on the basis that some of the material was too minor. I think it might take only modest improvements.
 * Thanks. –Pomte 01:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fictional portrayals of psychopaths
Doh! Sorry about that; I should've been more careful before tagging it. Thanks for catching my error. TheMile (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * me too--I made the same error-- I had actually deleted it before I realised, and I had to go back and restore it. DGG (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A moved version of this article was deleted by Articles for deletion/Fictional portrayals of psychopaths in film (2nd nomination). –Pomte 02:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Similar, but not at all identical identical to either one of them--organized differently, though I did not try to match up the details. I don't think it's a straightforward G4 as re-creation,  They were specified as transwikify, but only one of them seems to have actually been done. It will take a good while sorting everything out from the past year. DGG (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation?
Hello - you participated in Gavin.collins' Request for Comment, so I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding him. BOZ (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Martha S. Lewis
Hi, can you please check my citation format in this article (and verify the cites if you wish). I have had to rely more on books than I typically do so, but this woman (who I knew) was long retired before the Internet. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I did some small fixes. But another question is evidence for notability. I think she is, but there's no really reliable formal source for it. The NY Red Book is only quasi-official. An obit in a paper like the Albany Times Union is not truly a RS, though usable for routine facts, as it's written on the basis of information provided by the family without fact checking--there's some reluctance to trust any newspaper obit except the NYT and the London Times. This goes all the more so for anything in a who's who--which is always based entirely on information from the subject. For example, it had the wrong title for her publication. A incidental mention in a local story in another paper isn't all that good, either. And all the rest are websites. I'd try for something published in a newspaper during her career. There must have been something when Lindsay appointed her. And you can't assert her friendship with the bishop without a reference--if you can find it, include in the main body, not as a see also. I touched up that article  a bit. DGG (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Bradley
Sorry about that, but when I went to edit the page I saw [this diff]. I must have missed the change to redirect when I added the no-context tag. The penalties of using Twinkle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julesn84 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

George Frederick Shrady
Just out of curiosity, what is the original source? Erechtheus (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * sorry, I was going too fast. I went back and added it. Obviously the article needs rewriting in toto, but it still is not a copyvio. DGG (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's some fancy detective work. Trust me, I know all too well how easy it can be to get ahead of yourself. Thanks for the response. Erechtheus (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I suppose if I realized that was the name of a book or other written work, I could have also discovered that via the Library of Congress. Erechtheus (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Center for Christian Broadcasting
Just curious for a full explanation as to why my page was deleted. This is an actual non-profit group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ledgeswarp (talk • contribs) 03:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the deletion of Center For Christian Broadcasting under WP:CSD. Remember, even if the business is organized as a nonprofit it doesn't confer a license to use Wikipedia for advertising or promotion even when it's true. Please see Introduction for more information.--Hu12 (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Hu, I think just the same about this, and I've given a longer explanation on the user's talk page. DGG (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Userfy - Law museum
Hi DGG! It appears this one had a busy last days of existence prior to going the way of the dodo bird. If there's anything useful, would you mind userfying, please? I think I found some good sources. Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 05:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Moved to User:Travellingcari/Law museum. Based on the article as it stands, I would have !voted delete myself. If you can show it's important, great. Otherwise, when done with it, tell me, and I'll move ti back and delete it. DGG (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC
 * Ugh, what a mess. The material I found was for an actual, physical, law museum that happens to have an online presence and is associated with Harvard. You can do away with this one, it's not going to be of any benefit and I'll just re-write law museum from scratch. Thanks for your help TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 14:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Lectures
Apparently you've already done talks about aspects of wikipedia? We're going to be doing skypecasts by the NotTheWikipediaWeekly crew now. I'm wondering if you might be interested in presenting a lecture?

It's important to show people different views and approaches to wikipedia.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Animal Science Image Gallery
Thanks for your positive comments about the quality of NAL resources. This is our first attempt at a W'pedia posting and we've been speedily deleted by first, the copyright bot, then the amorphous 'notable and important' criteria. I frankly don't know where to go from here. John Gladstone / Web Manager / NAL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgladsto (talk • contribs) 11:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * suggestions on your talk page. DGG (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

An FLC
Hi I noticed that you opposed the FLC for List of Los Angeles Police Department officers killed in the line of duty. There is a similar FLC right now and I wanted to see if you had any objections to it. -- Scorpion0422 15:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * responded there--same problems as the other one. DGG (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Water Lilies (film) to Naissance des Pieuvres
Hi - I had a note that when I redirected Water Lilies (film)to Naissance des Pieuvres, I absent-mindedly copy-pasted the article over to the new title before the redirect, which leaves the history fragmented...is there any chance you could do a history merge for me? Kabuki dreams (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hate to admit it, but I'm not very experienced in these, and better to ask someone else. I plead guilty once more to not knowing everything. DGG (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Deprodding of two elementary school articles
For Little Creek Elementary
 * 1) (cur) (last)  23:15, 23 April 2008 DGG (Talk | contribs) (1,706 bytes) (no reason given for prod--deprodded. Merging is more usual for articles like this) (undo)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 03:19, 22 April 2008 Davidwr (Talk | contribs) (1,912 bytes) (add tags including notability and PROD for non-notable elementary school) (undo)

For Butler Elementary School (Arlington, Texas)
 * 1) (cur) (last) 22:25, 23 April 2008 DGG (Talk | contribs) (1,665 bytes) (deprodded--no reason for deletion specified; a merge is usual for articles like this.) (undo)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 15:18, 22 April 2008 Davidwr (Talk | contribs) (1,871 bytes) (PROD, the only significant content does not seem notable and was added by an anonymous user. Remove PROD and address notability if you want this article to avoid deletion via WP:PROD or WP:AfD) (undo)

In your de-prodding of both articles, you said "no reason given for PROD."

I thought I was pretty clear why I was PRODding the articles. I also commented on both talk pages, here and Talk:Butler Elementary School (Arlington, Texas). The reason for PRODding over AfD was clear lack of notability and, implicit, the idea that PROD was preferable to AfD for efficiency's sake, and because I didn't expect anyone to object. The reason for PROD over redirect is that if there was no such article, I would not create a redirect as the schools are so non-notable. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * opinion varies about whether one should fix up a prod that gives no reason or just remove it. If I think the article should be deleted, I often fix up the prod, but in this case, i would have removed it even had you given the reason: the correct thing to do with such articles is to merge--which can mean no more than making sure there is a mention of the school on the page for the community or district. If there is, that amounts to a redirect. But practice is against deleting without the redirect. Among other reasons, its to avoid excessively discouraging the young editors who usually do these articles--they can usually spend some effort quite appropriately on the article for their community. What I'm saying is the usual result of AfD, not just my own view--though I do agree with the usual result. If you think it's wrong, you certainly have the right to take it to AfD & I won't think the less of you & maybe the other people there can convince you. But it might be more useful to make the merge & redirect & have done with it. DGG (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What if Wikipedia were to only allow web sites to be used as sources?
David - Considering your background and interests, you may want to visit this discussion thread in the village pump: Village pump (policy) — Becksguy (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * enough has been said there already about this bad idea. DGG (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

ATCast
Hey, thanks for your check up and explanation for ATCast. I'm not sure if you saw it in the history, but I removed an initial speedy. Cheers, Van Tucky 17:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw--and then, the author, being apparently confused about what to do, put on a "hangon" tag himself, so it got listed at CSD all over again-- so that's why I saw it again. I come across this about once a day,.  DGG (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Bob Barker Hall
Hi there. Thanks for the heads up; your comment is apposite, within the exact phraseology employed by WP:CSD. If you feel that it merits the change, I am perfectly happy to restore and prod. To be fair, I would point out that as the building is only in planning stage, and as no notability was claimed, the sentiment to speedy delete is, I think, appropriate. And previous versions of CSD would have allowed it. But, as I say, I have no strong feelings about it and will happily change if you feel it would be better. --<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 18:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)  I think it would be better to restore & prod as a matter of consistency with a group of other similar articles. And if the tag gets removed, we can nominate it for Afd. I agree with you completely that the article is not in fact sustainable unless there's a great deal we don't know about. If it were just you & me deleting speedies I wouldnt worry about including buildings such as this in CSD, but there are some admins who are not quite as careful. DGG (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks DGG for being what seems the only editor to support the page I've been working on user:klostermankl/careflash [CareFlash] and saving it from deletion. I appreciate the types of projects you do on here. Any help is welcome. I am just a beginner. Anyhow, I just wanted to say thanks. Kyra Klostermankl (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Woody Myers
You deleted my article about Dr. Woody Myers and claimed it for speedy deletion 12 days before a primary election in which he is involved. Please explain to me how this article is a copyright violation? I work for Dr. Myers' campaign as his Internet Coordinator and simply reused his biographical material on our website, but edited for use on Wikipedia. I changed the tense of the article from Dr. Myers' first person biography on our website to an objective discussion of his life and career for Wikipedia. I would like the page restored if it is at all possible, please let me know how this may be rectified. Finifinito (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Finifinito
 * well, I reread the two, and the similarity is close enough that I am quite sure it would be  considered a copyright violation. Changing "I" to "he" and picking out selected paragraphs is not sufficient. You need to rewrite the article. He is probably notable, because of his prior importance  as NYC health commissioner and Indiana State Health Commissioner, and that is the part that needs to be emphasized. We do not consider a candidate for a primary election who has not yet won the primary as even remotely notable as a politician. In fact, even if he does win it, the consensus at Wikipedia would be that he is not notable as a politician unless he wins the election (personally, I think we should accept a major party candidate for congress as notable, but this is not yet the general position)
 * in any case, you will need to have 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases), generally magazines or newspapers, that devote substantial coverage to him. This should be possible for his position in NYC, which is why I think that part of his career might be notable. I'm not sure the articles about his campaign on his website are more than PR, but there is no harm in includingthem if you also have something more.
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a source of public relations. The article must contain what the reader of an encyclopedia would look for--information about the person's public career, not about the part time job he had in public school. Please see WP:BIO -- and WP:COI. If you can rewrite it properly, you can do so, but if it resembles a campaign advertisement it will be deleted, even if there is no copyright problem; and if it transcribes or closely paraphrases his web site, it will be deleted no matter what it says. DGG (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

008 (UTC)
 * I re-tagged the page, but differently this time. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote the piece to contain only his biographical and career information, removing any PR embellishments. I submitted it and it is not visible yet, do you have to review it before it is republished? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finifinito (talk • contribs) 16:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I cleaned it up a little. I do not know whether it will stand--it depends not on my judgment, but the consensus. WHat would help most at this point is some additional information and cites about his role in the various controversies. It is also OK to mention the current campaign--in one sentence. DGG (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Doctor
... move Doctor Doctor (The Secret Show Character) to the correct title, then delete the redirect? The history would indeed be preserved. Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * should it be to Doctor Doctor (The Secret Show character) or to Doctor Doctor (the Secret Show character). Might as well get it right the first time.DGG (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the name of the series is called The Secret Show so it's definitely not the latter ... Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:56, 25 April

Standard work
Just discovered you/your work, Mr. Librarian. As such, the above could use your expert views. Regards, --Ludvikus (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The article concept is fine, but the selection of books to list is going to be a problem. I think you need to show that the work is still considered a standard work. I know the book you list, but you'd need not just reviews at the time of publication but -- now 40 years later -- some sort of authoritative statement, not just a comment to that effect. To see how to do this right see List of important publications in biology.DGG (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC) (now deleted)

Controversial literature
Another, but much less urgent item, which might benefit from your input is this jem of mine (I created it's ) in 2006! --Ludvikus (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just removed all unreferenced speculation regard what this means. All we have it that the LOC used to classify such texts, but no longer does. Ludvikus (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there is enough left to be worth the trouble. DGG (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability
Could you check the article Don Byrd in relation to the notability tag. I recall that you have good academic sources for this sort of thing. Thanks! I will watch. --Stormbay (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * it turns out the two academic monographs are each in about 400 libraries, which is a very good showing for such works. Even the poetry is in several dozen libraries, so they're more than self-published. There are a number of articles too, but I didnt add them. Most of his career is pre-internet & I havent yet found an online CV. Borderline + a little. DGG (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Stormbay (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, note
Hi, thanks for the help with the references. I also noted here that I knew Ms. Lewis personally in her capacity as her pro bono attorney. I feel that I should disclose that to you and all. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Yes, I hope you will not be surprised that i had guessed something of the sort. DGG (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Track access controller
An article that you have been involved in editing, Track access controller, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Track access controller. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? B. Wolterding (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks DGG for the advice
Thanks for letting me know the notable people here on Wikipedia should have articles of their own, so I will create them in the List of Long Island University People section. I deleted some people and will create articles for those who should be recognized, at least here on Wikipedia. Omnis7 (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The Hobbit (2010 film)
I think there's a rule somewhere that a movie has to have begun actually filming footage before an article is technically permitted on it. --DocumentN (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * such is the general rule, but I think this is probably a common-sense exception. I may be wrong, of course. Solution is to discuss on the talk page at of Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films, & if the consensus is against me, then it will be against me. DGG (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Lectures
Hello. Kim Bruning is hosting the lectures right now (April 27, 2008). The IRC channel is here. Hope to see you! And, uhh... hi, we've never met :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Template speedy question
I have a template speedy deletion question which I hope you can help in your role as deletion-meister. Is there any speedy criteria which would apply to a template which isn't really a template? For example, what about Template:VfD-Jandarma Istihbarat ve Terorle Mucadete or Template:Islamic Empire. The three template-specific criteria are too narrow, and none of the general criteria seem to apply. With no template PROD, that leaves TfD, a waste of the resource for what appears a clear SNOW delete. Is interpretation of db-test sufficientl flexible to cover this for an admin's delete approval, or is there a better idea? Perhaps ping an admin (like now) and ask for an IAR delete when it comes up? Thanks. -- Michael Devore (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I deleted Islamic empire as db-nonsense, which it clearly was; db-vandalism would have come near as well. db-test would apply to something somebody tried to make,but did it hopelessly wrong or incomplete. As for the other, due to my ignorance of the subject, I do not know that it is obviously & blatantly absurd   without an explanation, so the safest thing to do would be TfD. DGG (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I guess I can see a nonsense interpretation on the delete, but the vandal part is from a drive-by goofball adding an idiot remark, which one undo would clear. The overall history doesn't appear to support a vandalism removal. Guess I'll TfD the other, though I really dislike XfD's. Half the time I go there, someone zooms in from left field accusing me of nefarious misdeeds, stupidities, and ulterior motives for having the temerity to suggest the deletion, though I'm perfectly happy to see last-minute improvements support a keep. Community delete discussions are not a happy place to be. -- Michael Devore (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've gotten used to them. I have seen a few, a very few, actually result in improved articles, or to reasonable compromise. Maybe one or two a week, but it keeps me going. the hope is that if more people like us could learn to stand it, it might get to be a few more. DGG (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Culinary Institute of America
I removed the bit you added on Tim Ryan's vote of no contest as it is a controvesial topic on an individual who is still alive. I actually recieved an e-mail from a faculty member that stated the source is not entirely accurate as well.Chef Tanner (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * private emails are not an acceptable source for anything, including bios. The information was sourced by the standard reliable source for such matters, an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education. I have therefore restored the material. The president of a college is not a private figure, and the material refers to his public actions. I have therefore restored it. I warn you against further removal of sourced material. You may challenge its reliability on the talk page, or by listing it at the reliable source  or BLP noticeboard; or the subject of the article may follow the ORTS proceedure. For any of these, you will need a published RS to be taken seriously. DGG (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sir, please be civil. Chris is very knowledgeable on these subjects and takes very good care to insure his edits are verifiable and correct. Your warning on his page was inappropriate and uncalled for. Please assume good faith with other editors. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 00:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was a little amazed at the removal of sourced content in favor of a personal communications; I thought it necessary to make clear the meaning of BLP. I am well aware of his expertise on the subject, and his personal knowledge of this and other schools. I thought an informal warning appropriate, & leaving one is not uncivil. - I've gotten a few warnings myself from time to time, and some have even been justified. I do not propose to myself take administrative action on a question involving my edit, but anyone can issue a warning.  They're just warnings.  DGG (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am just saying that your tone in the post was a little terse, reflecting of a level 4 type warning as opposed to level one type warning; I honestly believe that a warning was unneeded and that you should have taken a more cautious approach. Chris is an high level expert in the field of culinary training\education and has insight that a lot of us do not.


 * I also have an issue with the source that should be brought up, I could only find one brief summary of the article in an industry trade magazine that required a subscription. If this is true, more reliable sources that dove deeper into the issue would need be to be found. I would like to see a NY Times cite. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 07:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The Chronicle of Higher Education is the major reliable source in that field; it has been consistently considered not just reliable but definitive for events in the academic world, and used for really contentious BLPs, including matters much more serious than those which occur here. There is full precedent that subscription sources are acceptable;  I've e-mailed you the item in question. I have changed the Wikipedia  wording slightly to what is supported by the actual reporter, not the comment of one of the people interviewed. The positive qualities of the school are fully covered in WP, though almost all of the article is sourced not from 3rd party  reliable sources but just the school web site & the article consequently has a considerable tone of press release.  To beef this up, I checked the index of CHE, & I will add the other 2 stories in which the CIA appears--in a very favorable light.  If you have good evidence that the event never happened or is reported wrong, please let me know about it or send it to OTRS. Did he or did he not receive a vote of no confidence? Was he or not reappointed?  As for the warning, it's so informal I decided not to even use one of the formal templates. But I'll reword it so it makes that clearer. We do need to cover both the positive & less positive elements of things. And surely you see that your personal tribute is not relevant to the issue of what the faculty voted. Incidentally,. I know some graduates, & have high respect for the school myself. DGG (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, the evidence is first hand discussion with faculty, not an "off hand" e-mail that I may have recieved. I personally know a large number of faculty members at this school in question.  Additionally it is the policy of Wikipedia to not involve itself with any personal biographical information that may be of controversy about a person that is alive as it could be potentially libelous particularly when this issue has not come to full fruition.  If and when this issue arises from more than a single trade journal that has been noted in the past for "jumping the gun" on issues at times, then I would be all for adding the information back into the article.  I will say I also did not appreciate the "warning" tone of your message, a more amicable approach may of made me a bit more approachable but I haven't really taken the issue to heart.  --Chef Tanner (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to personal e-mail
David, no, I am not Jeremy, so if you are inferring me to having sock puppets I don't appreciate it. Looking up the ISP which as an administrator you can probably do I live in Saratoga Springs, NY and Jeremy lives in Cambridge MA. He is someone that works extensively with me on articles for the Food and Drink WikiProject. Above the fact that even if it did happen, again I will state that Wikipedia has a policy against posting any potentially libelous information on people who are still alive. Having one article is not source enough in my opinion to state that this is a significant issue of controversy to place on an academic school's website. Does this mean when one of my fellow instructors is fired from my school that it should be on the website or if my Dean has the same issue it should be as well? It reads more as defamation of the institution (CIA) written into this article than it does of the individual Timothy Ryan.Chef Tanner (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * first, as for confusion of people, I apologize, I was just trying to clear up privately what seemed to be a continuous argument. If I were to make an accusation of that sort, i'd do it openly, & I didnt do it.
 * As for the main point, unfortunate things happen in the world, and when they do, they get included. The standard for inclusion of content is one uncontradicted RS.  And It is simply not the case that "Wikipedia has a policy against posting any potentially libelous information on people who are still alive" WP has a policy about unsourced negative material about living people. It also does not generally include material about disreputable events when they have no bearing upon the persons public notability. That the faculty tried to get him fired is not his private life. I do not know him, I have no POV and no reason to have one. I refer you to wP:OTRS if you want to pursue this further. DGG (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

An idea worth trying?
Hi, here's a thought that might do some good for the Israeli-Palestinian dispute on AE. Today I was chatting with an editor from Serbia. Mentioned the Serbian-Croatian ethnic disputes on en:Wiki and he surprised me by telling me the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedias actually get along pretty well. Basically what happened was some guys packed into a car, drove to Zagreb, and shook some hands. Then some other guys packed into another car, drove to Belgrade, and shook some hands. Once they saw that they were all pretty normal people, things calmed down a lot.

Maybe there's a way we can replicate that. Would you be willing to try a voice chat on Skype? I've noticed that when Wikipedia editors get into a conference call, with voices instead of just text, it's easier to find common ground. Wishing you well, Durova Charge! 06:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * if you want to try this, it will probably work best with one mediator. DGG (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good thought; we have a couple of experienced mediators who are familiar with Skype from NTWW. Durova Charge! 18:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian Revolution of 1918
Hi. The article has been deleted under identical circumstances before.

If it's not a valid speedy delete, what's the right way to deal with this, considering that it may be repeatedly recreated? Thanks. —Michael Z. 2008-04-29 19:37 Z 


 * Ah, never mind. It qualifies for speedy delete under "recreation of deleted material", which I did not make clear. —Michael Z. 2008-04-29 19:46 Z 


 * actually, the present status is as a redirect to Makhnovism which is in fact the correct way to deal with it. Recreation of deleted content only applies after an AfD, not after a speedy or a prod. I see the article to which it redirects is itself being challenged, both as to name and neutral POV. Personally, I see no reason why there could not be an article on Ukrainian Revolution of 1918 if it had different content from the other one, instead of just an excerpt. DGG (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That title itself is NPOV, and the redirect should be deleted. There was no such particular event in 1918 (Ukrainian Revolution is applied to events in Ukraine relating to the Russian October Revolution of 1917).  The title is an attempt to increase the significance of the anarchists, who were one group among many others active during the Civil War, including much more important ones (if you go by mainstream historians).


 * Awright, I guess I'll go through the formal deletion process to head off any doubt. Regards. —Michael Z. 2008-04-29 20:22 Z 
 * that is the best way sometimes,for exactly the reason you say,  even when its obvious. DGG (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much!!! That's a very useful lesson. And I'm so glad you put it here - I'll look for it if necessary. Best to you. Any other such useful advice will be most appreciated! --Ludvikus (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sneakernight (song)
It hasn't been released. Even the article I nominated for CSD states Coming soon, the single will be released in iTunes and in the anothers radios. It's clearly a db-repost.Kww (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks. I was stupid enough to believe the date in the article. Even short of people playing games, I should have known better than that. I've just deleted it.DGG (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Question (disambiguation)
What's with the REDIRECT on the Talk page of the above? Thanks for looking into it. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Seems to have gotten mixed up accidentally in one of the title changes. I cleaned it up. These titles that may or may not begin with prepositions or articles are always a problem. Not to mention notable authors who all use the same titles. You might consider moving "On the Jewish Question" by Marx to "On the Jewish Question (Marx)" That would provide a good way to handle the ones by Trostsky and Bauer. DGG (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)