User talk:DGG/Archive 16 May 2008

Finger off the trigger
Thanks for posting the reminder to me about WP:CSD. Without a doubt, there are times I have been too quick to pull the speedy delete trigger. Although it's much easier to discard the seemingly trivial stuff, I do believe it's better -- and broader-minded -- and more rewarding -- to help it along instead. I need to be reminded of that occasionally. CactusWriter (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Traditionalist Bishops
I've been Google testing the ones I prod; most of them don't get very many hits at all. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest checking also in WorldCat for published books. (& say you did on the talk pages so people like me dont have to bother you with asking). DGG (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You might also want to check out the Encyclopedia of the Catholic bishops in America, Vol. 1 (Hardcover) by Gerard Brassard (Editor) and the Biographical and heraldic dictionary of the Catholic bishops in America (Unknown Binding) by Gerard Brassard (Author). I hope that helps!  Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * do they cover the schismatics?DGG (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to sound like a broken record, but...
User:Shabiha is at it again. You gave this person a final warning a while back, due to behavior they're not engaging in again. You can check out the complaint on WP/ANI [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Blatant_harassment.2C_personal_attacks.2C_and_stalking_by_repeat_offender. here]. Any comments would be much appreciated. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see edit warning, but no real personal attacks one of your edit summaries included "adding it is blatant hypocrisy", which was not appropriate either. Another admin already warned the user a little while ago today.  DGG (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'll give it a rest on my end to put an end to the conflict.  Thanks for the prompt response, too; i'll make sure to act on the advice here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This is second time he has Complained me and harrased me for Personal pleasure. This Same User in Past attempted to Delete almost all Articles on Scholars onBarelwi Page and Insist only on adding Criticism on these Pages.I will act according to the advice given to me but what about Continues editwarring over adding Criticism on Various Sufi related Pages.The User itaqallah and he have a same ideology and similar editing Interests So he can never be Neutral as mediator on these Pages.Shabiha (t) 01:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * the advice is the advice anyone would give either of you & applies equally to both: --to avoid getting in a direct dispute with each other, in discussing a page to refer only to the actual matter at hand, to not use edit summaries for argumentation, and not keep reverting over the same point as if that would get anywhere. DGG (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

A quick request
Can you please remove the speedy tag to Ariane Ascaride? Someone put a speedy tag on this notable French actress article within a few minutes of its creation. I'm working on a full expansion which should be ready very soon. Thanks for reading. --Oakshade (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Situation resolved without disaster. Thanks for reading anyway.  --Oakshade (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: User:Numpty454 → Prince Albert Piercing
Hmm, didn't notice his past history. I probably wouldn't have been keen on supporting keep with that context. Although it's closed now, thanks anyways for the heads up. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback
David, just a quick note -- I have come to really admire your work in the couple years I've been here, and so was a little disappointed to learn you had reservations about my adminship. But what you said made a lot of sense, and is something I will take to heart as I explore the new buttons. I want to give you my assurances that I'll be extra-cautious, and am always open to your feedback if you have any concerns. If it's alright with you, I may seek you out if looking for a more experienced perspective as I'm getting up to speed. Thanks for weighing in, and thanks for being straightforward and specific about your concerns. -Pete (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I had reservations only because of your degree of readiness, not your general judgment or good intentions. Now that you are an admin, I rely on you to learn carefully the important parts--I find that even after a year I know the details only in the areas where I actively work, and myself refer the problems in   other aspects to those who specialize in them. I made a number of mistakes in the beginning, and I remain grateful to the more experienced people who corrected me. You will see from my log that in general I still find it necessary to do very little blocking or even protecting--I use the buttons almost entirely just for what I said I would--to check on things that had been deleted, and to delete the unquestionable inappropriate articles I come across. And even for those, the people who enter it merely don't understand the nature and purpose of the encyclopedia. What I had not realized is the extent to which my being an admin would lend an often unintended weight to my criticism, & I'm still learning to be gentle even with informal comments.  You can count on my friendly help when you need it. I should not have waited for you to write to tell you that. DGG (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm planning to stay away from the buttons entirely for a while -- in part due to the request of a couple commenters, and in part because I need to bring my wikimood back up to par, and building content is the only thing that reliably does that! But, I'll keep your suggestions in mind when I get back to it. -Pete (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Typo redirect John Picard: Sustainability Expert
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on John Picard: Sustainability Expert, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because John Picard: Sustainability Expert is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting John Picard: Sustainability Expert, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Seyhan Kurt
An article that you have been involved in editing, Seyhan Kurt, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Seyhan Kurt (2nd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Jeepday (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Subjudicy
IF it needs to be discussed elsewhere, how do we get that arranged, i appreciate Wiki may operate under Florida law, but would have thought it still has a responsibility in regards to laws in other countries.

the internet is a complicated animal, and i am not 100% on what the legall stance is as its hosted outside the Uk but i do think it ought to be looked into and quickly for that matter.

there must be some precendents in place already, im sure this must have come up beofre and if not specifically this then certainly other legal arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolstoy999 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * it's come up before; as far as I know, we ignore such considerations altogether--There are many articles here on analogous UK crimes, and also at other countries with similar rules. And there are hundreds of jurisdictions throughout the world. You can discuss further at WT:BLP] and discuss whether the article falls under any of the other BLP rules at  [[WP:BLPN, the Biography Noticeboard, or nominate it for deletion via WP:AFDDGG (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Malia Obama
We need to treat all articles and people the same.

So Malia Obama is looking like it will be deleted but Cate Edwards remains. But Barack Obama is a presidential candidate and John Edwards is not. So Cate has even less reason to be kept. We have to treat all articles the same. It is possible some people opposed Barack Obama or oppose Black people, so they want Malia Obama deleted. My guess is not everyone is like that but we have to be careful to avoid letting others vote for racist reasons.

All I am asking for is fairness and equal treatment. If all are deleted, then I can sleep easy and say that this is the Wikipedia standard, only big articles are included. If racism is possible, I don't like it. Watchingobama (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * we judge each article by itself on its own merits. There may be more things appropriate to say about one than another, and that affects the independent notability. The overall political effect is not our concern--Wikipedia is not a place for political discourse or publicity, just encyclopedic information. Anyway, I don;'t make decisions here--the general interested community does, by consensus.   DGG (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Another user/mainspace move situation
If you feel like puzzling this one out: User:Sudar 4edi moved (creating redirects) their user and talk page to User:War2@], then moved (creating redirects) that user and talk page into mainspace at article Sudar 4edi. Seems like Sudar 4edi and Talk:Sudar 4edi should be moved back to User:Sudar 4edi userspace over the current redirect along with a warning; the mainspace article redirects created by the move should be deleted; and User:War2@]+talk should be deleted as used only for as an interim step in the transfer. In toto, what's needed is well beyond any delete template or simple move request.

Do you want to fool around with all this, or should I post to ANI to set things aright? I wouldn't keep bugging you about these things, but you have an excellent grasp of the proper steps for less-simple templating, moves, and deletion processes which is perhaps a bit lacking with some other admins. -- Michael Devore (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * AN/I for this one I think--I actually have very little experience with complex moves. DGG (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I can make a semi-intelligible case for what needs be done there. -- Michael Devore (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Reseda Beach
I may have jumped the gun on that one. I have a strong textual orientation, and don't consider a raw unsourced infobox as "content" the way text is; but there was some text there, however unsourced. Since this has gone unsourced since Nov. 2007, I've restored it, but prodded as a WP:CRYSTAL violation.

Reseda Beach
I may have jumped the gun on that one. I have a strong textual orientation, and don't consider a raw unsourced infobox as "content" the way text is; but there was some text there, however unsourced. Since this has gone unsourced since Nov. 2007, I've restored it, but prodded as a WP:CRYSTAL violation. -- Orange Mike  |   Talk  04:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks. Myself, I actually like tabular data, and infoboxes for their potential use in semantic-based searching. DGG (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

InterVol article
Hi, I saw your post on the deletion review and I would really like a copy of the page sent to my user space. I did make the page when I was naive of the 'laws' of wikipedia and I now know the things to do and not do. I also have sources to reference and even notable businessmen who have been members of InterVol such as Graham Allcott who have referenced the society now to ensure 'notability'. Give me a chance :)

Thanks for providing positive feedback. I'm no longer involved with the group, I merely wish to expand the details surrounding the University of Birmingham which has such a large voluntary and society network.

PS I found one of the worst articles I've ever seen, 'Dhaka Topi' whilst researching for an essay on Nepal, this really needs to be looked at. Most of the links are to things such as antelopes which should be hats and pieces of cloth which are actually capital cities...terrible.

Cai CaiHeath (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would rather email it to you. Please either enable email on your user preferences, or send me an email via the link on mine. DGG (talk) 03:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My sig
I responded to you on my talk page, but you didn't get back to me. In the interest of good faith, I've changed it back to default for the time being, but I am not sure that it was actually breaking any policies. Can you please elaborate on your objection? I don't think the mere inclusion of toilet humor necessarily makes a statement offensive or inappropriate. Doctorfluffy (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your reply on my talk, but I would still appreciate it if you could answer my question above. Frankly, I don't think the word "fart" is offensive enough that it shouldn't be included in someone's signature.
 * Also, have you considered archiving your talk? Just a friendly suggestion, since it is large enough to choke my browser during edits, which makes communicating with you more difficult. Doctorfluffy (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The exact wording was that your user talk link appeared as "fart in my face" which I think any reasonable person would consider highly offensive --when used in this context. Sure there are places where to say or write this might be appropriate, but this is not one. Why you would even want to appear to the public in a permanent fashion in this manner seems a little odd. Although it's not usually allowed, if you wish to go back and change it where it appears on various talk pages, I would think it permissible, IAR. DGG (talk)
 * Fair enough. I will think of a more suitable signature that still appeals to my particular sensibilities. Would you object to something along the lines of "Farting is good for you" or maybe just "Fart" alone?
 * And I really am curious regarding the archival of your talk page. Are you avoiding doing it for a particular reason? Doctorfluffy (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * as for archiving, I try to strike a balance with keeping the useful material available, since other people seem to add generally relevant comments here about many things. Yesterday you ran into an unfortunate problem: an error of mine while archiving some of the content had doubled the size of the page. I fixed that, though.
 * as for sigs, I do not see why you are trying to see how close you can come to the line of tolerance. either of those seems insulting to others and degrading to yourself. DGG (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to see how close I can come to the line of tolerance. My old signature and both of the ones I just mentioned seem perfectly reasonable to me as I don't think a little light-hearted toilet humor hurts anyone, so since you are the one of objecting I figured I should bounce a few ideas off of you. I'd prefer not to get blocked for something silly, especially since you, an admin, have more or less stated that my own judgment on the matter only degrades me. I looked briefly, but did find any sort of precedence on appropriate material for signatures, and WP:SIG is vague and does not define concretely what may be inappropriate or offensive. Is there an official list of topics/words that cannot be used in signatures? Doctorfluffy (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of speedy tag
I saw that you removed a speedy delete tag on Woopra and was curious as to why. It seems to be fairly blatant advertising. Sunray (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought it could be rewritten as a descriptive article. It seems to have been substantially changed since then, so look at it, and if you still think it suitable for deletion, list it for AfD and see what the consensus says about it. DGG (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I had seen it before I wrote you earlier today. There is no doubt that Vipwoody does a good job of promoting the product. However, it is a beta release and we have no way of knowing whether it will catch on&mdash;in which case, it might be notable enough to justify an article in a couple of years. ;-) Sunray (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * you may well be right, but such questions are for AfD, not speedy. DGG (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Henry Adams (mechanical engineer)
Thanks sincerely for your help with the article. Over the years i've found Structural Engineers and Librarians to be the most help in the work I do. I am working with a wonderful gentleman at the Enoch Pratt Maryland Room on this project, who's been very supportive without needing to do the work for me - so i'm delighted you joined the discussion.--Teda13 (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

UserBetseyjh9824/AJM
You created that in the main article space. Oore (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * oops, I seem to have left out a colon. I'll go fix it. DGG (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Natali Del Conte Page
On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_5#Natali_Del_Conte you said "Restore and rewrite on the basis of the above."

I first off would like to thank you for your support to restore. I also didn't want to post this question on that page because I just want to ensure I understand your comment fully.

The page was originally removed in January 23rd. I was asked what has changed to merit it no longer being deleted, I gave this new information.

Your comment about restore and rewrite I assume suggest that this new information should be added to the page after it is restored? This information was added before it was deleted, the page that was deleted a few days ago was deleted just because the page was once deleted before. However this page is quite a bit different with lots of new information to support the new importance of this person. Therefore the reasons for the original delete do in my mind wouldn't apply anymore to the current version of the page.

So while I agree all pages should be updated I am not sure significant rewrite would be required for this page upon restore. Hope this sounds logical to you. If not please let me know. Just trying to make a better page and a better site for all.

All the best, Joe --BitStop (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I was suggesting that in addition to the information already present, some additional sourced information as well about her would make the article much stronger, News stories in which she is interviewed as a reporter only show notability to a limited extent, and are not really references un the sense we use them here; they should be included, but they are not really sufficient. DGG (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok fair enough points I will look to do that in the future. But as you can applicate it takes time to build a good Wikipedia page and not something that can happen over night.  But that is some great feedback that I will look to add in the future.  Only problem with this person they do a lot of TV interviews and links to such web sites don't last or often don't exists.  But I will try. And once again, thanks for your support. --BitStop (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy
Which article are you referring to? NawlinWiki (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * oops--this is about The Effects of Rising Gas Prices . Sorry. DGG (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I've undeleted and prodded. I think this was before I knew about the class project thing.  If not for that, I would have left it deleted per WP:SNOW.  NawlinWiki (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks, I'll add a prod2 to show we're in agreement. DGG (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * On further reflection, why should we bother in light of the result in Articles for deletion/Recent Gas Price Crisis? NawlinWiki (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * because AfD is the place to do it. (and I've asked the closing admin to reconsider--he reverted an earlier snow clsoe of a similar afd). I do not think SNOW can ever be used as a reason for Speedy.   In this case, Prod will do very well unless it gets challenged, which I doubt it will be. Please dont re-revert yourself. DGG (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi DGG, NawlinWiki

I just noticed this thread, and the un/deletion of the other article with a similar title. To clarify, I didn't speedy-delete Recent Gas Price Crisis; it was AFD'ed, and I closed the discussion early per SNOW. Anyway, there's an existing discussion at my talk, if NawlinWiki is interested in jumping in.

For DGG's benefit, I'm not, and won't be pigheaded about it. As you correctly observed, I re-opened another AFD, when I realized the !votes at the point of closure were not as unanimous as I thought it was.

Observing WikiProject Global Economics, almost all of the students don't come back to edit their original uploads. As a result, I'm not keen on generating wasting everyone's time on a seemingly throwaway-piece of writing. Discussion at ANI and at WT:WP Global Economics sort of concluded that the students' work won't be given special treatment.

I didn't notice DGG's mop earlier - if you want to undelete it and restore the AFD, I won't oppose. Just that I'm reluctant to, in the way I see the situation. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent Gas Price Crisis
Hi there, just a note that I've replied at my talk. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 07:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

James Hrynyshyn
Hello. You deleted my British Columbia Progress Board article. As I have been contracted by the BC Progress Board to manage its online commuications, I am disappointed to see my work undone.
 * First, thanks for your frank admission of violating our conflict of interest guidelines. Second, you apparently thought it was sufficient to copy the website into Wikipedia--to do this legally you need to release the contents under GFDL, which they may or may not be willing to do. Third, the article was in my opinion so diffuse and wordy and jargon-laden that even if it was suitable for a website, it would not be for an encyclopedia. Learn how to do it properly--one needs to know the conventions of the medium. Please see our Business FAQ for the way to rewrite such an article-- and a further explanation of COI and copyright. DGG (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

AI effect
Could you help me to find the text of this deleted article? Thank you. CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Moved to your user space at User:CharlesGillingham/AI effectDGG (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I agree that it is not much of an article. However, the AI effect is linked to from several articles that I have worked on (History of AI, Artificial intelligence, AI winter, etc.) I only noticed it had been deleted because of the red-links I began to see. I may have time to develop it further, however I doubt it will ever be much more than a page. Hopefully I can make it a well-referenced page; the concept is referred to in introductions to AI, AI textbooks and history of technology. CharlesGillingham (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Galang Rambu Anarki
Hello, you recenetly deleted an article regarding Iwan fal's son, Galang Rambu Naraki, stating that 'being the son of a famous person does not make you famous.' I argue that the song written about Galang Rambu Anarki by Iwan Fals (which I included and translated to English on the page) regarding his death is a very emotional song for the many indonesian people as well as a very-well known political song. I ask that it be undeleted under the grounds of deletion without proper cause. Carbombing101 (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Took me a while to find it, since the title had been Galang rambu anarki--it was deleted only as a Prod so it can be restored on request, I have done so and moved it to Galang Rambu Anarki. However, it appears to have only the most dubious claims to notability--being the namesake of a song is not generally considered notability. You might do better to try to show the song is notable, using the criteria in WP:MUSIC. If it isn't improved in a few days, I will change it to a redirect to the article on the father, since all the contents of this article seem to already be in that one. DGG (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Patrick L. Anderson
Hi,

I had tagged this article for notability and after no editor responded by adding sources verifying the author's notability, I added a proposed deletion tag. You removed the tag on the grounds that the author is clearly notable. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, but from my understanding of WP:BIO and WP:NOTABLE since there is no secondary source material covering the article's subject, there is no presumption of notability. I would really like to learn about wikipedia and if you could explain why the subject of this article should be considered clearly notable that would be helpful. Thanks. 76.91.150.110 (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Notability is different from verifiability. The article will appropriately be deleted if it proves impossible to verify it, but not if it is merely unverified as at present. Since the is ceo of one of the largest consulting firms, there will certainly be article about him in that capacity.why don't you look for these articles yourself? It should also be possible to demonstrate his awards. His authorship of at least 2 major books can easily be shown also.Sites associated with hm can be used for that, and if necessary they could certainly be proved from 3rd party sources  If you look for good sources, and fail to find them, then by all means mount a challenge at AfD explaining how you have searched. But if they will be immediately found by someone else there will be no point to it. DGG (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ondine
Sorry to trouble you again: would you care to adjudicate a controversy surrounding Ondine (Sir Frederick Ashton ballet), Ondine (Henze) and Undine (novella) before it turns nasty? — Robert Greer


 * PS It's City Ballet season; have you bought your tickets? — Robert Greer


 * Thank you! — Robert Greer (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

good
call here. I should've been more careful. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 13:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Crazydoodle69
Nice. Miley Cyrus is on my Watchlist (huge vandalmagnet), and I didn't notice the barrage of warnings on his Talk page. I skimmed his contributions and was about to give him an indef block when I got your message. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Debbie McGrath
Regarding previous conversations on Brookside characters, in which you have indicated interest, please see the above article. Hiding T 14:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC). Commented there extensively, to summarize my general views on such articles. DGG (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Coray Gurnitz Consulting
Coray Gurnitz is a well respected consulting firm in Washington dc. They are known for a new type of practice know as appreciative inquiry. If Booz Allen Hamilton, Accenture, and BearingPoint are allowed to have pages, then why can't Coray Gurnitz? They are all consulting companies. It should be argued that Coray Gurnitz has done more for government clients then all of them combined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Androskit (talk • contribs) 21:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * one experienced ed., noticed the problem, I concurred, and a very experienced admin has commented on your talk page to the same effect: The article said what services the firm offered & gave its operating philosophy, but didn't give any indication that it was important. It didnt discuss size of the firm, turnover, length of establishment, or notable clients. this is the sort of thing you need to show. and then, you need to give references to  3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases), that talk about what you did, in order to prove it. If you have done a great deal for government clients, the trade press at least should have some stories about you. Do all this, and then put in the article. But first be aware of the possible  COI, and read our our Business FAQ, which explains in more detail what is necessary. DGG (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That is really helpful. Androskit (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sangreal Sodality
you wrote: "no deletion reason given, deprodded"

Well...I guess I did not understand the process. Can the proposed deletion be re-done, or is there just one chance? If necessary I will initiate an AfD, if I can manage to get that right. (The problem for me is that I am computer incompetent in a wiki-environment where computer expertise is standard for most users here.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * yes, technically you could place it again in this case, but there would be little point, because the article will probably be defended. Considering that the article has been speedy-deleted and re-created several times, the best thing to do is Afd, because after a deletion there, it can be protected against re-creation. Give it a try, but prepare for an argument. If you format it wrong, people will help. Remember to notify the people who have been working on the article. DGG (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It has been nominated for deletion, but not by me. If you have any comments you want to make on the AfD, it is here . Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Hindemburg Melão Jr.
The deletion prod you placed on this article was contested by an anonymous IP. I have listed it for a formal AfD discussion now. You will probably want to participate. Nsk92 (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Apology for confusion

 * Comment I personally formatted all the different keep comments on Amaryllis Knight AfD page with - lines separating each of them them last night, when posting my comment, I did not know that this had any meaning, and did it as I thought it was aesthetically pleasing.. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. Thank you to for pointing this out as being new to posting on a AfD page, I would  have kept doing it everywhere had you not!  [User:LAmusic3|LAmusic3]] |  talk  09:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I will go back and soften my comment. DGG (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry again for creating an issue, it was completely accidental and thanks again for the note as it was educational! [User:LAmusic3|LAmusic3]] |  talk  14:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Guidance?
Hi, I was tempted to close my first DRV today. It's something that was basically decided outside DRV, but I was involved in the DRV discussion. So, two questions for you: first, does this look like it would be an appropriate closure? And second, in this case would it be OK if I close a debate I participated in, or is it best to steer clear of that? (Please note, I'm not itching to do anything, just using this as a way to frame questions...) -Pete (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Northeastern West Village H.jpg (closed)

 * In general, always better to let someone else close--just pick one you did not discuss. But, this is as noncontroversial a close as you are ever going to see. Only one hint--dont copy the full material to a talk page, it transcludes the templates onto the talk page so it will look as if it had been to deletion review. I no-wikied it out.DGG (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. Thanks! -Pete (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Tirna Electronics
Hey, just a quick heads up since you declined this speedy, I don't see the notability so I took it to AfD. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 18:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I may well end up supporting deletion on this one. I apologize for not nominating it for at least prod myself. DGG (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries. I tagged for speedy and then saw your decline so I reverted myself. I'd like to hope that info can be found but this appears to be an extremly under the radar company for whatever reason. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 18:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

since you're around
Could you try to fix the last group of refs in Toufiq Saber Muhammad Al Marwa’i I've tried & failed--there's obviously a type in there, but I'm missing it.DGG (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's fixed now. There were two opening &lt;ref&gt; tags, one of which included an apostrophe in its name which would require the name to be in quotation marks, and the other missing a &gt;. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Brenda Biesterfeld
Does this pass muster? You and I often see notability differently. Was wondering what you thought. Dloh cierekim'''  21:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * difficult case. see my comment at the AfD . DGG (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. Tour de force analysis. As I expected. Cheers,   Dloh  cierekim'''  21:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: prod
Done. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

patrolling
Thanks for the compliment. I'm a little confused, though -- you advised me about proper use of G4 speedy tags, but the only one of those I recall using recently was for A God Amongst Men. Not only had this been previously deleted per an AfD discussion (Articles for deletion/A God Amongst Men), but I made sure to cite this in the edit summary when I placed the tag. Was there another that I missed? -- Finngall talk  00:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * my fault with that one, i missed it in the edit summary. anyway, I deleted it. DGG (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

A God Amongst Men
I want to know why my article was deleted. 23:05, 7 May 2008 DGG (Talk | contribs) deleted "A God Amongst Men" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising) I was not able to make changes before the deletion, why was it deleted so fast?
 * given that it was published by what is usually considered a vanity publisher, that no library owns it--according to WorldCat, that it is the author's first book--according to the article, and that it is devoted to a long and elaborate plot summary, saying that most of the name are taken from well known games and the like--again according to the article, I can't see what possible purpose it could have other than promotion. Feel free to introduce a new article when you have some 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases or tributes on the book jacket or Amazon,), such as book reviews. Please also see our Business FAQ. DGG (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I own the book.
I have the freak'en book in my hands as we speak, it is a real book, and the only websites that have anything on it is indeed the publisher whom published it and some other random sites like Amazon that are selling it. So because it has similar names or its the authors first book puts it on grounds for deletion? Exspecially a speedy deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AGAMTB (talk • contribs) 16:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * never doubted it had been published, or that you van buy it through amazon, but that is not enough to make it notable  This is not my own personal view, though i do agree with it, but an established standard. See WP:BK. That the only websites talking about it are the publisher & amzon makes it even less notable. It was purely promotional, in the hope that they book might become notable. We don't do that. we're an encyclopediaDGG (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar notice
I've awarded you a barnstar for general good work and AFD contributions. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Angel Millar
Just a response to your comments: I'm not so sure about WorldCat as an indicator of notability. I've got materials I have used for research that are held by only one or two libraries worldwide, but are important for my research, and I've seen plenty of spurious materials held by thousands of libraries that have little research value unless one is doing work on spurious materials in a field. WorldCat doesn't tell you the motivations behind getting a book; at university libraries, for example, anyone can request a book purchase.

That being said, I *do* know the field of Masonic study; I can think of a lot of more well-known people who have written many more pieces than Millar and might be borderline worthy of an article. I don't nom anything worthy of inclusion as long as it can be shown to be such, but there's a lot of puffery (and a bit of misdirection) in the article, and I'm also reasonably certain it is a vanity COI/autobio piece (the edit history is primarily redlink accounts that have edited nothing but this article and Tracing board (Millar's art of choice). However, a lot of the edits are stale, so I couldn't prove it any other way but DUCK.

As an aside, Millar's book is not in the '06 catalog at Thunder Bay here, and their FAQ says "We will consider submissions only from authors with previously published works," so it may not be the same publisher. MSJapan (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please re-read my comment at Articles for deletion/Angel Millar. I did not !vote that the article is notable. I chose my words carefully, and meant to say, as I think i did, that the argument against him needs to be examined and despite the apparent expertise, not believed implicitly. WorldCat is not a direct indicator of a person's notability, but it does measure how widely a book is held by US & some other libraries, which can be interpreted-- with care--in discussing such notability. There were about 70 holdings not 1 or 2.  I could analyze them in more detail, but it isnt worth it. The publication data for his book is supported by LC, and therefore authoritative. That it is not currently in print at the publisher is not relevant to possible previous notability. He has some other published works, but not books.   When one person in a field makes a apparently convincing  case that another individual is not notable, they are often very much right, but not necessarily. I tend to ignore such arguments in favor of objective analysis by those not having special knowledge.   DGG (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Fclass
Hi DGG, I think User:Fclass is a vandal, he's blanking links to the existing articles and adds link to his own website..  

He says: "If you keep adding it, I will keep deleting it"

I don't know what to do--True Steppa (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

DGG, I know electronicmusicstyles.com is a horrible link. That's why I deleted it. Wait, back up. True Steppa, you're calling me a vandal? You're the vandal for adding something that has inadequate, vague, non-valuable data. Fclass (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * DGG, just as an FYI, this is a content dispute that has spilled over on several forums. Not sure how it ended up on your talk, but I'm pretty close to blocking both of them because I'm tired of both of them popping up in my watchlist.  Check AN and ANI (and I'm sure several other places...)  To True Steppa and FClass - you both need to stop, walk away, and get on with life.  Wikipedia isn't built in a day.  Go talk to each other.  Have a beer.  Sit down.  Freekin relax.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * yes, I see it's centralized at AN. It did not have to get that far. Rapid escalation and forum shopping is what I think of it. And if what Keeper says doesnt work, my advice is to just avoid each other. It isnt my subject at all, but it is certainly true that the link had no place there, being basically a wikipedia mirror. I don't know why anyone would fight to keep it in. And I have a behavioral bias--when there have been prior final warnings overtime from multiple admins for the same sort of conduct, from one of the parties, that's the side I tend to block. DGG (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

User:DGG/LG

 * 1) It looks interesting. But what is it? Is it your page? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Is it a "Librarian's Guide"? Or a "Guide for Librarians? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * it was originally my outline for a talk intended to encourage librarians to become active in wikipedia.  I originally meant  to work it up further, but I find that I'm too busy trying to rescue articles to do anything constructive on a longer time scale. But see "How Wikipedia Works," book by our coleague Phoebe Ayers with Charles Matthews, Ben Yates, and SJ Klein,  User:Phoebe/book, ,DGG (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

afd idea
I know what I had down for improving the AFD is a little complex but the comments are showing me how I could fine tune it to be a rather simple addition without beurcratic overhead. --M ASEM 04:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Belated reply
On my talk page a week ago, you expressed alarm over my dislike of long plot summaries on Wikipedia. At the time, I was too busy to give a decent reply. Since then, I've detailed part of my feelings about the issue at Plot summaries. Although I don't mention it there, I wouldn't be opposed to having long plot summaries on Wikipedia, provided articles were structured in a way that the summaries didn't spoil works in the careless and unnecessary way that we presently do. Whether that means plot summaries should go at the end of articles, be put on separate pages, hidden in collapsible boxes, or have its "spoiler" material removed and relocated to commentary sections, I don't know. But the way we structure things right now, Wikipedia almost seems to go out of its way to spoil works of fiction. This makes it unusable as a reference source for anyone who has not yet seen or read a given work. This is totally unnecessary, and must be changed.--Father Goose (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * sorry if I oversimplified--I may have been in a hurry too. Maybe the solution to the spoiler problem is expandable sections. I have no objection to reworking things and experimenting with format to meet a variety of needs. I myself usually come here for something I'm never going to see or read, so I dont care about spoilers, but I can see that other people might want it differently. Possible a summary section and then a fuller one might be the way. But how can one describe the characters or setting when one doesnt know the ending? How can one talk about Sauron when one doesnt know what will happen to him? do we say in Hamlet, that if you want to find out whether he dies at the end, go read the play?
 * Come to think of it there is a very simple solution, requiring no browser-incompatibility problems of difficulty with slow connections: an article about the fiction, giving the general idea. and then a separate article: Plot of XYZ. Of course, it was the attack on such articles as unencyclopedic that got this started a year ago. fortunately, the current version of NOT PLOT refers not to articles, but to the overall Wikipedia "coverage" of the work. and fortunately it has since then been accepted that the work itself is a RS for such material. I added some rather strong comments today at WT:FICT that the important part of the coverage of fiction should be the content of fictional work itself; the out of universe description will often be just a minor part of the whole. Let's not throw out the material while we are figuring out  the mechanics of how to present it. DGG (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXIV - May 2008
The May 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. SteveCrossinBot (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Speedies
Sorry. What I do is I check the COI bot's listings, and if it looks like someone is writing an article about themselves for promotional purposes, I speedy it. I'll be more careful in the future.--CyberGhostface (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Your input requested regarding reliable sources
Any insights you might offer to this discussion would be helpful and appreciated. : ) -- M P er el  03:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

A7 deleted page
I was wondering if you could take a look at or restore to my userspace the version of Taylor gerik which was originally deleted citing speedy delete criterion A7. I was about to edit the article when it was deleted and thought I saw something that looked like an indication of significance. I didn't really get a good look at the article so could well be mistaken and even if there was some claim of importance there I have no idea if there could ever be a viable article on the subject, I was about to add a when the article was deleted and am just a bit curious as to what the content actually was. Apologies if it's just a few sentences about someone's school friend and I'm wasting your time. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the e-mail, I think I mistook the Facebook link in the article for one to the BBC, must have completely misread the rest. Sorry for taking up your time. Guest9999 (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Requesting an Editor Review
Hi, you opposed my last RFA at Requests for adminship/Gary King a few weeks ago. I have decided to open an Editor Review at Editor review/Gary King so I could receive a new assessment for my recent activity on Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate it if you could take the time to look over my recent contributions and point out areas where I could improve. Thanks in advance! Gary King ( talk ) 04:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Lectures time
Yeah, we're posting on time for once (40 minutes early). Todays lecture is by Vassyana (an expert mediator), who will be talking about how to deal with conflicts, whether you are a mediator or not. Hope to see you there! --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Oldprodfull
Hello again, ... I have a couple of qustions:


 * 1) I would like to add   to the very end of the table at Template messages/Deletion, but I'm reluctant to be that bold ... any suggestions?
 * 2) Do you think that my Flag templates for deletion warnings (like WP:FLAG-BIO and WP:FLAG-BAND) are ready to be moved into project space as "legitimate" WP:FLAG-xyz shortcuts?
 * 3) Do you have any comments on  ? (I noticed its discussion page is empty. :-)

Happy Editing! &mdash;  21:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Gitmo detainees
that strikes me as looking at it upside down. their continued detention and the various events that occur during it are sufficient prime importance. A sufficiently notable one event is notable. Being detained there is about as notable as it gets in the real world. You may possibly want multiple sources talking about their detention, and think that some of the articles do not have it, and that would be reasonable. But this is like asking that a medal of honour winner be notable for something besides the events he got the award for. DGG (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See, I completely disagree with you. As I understand it, your opinion is that being detained in a particular prison camp confers notability, and I can't find myself agreeing with that, any more than I would say that anyone who's ever been in Mountjoy Prison, or anyone who's ever been in the army is notable. The events that happen at GTMO, the war (or conflict, or difference of opinions, or whatever word we're using) in which those detained there have been involved, and so on, are notable, but the individual people are no more notable than any front-line fighter or common criminal. And while I agree that attention should be called to any misbehaviour of US troops that may be taking place there, and to the circumstances which led people to be detained there in the first place, I very firmly believe that Wikipedia is not the place to be doing that.
 * However, I must congratulate you for spelling "honour" correctly. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We obviously do not agree on this; since my comment above was originally placed on your talk page, (and you copied it here) I've replied to it there. DGG (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Bill Moyers RfC
David, hi, I wonder if you have a moment to give some input on an issue please. I respect your opinion so I'm asking you to shed light on the issues. There is a dispute and RfC at Bill Moyers about weight given to an issue. The RfC section is here. Hope you can make a comment. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 00:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * i was hoping to avoid this one, but I'll take a look. DGG (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC) & I did, though I did not agree with your all that much. DGG (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you did agree with me actually, and you may reconsider some of what you said given the contribution by user Abd to that debate. Thanks anyway :) ► RATEL ◄ 10:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Time article is not an editorial. See my clarification (and minor research)here. With "proper sourcing" established I hope you will reiterate your judgement that the material belongs. DeLoach's comment to Brian Lamb (see further up the page, or ) that "the Bill Moyers of then is not the Bill Moyers of today" seems absolutely on point in a biography and I intend to mention Moyers' role in postponing the seating of an integrated delegation from Misissippi at a Democratic convention from '64 to '68 when I have time to check my memory and round up a couple cites. This is History with a capital H, and Moyers played a significant part. Andyvphil (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * These issue are all absolutely trivial and belong only in an extensive biography, if they can all be proved (and they won't be, because some are clearly inventions of Moyers' enemies). You have scoured the man's life for some bagatelle with which to nail him, and all you've come up with is a consequence-less memo from Johnson that he signed on order, and a Democrat party squabble about seating at a Democrat Convention. Haven't you got more dirt on Obama's Muslim backgrond to insert, as you did recently on Obama's page? Or some other hated Liberal you can attack? ► RATEL ◄ 15:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To the extent you've made the same "points" on the Moyers talk page, I will reply to you there. My understandong of what DGG said is that he does not agree with you that the subjects are "absolutely trivial" in the context of Moyer's biography. And your ignorance about 1964 is showing. Try following the blue link: Fannie Lou Hamer. Andyvphil (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * the place or further discussion is on the article talk page. I gave an opinion, not a decision; and now you all have to come to a consensus. that's your job, not mine.   DGG (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake then. I thought enforcement of undue weight rules was an admin task. ► RATEL ◄ 22:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I will enforce what the community decides, and prevent further edit warring. And I will enforce any editors decision to remove copyvio and BLP violations. But this is disputed content, and so I do not get to enforce my own personal view, that it is not undue weight. DGG (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not undue weight, eh? Thanks for the clarification. So I've now learned that when a man has a 6-year work career you can reduce it to 3 paragraphs, 2 of which are trenchant criticisms from woolly sources, and that this is balanced editing. I'm learning from you all the time. ► RATEL ◄ 23:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I recall that you wanted to eliminate discussion of those incidents altogether. I am not necessarily defending the present wording, but, as I mentioned at the start, have no intention of myself editing the article. Further discussion belongs on the article talk page.DGG (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ratel, lighten up! You are basically correct, the *extent* to which the event was mentioned is undue weight. But dumping sarcasm on DGG isn't helping anything and it's making you look bad. I disagree with him, but I assume that, with discussion, we might come to agreement. Enforcement of undue weight, because of its complexity, is generally a task for editorial consensus, though, it's not correct to assign that to administrators. You should understand that if he were to agree with you, he'd be disqualified from enforcing it! Only in an emergency, some clearly defamatory insertion, would he be able to get away with it. And that section isn't that bad, it's just a coatrack, not libel. The wording attempted to defame by implication, there were a number of problems with it. We'll work it out, I'm sure. Give it time. (DGG, I hope you don't mind that I added this comment; feel free to remove it if you think it clutters up your Talk page.) --Abd (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, I made a comment that I did not necessarily defend the present wording. Since my hint wasn't clear, I agree with Abd that the discussion is somewhat over-extended. The solution is to reach a compromise about it--such is the only effective way of editing here. DGG (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Trashing significant well cited material is just not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. There's no need to reduce the section to three paragraphs, or one, which was the original pro-Moyers preference. Find all the good things you think he did in those years, expand the section to a dozen paragraphs, and then spin it out as a sub-article. With the link in place you then can reduce the section in the root article to a summary. See ([WP:SS]]. Andyvphil (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * this is not really the place to discuss it, but we don't usually spin out subarticles for bios of this nature. Even a dozen paragraphs would fit in the article. This being my talk page, I'm closing this discussion. If you want to complain about me, please start a new section. If you want to talk about the article, go to the talk page there. DGG (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a clarification: My reference to WP:NOTPAPER should actually have been to the link embedded there, . Andyvphil (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

formatting of my comments
I actually put the background color in because I myself have trouble reading through comments, especially when they're at the same indent. I didn't figure it was any more distinctive than the wacky signatures people make. But I'm definitely not attached to it; I've removed it from the WikiProject Notability talk page. Given my stated reason for using it, do you think I should stop using it in general on article talk pages, or maybe use a different color or something? (I tried to pick one as soft as possible.) I'm not trying to get into a debate, I'm genuinely interested in your opinion. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I recognize that your intent was perfectly reasonable, but if we all did that, long discussions would be even less readable than now. Think of it as MS Word with 8 or 10 different sets of colored revisions.  For the moment, I'd stop using it at all--your signature is sufficiently distinctive visually--I don';t think you really need more, and it's not a good idea to use techniques nobody else does. The convention is that each reply goes at a further indent, until it gets too short a line and it goes back to the margin, called an outdent. It is a general problem though how to deal with some of the discussions, & we do need to figure something out that would be better for everyone to use. The best solution probably is the proposal for threaded discussions, as with email, for keeping each separate set of replies separate, but I think this is still being worked on by the techies. and I dont know how it would work in practice. DGG (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * {| style="background:transparent; padding:2px 2px 2px 2px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"


 * I've got it, I think; I'm switching to this formatting that makes the text of my comment very slightly grey. That works to make the conversation easier to read for me and since it actually reduces the prominence of my words hopefully it won't look to anyone like an attempt to make my comments distinctive.  --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 17:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * }
 * }

Creation of cosmos
Do you think there was a better speedy delete category to use? And if not, after looking at the text of the deleted article, do you think there was any conceivable argument (1) that the article should be kept on Wikipedia as it was, or (2) that it had any potential to be improved into an acceptable article that wasn't already covered by Creationism, Creation-evolution controversy, Book of Genesis, or similar articles? If so, I'd like to hear the argument. If not, are you arguing that the article should have been kept around for 5 days because "rules are rules"? If so, I disagree, see WP:IAR (a policy I hardly ever cite, but it seems appropriate here). NawlinWiki (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there was any speedy delete category to use. It had been nominated for prod, and that would have done just fine. Or if someone were stubborn enough to remove the prod, it would be a snow afd. When I became an admin I undertook to follow the rules; you've been an admin longer than I, but that does not exempt you either. Either restore it, or I will. DGG (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You didn't address the second part of my question -- is there any conceivable way that this could be made into a useful, non-duplicative article? If not, it's just silly to repost it purely for the sake of process.  Per WP:SNOW: "For example, if an article is deleted for a reason not explicitly listed in the criteria for speedy deletion but it would almost certainly be deleted via the article deletion process anyway, there's little sense in undeleting it."  Rather than reposting such a doomed article yourself purely for the sake of process, why don't you go to Deletion review?  If there is actually a consensus there to repost the article, I'll be glad to do it then.  NawlinWiki (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * two eds have now asked you. Thats enough reason. SNOW is an essay. WP:Deletion policy is policy. There's a difference. I am not interested in trying to keep the article, but in trying to persuade you that it is a good idea to follow the rules. DGG (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Two editors, neither of whom actually wants to keep the article. And yes, WP:SNOW is not policy -- but WP:IAR is policy:  "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."  I assert that deleting Creation of cosmos, as quickly as possible, improves Wikipedia, and that there is no way in which keeping the page, even for 5 days, could potentially improve Wikipedia.  You haven't argued otherwise.  Also, see the following from What "Ignore all rules" means:


 * "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should perhaps be ignored."
 * "A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged." I believe I have done that by pointing out that Creation of cosmos, as a blatant religious tract, does nothing to improve the encyclopedia.  Nobody, so far, disagrees with that.
 * ""Ignore all rules" does not stop you from pointing out a rule to someone who has broken it, but do consider that their judgment may have been correct, and that they almost certainly thought it was." I don't mind you asking for the explanation, but insisting that I repost the page is elevating the letter of the rule over its spirit, and ignoring the common purpose of building an encyclopedia.
 * ""Ignore all rules" is not an answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule. Most of the rules are derived from a lot of thoughtful experience and exist for pretty good reasons; they should therefore only be broken for good reasons." As explained above, I believe I had a good reason here -- I wasn't just ignoring the rules because I felt like ignoring the rules.   NawlinWiki (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I recognize that you had a reason--you wanted to quickly delete a bad article. I disagree that it was an adequate reason. If IAR is the only way to get an article out of WP, thats one thing; if IAR is the only way to get rid immediately of something actually acutely harmful, that would be a good reason, though I doubt that it would ever be necessary, for I can't imagine what is acutely harmful besides vandalism and BLP violations and other libel and copyvio, and we already have rules for that. I don't necessarily insist you repost the page--but you really should  stop deleting via speedy against the explicit deletion policy and then justifying it by IAR. I think a valid use of Deletion Review and insisting on a repost is to stop people from doing that.  Of course there are other ways. How about, for example, my trying to persuade you that it casts discredit on all the policies when experienced admins ignore them? that is discourages newbies when their material is deleted and nobody can point to a specific policy based written reason why?   that its unnecessary altogether, for I don't think you can give a reason why 4 more days there would hurt the encyclopedia? The unfair treatment of editors--even ignorant ones, even POV ones, on the other hand, that does the encyclopedia.   DGG (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't consider the quick deletion in this case unnecessary. I think that having an article full of stuff like "There is an excellent proof of the creation of the universe. It is called "The Word of God". Let us see what the Bible has to tell about creation." is harmful to Wikipedia, even for one day.  It violates numerous core policies, such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:SOAP.  But I will take to heart your caution about deleting articles out of process, and will be very careful in the future.  NawlinWiki (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks, that what I was after. I agree it was harmful, just as any bad article is,and everyone agrees it is better off deleted. I'll gladly support SNOW at AfD for article like this.  DGG (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Looks like I missed the meat of the debate here, but I'll add a couple of closing comments. Nawlin, I accept that you had a reason under WP:IAR. Personally I disagree in this case and would have left it, but I accept that you had a sensible reason. Part of my concern was that when I first saw you delete it with 'PROD' in the edit summary, I thought maybe you'd just rushed it through without really thinking - which I see now is not the case. I'd also echo DGG's comment about scaring off newbies if we appear to ignore policy, though I accept that this particular newbie may not have been the most likely to contribute constructively.

Anyway looks like we're all happy to draw a line under this at this point. Thanks for remaining civil throughout. Best, Olaf Davis | Talk 08:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Natali Del Conte Page
Can you restore this page to my personal space inside Wikipedia please. Thanks, Joe Dawson --BitStop (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * now moved to User:BitStop/Natali Del Conte]] but you cannot keep it there indefinitely without improving it enough  to get it restored as an article. DGG (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Gitmo
Please take a look at WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo and help us identify the key problems facing existing Guantanamo Bay Detainee articles, and help us resolve them. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 09:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: speedies
historical buildings don't fit in WP:CSD A7 only the categires of things specified there can be speedied for lack of notability --it's necessary to use Prod or AfD. DGG (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It was probably a mistake or misunderstanding of the content of the article, however, I appreciate the message all the same. ——  Ryan •  t  |  c  14:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hans Christian King
This article has been created again today for the fourth time, this time with a different editor, but I assume it is the same one. Since you warned about this article could you have a look please, thanks. BigDunc Talk 16:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC). Deleted, and final warning given. I'll watch it for re-creation and block if necessary. Thanks. DGG (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures: Who is Tony Piper?
Can you please resolve this issue of Tony Piper's scholarship? I find User: Marvin Shilmer to be extremely irritating. He refuses to participate in disscussion but continuosly uses this "you are not proving to be learned to me" argument. Please also archieve your talk page, its almost impossible to type on this thing. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've redacted your comment slightly. I was aware of this problem from a while back, and I've commented there. The NWT is a JW translation of the Bible, just as the King James is a traditional protestant one, and so forth. They each translate according to their understanding of inspiration. And you should have seen my page a week ago :) -- I'm working at splitting up by subject the good stuff various people have said here from time to time.  DGG (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Spam in Allen J Scott
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Allen J Scott, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Allen J Scott is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Allen J Scott, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * didnt make, sense, removed. DGG (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks
Thanks for your participation at my recent Request for adminship. Thanks, in particular, for your willingness to review your position and to give further thought to my candidacy. I’ll keep your concerns in mind as I continue to work within the project. I hope you find I live up to your expectations of administrators. Best, Risker (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Richard Schulze-Kossens
Sorry DGG, my German is very limited. Perhaps you could try someone over at Translation? mattbr 19:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

AFD and Speedy interaction
I've noticed that you've de-CSD-tagged a fair number of articles which were on AFD at the time. Most of them seem sound but please bear in mind that being on AFD doesn't give an article a free pass against speedy deletion if it otherwise meets the criteria — "let it run its course" isn't always the right thing to do. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly it isn't always right, so I do not do it automatically--only if I think the speedy is disputable anyway. (Typically, someone says it when they actually mean something like SNOW delete.) And sometimes where there is a valid speedy for copyvio, but where I immediately rewrite the article to remove the copyvio. What's more, from time to time --as happened Tuesday--I come across one where someone says speedy delete at an AfD but doesn't place the tag, and I speedy delete it myself then and there and close the AfD accordingly. For  the record, check my log -- I've deleted 25 items in the last 24 hours. You've done 43. That's our usual ratio. But then I rescued or helped rescue 5 or 6. did you rescue any?  (friendly comment, please don't misunderstand) DGG (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)== Rashid A. Chotani ==

I checked, David, and there's no copyvio that I can find online. I'm guessing he just did a copy-and-paste from his resume/CV off his own computer. In case you didn't notice, the last name of the subject matches the user name of the author. So, off to AfD we go. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you check through the likely official sites? Many are not crawled by Google. I will. I should have notified him  last night, simultaneous to the despeedy, as I usually do.. DGG (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU
Hello again. The Highly Active Users project has gone through a complete revamping per popular demand. We believe this new format will make it easier for new editors to find assistance. However, with the new format, I must again ask you to verify your information on this page. I attempted to translate the data from the old version to the new, but with the extensive changes, I may have made some errors. Thanks again. Useight (talk) 04:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ken Katz
Regarding your de-prodding of Ken Katz: had you noted that the article is probably an autobiography? The username of the person who wrote it is his name backwards. Being a lead engineer is not really notable; it puts him maybe in the top 20-50 of the organisation at best. None of the articles about things he's involved with mention him, it doesn't look like there are any third-party sources on him and there's no news about him. If you stand by the de-prodding then fair enough, but as I'm thoroughly unoptimistic about the establishment of notability in this article I think we should see it away without fuss. BigBlueFish (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not optimistic either--I couldn't find much. Engineers are a problem--they don't publish, they don't get in the news, some are important but how are we to know? I was hoping that someone will come and improve it. Reading it again though, I think the emphasis on local chapter awards means that you're right, & I've put back the prod and prod2'd it. DGG (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We are the invisible glue that holds society together ;). Occasionally engineers get notable for developing notable projects but not nearly as much as scientists or businesspeople, mostly because the success of the design effort is usually determined by the project budget, not the ingenuity of the engineers. Sadly I think if there was something to really add encyclopedic value, it would have been mentioned by Katz himself now ;) BigBlueFish (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/M41A pulse rifle
Hello - seeing that you commented on this AfD, could I have you give it another look?

I have two main problems with the process in this case. First off, the nominator removed/redirected all the links to these articles in the AfD BEFORE the AfD was decided. I think this is problematic.

Secondly, he lumped all of them together in one AfD, even though many of the articles have quite a bit of content in them, which makes me feel this, again, is inappropriate. This also causes an associated problem, because I have now been doing quite a bit of work on Sulaco (spaceship) in response to noticing the AfD, and feel that it has enough references and shows enough notability to stand on its own.

So as above, could you be so kind and look at the discussion again? Ingolfson (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done so, and commented on some remarks that had been made DGG (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam
<font color="#084C9E">, just a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully with 112 supports, 2 opposes, and 1 neutral. If there's something I've realized during my RFA process this last week, it's that adminship is primarily about trust. I will strive to honour that trust in my future interactions with the community. Many thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Chicago, cont'd
Thank you for that ... good grief. I'm at a loss as to how to proceed. I had blocked the whole range (64.107.0.0/22) for a week, but he's a man obsessed. I got five hate-mails yesterday. The library wasn't much help, but I wasn't persistent: after all when he's blocked there he just goes somewhere else, always using public computers. In more than four years here, he's the most utterly hateful, obsessed, and thorougly nasty person I've encountered, but as you can see from this you don't need an advanced degree in psychology to tell that this person is ill. My mistake was trying to help him, long ago: he reserves his fiercest hate for people who try to engage with him and talk to him:  people who just block him and don't talk he forgets quickly. As soon as he does something illegal (like send a threat of violence) I'm forwarding it to the local FBI office. Thanks for your help, Antandrus (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy for Pullela Vemkataramanayya (P.V. Ramanayya)‎
Hi, I have re-tagged the article for Speedy. Please refer to the talk page for the justification. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC) That's speedy as G4, re-creation of previously deleted material, deleted at a AfD, which is a good reason for speedy. I didn't see the earlier AfD, and you hadnt specified it. But the criterion for A7 is no claim to importance, much weaker than non-notable, and almost anything plausible counts for that; it is not a speedy A7 and never was. it is a perfectly good deletion via AfD, for I agree that on the material presented he is not notable. I changed to reason to db-repost. DGG (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz
I am alerting you to continuing problems there, most recently the deleting of a quote from the book (reliably sourced) on the odd explanation of "please keep anti-Polish propaganda shots out this article" see here and here and here. Thanks for your attention.Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC) --         I'm watching. DGG (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Warnborough/BLP
Thanks, DGG, for your earlier comments in that thread on BLP/N. Hope you'll make one more appearance so we can wrap this up. I thought Faith's points were very weak at first, but his/her most recent post was more clear. Would like a clear consensus, and I respect your opinion. TimidGuy (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * comment left there-- I seem to have made an error in one rspect, & I fexed it. DGG (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

AsNCTI "National Center for Technology Innovation (NCTI) article posting
Thank you for your advice. I've rewritten the article in what I hope is a neutral tone and have added three references from external sites to establish notability. Please let me know if you think there are still any existing issues with the article. In addition, I would like to change the title of the article to take off the "(NCTI)" but am not sure how to do this. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thank you so much. AsNCTI (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * done. See your talk page.DGG (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Jewdicial
Thanks. I knew that page should be deleted, but I was at a total loss as to which CSD to use. J.d ela noy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 16:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Arthur J. Cooperman
Major editwar going on here with the copyvio tag. It required admin intervention. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support
I am really frustrated by this. I know that my position is opposed by many editors, but to treat me as disruptive just goes beyond reason. When it comes to fictional works, I tend to discuss policy but don't do much in the way of actual editing precisely because I know that my interpretation of policy is not widely held. Kww (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't aimed at you, & it won't pass--it's the frustration of Arb Com at having to do this a third time. Of course it's their own fault, for they didn't do something adequate at the first. What good is a "Supreme judiciary" if it won't rule, and just hands out platitudes? Even Jimbo complained about their non-actions with respect to IRC. And then it has to get draconic to compensate for its earlier errors. The number of cases coming back for subsequent rounds is disgraceful. And the most sensible person there was forced out by the declared enemies of the project. (Fortunately you & I have other interests also.) DGG (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

AsNCTI "National Center for Technology Innovation (NCTI) article posting
Thank you so much for your help! I've made some revisions for punctuation and grammar; I hope this addresses your comment that it still needs a good deal of fixing for style and format. I've added one more internal reference to a wiki page, and one additional external reference. I also addded a redirect from "NCTI" - I hope that's ok. I've read WP:FIRST and I believe we are in compliance with all wiki guidelines for posting, but please let me know if you think there are remaining issues and I will try my best to comply with any suggestions. Again, thank you for your work in helping us to making the entry more encyclopedic. AsNCTI (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts). This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you able to assist in locating free sources for this topic?
Hi. The article Articles_for_deletion/Yves_G%C3%A9rard currently is at Afd. The original creator made a hoax article of an apparently notable person, and a few editors are trying to come up with sources to create a legitimate stub. Any help you are able to provide would be greatly appreciated. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  23:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Dekkappai has it well in hand, if he has the Groves article. DGG (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Kitsap regional library
I was wondering if you'd lend an eye to this AfD (in the interest of full disclosure, I'm going to comment there that I've pointed you to the discussion). While I find RS coverage to be shaky, I think an article on the library system is better than articles likely nn libraries within the system. The libraries currently don't exist and I haven't looked to see whether they're housed in historic buildings, which would establish notability, but in general I know they've been shaky at AfD. Just curious for your librarian .02 TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 01:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * btw, I'd have spotted it in any case--you are perhaps a little over-scrupulous. (smile) DGG (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * :) Wasn't sure since it was an old-ish AfD TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 02:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've gotten behind, what with recent drama, not to mention some Rfa's. DGG (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible unintentional deletion at User talk:Lar
Hi DGG, it just happens that Lar's page is on my watchlist right now (some image issues we'd discussed earlier), and I noticed that your recent post resulted in some pretty significant deletion. I have a feeling this was unintentional; actually, it's the second time I've seen a similar situation in the last few hours. Perhaps you might want to revisit your edit to make sure all is well? Risker (talk) 07:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * thanks for spotting it--I went back and fixed it. It comes from not noticing there's text under where i was editing. Time to go to bed.  DGG (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Primal therapy article.
Dgg, I wish to respond briefly to what you wrote on my talk page:


 * I'm deleted some of the additional entries in the criticism section. Material sourced to a personal blog is unacceptable for this, as is minor comments in unauthoritative reviews in unauthoritative sources. Pleasedont put them back. They are not in the least necessary.

I won't put them back. The only reason I put them there in the first place was to try to compromise, and to assuage the other editors.

Unfortunately, the other editors make paranoid accusations, including: some editors are currently cultists who edit the page for cult recruitment; other editors have financial incentives (including me, apparently) and are paid to edit the page; and various other things. These accusations of conspiracy or evil motives are made relentlessly. Unfortunately, the editors in question are absolutely unshakeable in their conviction that sinister motives and forces are at work here. For example, when an administrator (MoonRiddenGirl) contradicted those editors, one of them repeatedly asserted that she was part of the plot: "If you have no background in the topic, as you claim, and nothing to gain, it doesn't make sense what you are trying to do."

The reason I made those edits, is because adding criticism to the page calms them down a bit.


 *  and I remind you about 3RR. It applies when you're right just as much as when you're wrong.

Ya, I know. I apologize. In my defense, I reverted only two times and then posted the issue on the RS noticeboard. Then I waited for a consensus there. Only after the consensus was achieved did I revert 3 times, and not within 24 hours, and only because the editors in question were simply flaunting the consensus.

There have been horrendous edit wars raging on these pages for the last several months in which some editors revert more than 10 times in a row. (Sometimes they revert not by pressing "undo" but by manually putting the page back to its older state). I have avoided those edit wars and have not reverted more than once. The only reason I did it this time was because the editors were simply flaunting wikipedia policies and consensus. Sorry.Twerges (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw the stuff that has been going on. I am watching the page and will make sure it stays balanced. DGG (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Daniel Bourne
I saw that you voted in this AfD twice: first as "Keep" on May 15 and then as "Delete" on May 17. Neither vote is crossed out and it looks rather confusing. Could you clarify? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Re-evaluated, and clarified as a Keep. DGG (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, I saw that you updated your vote there but your edit also did something strange as well. You also changed the heading of my vote from "Keep" to "Explanation of previous Keep". That was in fact my first and only vote in this AfD. I changed it back to plain "Keep" but I am still not sure if all comments appear in the right places. Could you take another look? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry,meant to change my own. fixed it so it doesnt look like two keeps from me DGG (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sujiatun Hospital notability
Hi, David, just a note. You may already be aware, but that hospital is only notable for being claimed to have harvested the organs from Falun Gong practitioners in vast numbers, in an underground facility. The page has no other information on it than these claims and a rebuttal. There is a page Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China which deals with this issue at length already. My thinking was that the organ harvesting issue should be dealt with on its own page, and if there was anything else notable about the Sujiatun Hospital (which is not actually the correct title anyway), it should go on that page, but if there is not anything notable it should be scrapped. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 01:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you do not object then, I will propose the page for deletion again.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 04:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * do it by AfD to get a community consensus. always the safest way in a dispute, and the most certain. I have not yet really looked into the underlying problems with the article myself, but might give an opinion when its at afd if I can say anything helpful.  DGG (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Speedy
Sorry, I'll notify them in the future.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A non-thankspam thank you
it is done. Thank you so much for what was essentially a co-nom but also the Wiki education you've given me over the last few months. While we don't always see the same sides of an issue, I learn a lot from your POV/explanations and I think it helps me to become a better editor (and now admin). Thanks again for your initial offer to do the nomination, as well as the support during the RfA. It's been fun, and I look forward to meeting you at a NYC meet-up and continuing to learn from your !votes at AfD and other discussions TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 14:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedies
Point taken, though I'm always suspicious of autobiographies, especially when I can find no mention of the author and the award nominated novel on a Google search. LittleOldMe (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oliver Twist
Aye thanks, and yes, stating the obvious is very often needed!! Also when I edited the article yesterday I realised that it would need another section which then can show the differences between the film versions (and the last BBC tv series presumably) and the book as you say. Especially as there are quite a few differences some quite big including those surrounding Rose Maylie and family as well as other incidents such as where Oliver is nursed back to health etc. Hopefully now the article as it stands - even with it still need work doing on it - will remain. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 16:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

nocontext tags
Sorry, meant to use the non-notable. Clearly this is a BLP of a non-notable person with no sources. It shouldn't need to go through AfD. <font style="bold italic" color="7C0500">Harry the Dog WOOF  15:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Where's the source for the award? This user has been consistently adding misinformation to articles, so I don't trust his statement that he won an award. Where he does add references, they don't say what he says they do, especially re people's ethnic backgrounds. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * it does not have to even be sourced to pass speedy The standard there is set very low, see WP:CSD A7. Just AfD it, say what you just said above, & it will go very quickly. AfD has the advantage that it can then be immediately deleted if it is re-created, as sounds very possible. And then people will see to pay attention to other contributions from the same guy. Sometimes some publicity here helps :). DGG (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it's got improvement tags on it now, placed by others, so I will wait and see if it's improved! <font style="bold italic" color="7C0500">Harry the Dog WOOF  15:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My Recent Rfa
Although you opposed me in my recent RFA I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me I have made a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. Thanks again.  ·Add§hore·  <sup style="color:blue;">T alk /<sub style="color:blue;">C ont 16:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Question about WP:DRV Flow
Hello. You left a status on Deletion_review called restore. I checked WP:DRV flow and labels, but I've not found this one. What does it stand for?

Thanks. Bertrand Blanc (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * restore in this context means restore to main space from user space, and is equivalent to undelete, or to overturn a deletion. As it isn't always clear what overturn means, especially in a complex situation, it's become common to specify. I think itwas clear in context, but I will go back and look. DGG (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I wondered whether it was a simple vote or the effective action to restore the article from the user page to main space. Hence I checked whether the page was back in main space and noticed that it was not. I consequently concluded that the answer to my question was the former i.e. a simple vote, the final status delayed later in the flow. I preferred to ask to be sure what the steps were in the process since this keyword status didn't appear in WP:DRV. According to your answer, the answer to my question should be the latter i.e. page restored in main space. Maybe there's a delay between the action and the effect of the action since it's not reachable yet? Maybe I missed something :-( Bertrand Blanc (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What you have not taken into account is that the discussion is not finished until it is formally closed by an administrator. This normally takes about five days, and the eventual action is generally not taken until that time. I was joining in the discussion, not concluding it. some other admin will do that.   DGG (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I understand, my 1st assumption was the right one then. Thanks for the precision. I'm looking forward to read further arguments from people. Cheers Bertrand Blanc (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello. You reviewed a few days ago Deletion_review stating Reasonable show of notability, not hopelessly promotional as argument to restore the article from my user space. Sorry to ask you this question which may appear strange and rude. I ask because all other users state the exact opposite: no evidence of notability, self-promotion, advertising, ... I'm lost. Cheers, Bertrand Blanc (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you leave this comment to be nice with me or did you really think what you wrote?


 * Hey, sorry for letting this one slip by. I gave my opinion, others gave theirs. The community decides how to interpret the guidelines. They do not always agree with me, That does not necessarily make me wrong -- at least in my own opinion -- but their decision stands and must be accepted. The proper course is to try to write as strong an article as possible, put it in your user space, and ask for reconsideration. follow the guidelines at our Business FAQ for proper content and the necessary sourcing.  You basically need 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases),  showing why the company is notable. Don';t just inert it in main space without taking it back to deletion review, explaining how the article is improved. DGG (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, no hurry take the time you need: your answer is appreciated. I understand your standpoint and appreciate your tips. People argued sources were not reliable, and the article was self-advertising: I still don't understand which WP rules where violated. I explained in deep details why and how WP rules were met, without getting any counter-argument from people beyond arbitrary statements which have never been strengthened by any accurate reference from WP guidelines. One comment was "endorse deletion and keep salted": arguments were based on a previous few-lines version written by somebody else. Sometimes, I wonder whether people are really fair: how can I defend a standpoint? I still keep saying that sources were independent and reliable, weren't they?

Recent primal therapy problems
Hello DGG. I wanted to thank you for your intervention on the Primal Therapy article recently.

I have a question. The editor who started an edit war with you (PsychMajor902) runs a separate website in which he has made claims that Janov's pr center (and primal therapy generally) is an abusive authoritarian cult. In support of that position, he related experiences of his which were drastically different from what I recall when I went there about 7 years ago. When I was there, I did not witness any of the extremely abusive or bizarre things he relates on his website. So I published a small website which included my own experiences and put it on the web.

Anyway, the same person frequently makes accusations on wikipedia that various persons are cultists or are being paid by A Janov to edit the page. At one point the administrator MoonRiddenGirl was repeatedly accused of being "authoritarian", "cultic", of secretly being an agent for primal therapy, etc. And I have repeatedly been accused of "having financial motives" and being a cultist, when those things are untrue (I left the center many years ago).

Anyway, now that you've removed not only his quotation of himself, but the citation to his website, he has added some new material to his website which claims that your removal constitutes cultic suppression and is further evidence that primal therapy is a cult. Furthermore, he claims that the page has been "turned into an advertisement for primal therapy". Here is the relevant text, taken from bullet points of reasons for believing primal therapy is a cult, from the section entitled "Is primal therapy a cult?"


 * The posting of faithful praise by primal followers on book reviews. The editing out of criticism and the editing in of praise online (e.g. wikipedia, which at the time of writing has become an online advertisement for primal therapy) by primal people.

I'm considering writing on my website that the removal of information was done by wikipedia administrators, not by "primal people", and that 4 neutral wikiepdia editors from the Reliable Sources noticeboard agreed beforehand that the quotation was inappropriate. I'm also considering quoting the wiki article (with its extremely long criticism section) as evidence that the article has not been turned into an "online advertisement for primal therapy" by primal people. I would also mention that no "primal people" have ever removed even a single critical citation from that article, even though some of the citations are very obscure. I would also like to point out that the author has made a large number of extremely peculiar accusations on the wiki discussion boards, including: accusations that admins (MoonRiddenGirl) are "cultic", accusations that people have financial motives to edit the page, and other improbable accusations. I feel that such information may help readers to determine the credibility of his "eyewitness testimony" regarding cultism, etc.

However I wished to consult with you first. Do you think there would be anything inappropriate about my adding such material to my website?

Thanks for your attention, and sorry for the overlong response. Twerges (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You may do whatever you like. You have the right to quote anything you please. I consider what he said totally incorrect, if it be as you have reported it. But let me explain--my motive is to ensure a fair article, not manipulated by the opponents or the supporters of primal therapy. It is my experience that fair articles on subjects such as this are almost invariably considered insufficiently supportive by the ardent proponents of the system being discussed, and insufficiently dismissive by the most ardent of the opponents. In such situation editors without an emotional investment in the matter are often needed to help produce an article that objectively represents the situation. You will note I said editors, not administrators. Any objective editor can do this, some of the best people at this are editors who have never been administrators, and I worked at this long before I became an administrator.
 * I have no intention of looking to see what you or anyone else may say about me off-wiki--doing so is guaranteed to increase one's feeling of general annoyance. People have full freedom to say what they like off-wiki, as long as they do not attempt to use off-wiki channels to interfere with the neutrality of Wikipedia articles.
 * But in order that you and others not be confused about my true opinion, and that my efforts for a neutral article be understood correctly, I personally do consider primal therapy a cult. I consider it a dangerous cult, to be more precise, and i think any objective reading of the evidence shows it. I have said the same about other suggested  therapeutical systems, such a homeopathy. I think the best way of handling such subjects is to write objective articles, and those people not having irremediable bias will realize what the true nature of the situation is. A fair balance of the evidence is the way to do it. Excessive efforts to prove or disprove a cause do not help, but can even have the opposite effect. Uninvolved people tend to think that parties showing evident bias are perhaps also in the wrong.  The only way to demonstrate the truth is to demonstrate it fairly and show the opposite view has been taken into account also.
 * If anyone makes use of my statements or edits to indicate that I have any sympathy with this theory they misrepresent me. But it's not something which i feel any strong personal involvement about, and so I think I can edit it, along with the thousands of other things in the world I think unfortunate or dangerous or even evil--just as I can edit those I approve of.
 * I did not approve of some the edits of those on both side of the issue, including some of yours. I think you as well as other editors made efforts to unbalance the articles, and I urge you as well as the others not to continue doing so. DGG (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi DGG, what is your expertise in Primal Therapy? Aussiewikilady (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * zero actual experience; if I had any actual experience, it would presumably have left me with either a strongly positive or negative reaction to it, and then I would have been emotionally involved, and possibly unable to edit accurately, and certainly to try to work towards a neutral POV. that's the whole point. I did read some of Janov's book a long time ago, enough so I was interested in looking at the matter in the first place. . On the other hand, I do have a considerable amount of experience in reading and evaluating biomedical and other technical material, and teaching others to do so also. I certainly do know ho  recognize what constitutes a supported therapeutic positive or negative claim and what constitutes mere opinion. But anyone with common sense can form a judgment about ordinary things once they understand the language, and to judge when experts are talking from a position of prejudice as contrasted to sound authority.  I have, you know, taken that position here with regard to so-called expert opinion in wikipedia in quite a range of subjects. And this is confirmed by the fact that several other noninvolved editors seem to be judging pretty much the same as I have.  DGG (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

sorry
Very, very sorry about that, repeated browser/computer problem. Tried to recover it before you did. Wow. I have no idea why I toddled over to your page, I'm dumbfounded. I am eagerly awaiting your rebuttal and will express my astonishment at the Arb page. I read it the same way as you do. It seems to me to be a proposal to shrink the pool of expertise and willing hands for a certain task for no reason at all. The no appeal part is amazing. Concerning parallels, do we need parallels to a politburo or the arcane councils that governed the republic of Venice too? I thought it was obvious to all that we had something better, and better than the way things are handled in academe too.John Z (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I replied on the talk page for the proposed decisions. The easiest way to handle a really tough one is to appoint an ad hoc arbitrator, which creates no structure and no precedents. DGG (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What the...
I have no idea what you're talking about on my talk page. I haven't tagged anything for deletion in ~8 days...  Ziggy  Saw  dust  17:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * , 6 days ago. It just happened to come up again today. DGG (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Revsions to CDS Global
Hello, DGG.

Thank you for your comments regarding the "speedy deletion" of this page proposed by user KurtRaschke. I have revised the page, but apparently, still have not followed the "tone" needed for Wikipedia entries, or provided enough citations.

Please see the citations at the bottom of the CDS Global page – I believe they are neutral, third-party, reputable sources.

Also, could you please provide specific comments regarding how the article might be improved to fit the guidelines of Wikipedia? When comparing the article to other Wikipedia articles, I am having trouble seeing what the specific issue might be – since the article focuses on a brief description and history of CDS Global, like other Wikipedia articles relating to organizations.

Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter.

Donny Scott (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No speedy delete for Burleigh Taylor Wilkins
You removed a speedy tag from Burleigh Taylor Wilkins that was successfully challenged with "hangon," but the reason you gave was "almost certainly notable." I'm not contesting your non-deletion, but I tagged that page under "A1" for context, not notability. Just so you know. <i> Fl <span style='color:maroon'>ee tf <span style='color:maroon'>la me  </i> 04:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * sorry if I moved too fast, but that seems even stranger, since the context in the original version is that he was a professor at UC Santa Barbara If you can tell what the article is about, its context enough. Anyway, I notice now that you put the afd tag on the same minute the article was created, and  it might have been better to allow it time to develop. DGG (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, OK, that's fine; maybe I should have put notability. No worries, anyway!  <i>'''[[User Talk:Fleetflame|  Fl <span

style='color:maroon'>ee tf <span style='color:maroon'>la me ]]'''</i> 04:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Assuming Good Faith in the AfD Discussion
Hello! In regard to your comments about my decision to nominate the Old-Time Photography article for AfD consideration [], I have to say that I took serious umbrage at your borderline-patronizing statement that my decision to nominate the article was ill-considered and done without properly checking for reliable sources. Please be aware that I make a serious effort to determine notability on all of the articles I put forward for AfD consensus. There is nothing wrong in disagreeing with the nomination of an article for AfD, but there is a serious problem in openly belittling the person who takes the time and makes the effort to remove excess muck from this site. I am making an effort to assist my fellow editors, and your comment came across as rude. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Not intended personally, and perhaps I might have worded it differently.  But I certainly would advocate a rule that one may not nominate for deletion on a question of notability unless one has at least done a preliminary search for material on the subject ad presented the results as at least a link to google or a statement that some relevant source had been searched. See the template Template:Prod-nn for one way people are doing this. For one thing, this makes less work for others who will check, if they know where you have already looked. or another, being able to say you did it makes the deletion go much smoother for the great many articles which need deletion. ~ As it is, many people do say something in the nomination about what & where they have searched. In this case, are you nominating this particular article just because it's a low quality article? Or a non-standard title for a notable subject? Or have you looked for the genre and actually not found anything?  Deletion policy is that deletion is the last resort if you can figure out no way to improve it.  As for improving it, I didn't have time last night, but I'll look for something today and I'm sure Dhartung will also.   DGG (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC).
 * I nominate articles based on a number of criteria. I strive to ensure that the articles I am suggesting for AfD either have no place on WP or cannot be salvaged due to a lack of sources.  Sometimes I am on target, but in some cases I admit that my judgment could've been sharper.  I appreciate your efforts to improve the process and to help in my editing.  If I was a bit touchy, it was only because I've found my efforts insulted in other corners of the site and I was still somewhat sore.  You are welcome to email me directly or post a message on my Talk Page if you have any concerns on my editing.  Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

User:UsaSatsui/Save Toby
Would you do me a favor? Take a look at this and let me know if you think it's OK for re-inclusion. I'm not done, I'm going to finish up the sourcing later (I can source everything that I didn't hit with a fact tag), but I wanted to see if what I have in there now is good enough. Thanks! --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC) See yor talk p. DGG (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

speedies
thanks for the feedback, always helps. when i nominated Thomas_B._Fitzpatrick it was no content: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_B._Fitzpatrick&diff=214621052&oldid=214620864. also, so if some-one says 'this is the most important website' we can't speedy it? ninety:one 15:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * yes it had only the name at the time. But he intended to add the sentence describing who he was, and did so 2 minutes later. If someone says its the most notable website or company, and its altogether unlikely, opinions vary. Some admin--not me-- wont delete unless the claim is so absurd as to be vandalism or playing around with the encyclopedia. Myself, I want considerably more than that, something which in a contributor in good faith, but who didn't know our standards, might reasonably think notable, and where there's something that might support it.  I will delete for the bare assertion if it doesn't make sense. I won't if it does. I will delete stuff that belongs on facebook. If someone asserts belonging a a garage band that hasnt produced anything yet, I delete both him and the band.  I will often actually check the site or google to see if it might be, and add something to show possible notability a little better if I can find it quickly.  Prod is a very effective way of dealing with these. About 80% of the time the article does not get improved, & is deleted smoothly in 5 days. These questions are repeatedly discussed at the talk page WT:CSD, and there are continual efforts to word the criteria in a better way. Take a look at some of the recent archives, & join the discussion.  DGG (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried
Hello DGG. I gave it a try; but that's it. No more. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My feeling exactly. DGG (talk)`

Paul Ashley Chase
The above titled article has survived a couple of Afd's but is still tagged for notability. I seem to recall that you have reference sources that may produce a good source for this article. If so; "Great"; if not, I will forget about it. I was just working on a backlog of lack of importance type articles. I removed the notability tag and ran into an impasse with another editor. Thanks in advance. I will watch! --Stormbay (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It has the NYT obituary, which is always considered an undoubted proof of notability.  .  DGG (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'll leave it alone for awhile since there is some resistance by one editor. I thought I had seen the NYT argument used successfully somewhere else. --Stormbay (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Just Wondering
I saw your weak keep vote on the Hindu terrorism Afd. I've added a quote on Noam Chomsky. Just wondering if you know whether a procedure exists for discounting earlier parts of an AfD's once new material with strong references gets added. Peace out. Sincerely, --Firefly322 (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You make a comment to that effect at the discussion. But I unfortunately do not see how the addition of this quote is really going to influence things there. DGG (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

sorry to bug you
Sorry to bug you DGG but have you seen the soapbox Skoojal has put up on his user page. Looks like he's admitted to trying to violate BLP. It seems he's also using it to attack Kukini. I've left a note at WP:BLPN about this as well--<font color="grey" size="2">Cailil  talk 01:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Further, this guy has been trolling Talk:Michel Foucault for months and has been engaged in a povpush about the use of the words "gay" and "queer" on wikipedia (see his behaviour in his nomination of Category:queer studies for deletion)--<font color="grey" size="2">Cailil  talk 02:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * you need to notify him of the BLP discussion. And I have emailed you. DGG (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me correct you on a point of fact, Cailil: I did not admit to 'trying to violate BLP.' Those are your words, not mine. I never said such a thing. As for 'attacking Kukini', I do not consider what I wrote an 'attack.' It is simply a critical observation about his behavior. I am not aware of a wikipedia policy stating that administrators are above criticism. As I explain on my user page, either he or Shell Kinney must have been in error in regards to how they edited the article on Frederick Crews, because their decisions were not consistent with each other.
 * And the Foucault business is a totally different issue, an irrelevant one. I haven't made a post to the Foucault talk page for a long while. Skoojal (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * in case anyone looks at this, since the matter is rather on the long side, the phrases being referred to with respect to BLP are apparently "I am a wikipedian with an agenda, and I'm happy to tell anyone what that agenda is." followed by "just how critical could I be of Crews before someone decided that I had gone too far" and finally " I decided to use Wikipedia to express my disgust with Crews" DGG (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've gone through Frederick Crews quickly and performed a removal of some coat-racked quotes and a couple of BLP violating criticisms. I've also warned Skoojal for the addition of defamatory material at blp1 - this level because he knew what he was doing.  If you think it's too harsh please go ahead and review/reduce/remove it--<font color="grey" size="2">Cailil   talk 19:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This needs attention - I am almost absolutely sure this needs to removed. Can you confirm?--<font color="grey" size="2">Cailil   talk 23:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * responded on his user talk page. Yes you were right to remove the material. DGG (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you have a look at this. Maybe after nearly 2 years I throw my understanding of WP:CONSENSUS in the recycling bin? Also Skoojal's active on 3 other philosophers' biographies Lacan, Gilles Deleuze and Slavoj Žižek. Have a look at the talk pages. Same issues, same problems. He's also edited a significant number of biographies in the last 48 hours. Interesting is how many of these discussions are about adding criticism of one type or another--<font color="grey" size="2">Cailil  talk 13:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I made some comments for some but not all. You know, don't rule out the possibility that he can sometimes be right :) DGG (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think there might be a good wikipedian in there I just hope he'll get to grips with why other people disagree with him sometimes--<font color="grey" size="2">Cailil  talk 19:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I know the rules of the road here. But I don't imagine you are very civil with adults who deface library books, are you? You will notice earlier exchanges with him were more civil. In any case, even when I was blasting him, I was being sincere about the increased use of citations in the article due to him. Even dirt can polish. 271828182 (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * that last sentence shows the problem exactly. One does not have to use rude words to be impolite.  And even when someone commits vandalism, here or in the library, one politely shows them the door. DGG (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Point taken. "Dirt" was too harsh; "irritating grit" would have been more accurate. 271828182 (talk) 08:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are going to make comments like this about me, which are a breach of civility, then please make them to me directly in future. I have been aware of this exchange for some time, but only recently decided that I shouldn't let it pass wthiout comment. Skoojal (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

response
Hello DGG. I read your comments and I'd like to offer a brief (I promise!) response.


 * But in order that you and others not be confused about my true opinion... I consider it a dangerous cult, to be more precise, and i think any objective reading of the evidence shows it. I have said the same about other suggested therapeutical systems, such a homeopathy.

I had made no assumptions about your true opinion.

I don't agree that primal therapy is a dangerous cult, or homeopathy for that matter. I think that there is a tremendous difference between saying something lacks scientific evidence to support it (like homeopathy) and saying that it's a dangerous cult. However it's not important for us to agree on those points.


 * If anyone makes use of my statements or edits to indicate that I have any sympathy with this theory they misrepresent me.

I had no intention of indicating that you had any agreement with primal therapy. I have no intention of representing your views on any subject. In fact, I had assumed from the beginning that you probably had no agreement with primal therapy.


 * I did not approve of some the edits of those on both side of the issue, including some of yours. I think you as well as other editors made efforts to unbalance the articles, and I urge you as well as the others not to continue doing so.

I honestly have no idea which of my edits would unbalance the article. Of course, that may be because I'm so biased that I don't realize it! But I honestly have no idea.

My recent edits were: 1) removing PsychMajor's quotation of himself after the RS noticeboard had formed a consensus; 2) re-adding the "pseudoscience" label to the page, after I had accidentally removed it; 3) re-adding the text about Primal Therapy not being accepted and having no studies to support it; 4) removed 3 superfluous quotations and replacing them with summaries; 5) added a few critical citations; 6) removed my own reference to my own website, since the reference to PsychMajor's website was deleted and mine was no longer necessary to maintain NPOV.

I really don't know what I did that could un-balance the article. In fact it almost seems that much of my recent activity could be interpreted as being in opposition to primal therapy. If you could tell me what I did to unbalance the article, then perhaps I could realize what I'm doing wrong, and could stop doing it.

Thanks, Twerges (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I was not addressing just you, (& in that phrase not primarily you, actually), but the other people who were likely to read it. I give my own opinion on the subject as my own opinion, and nobody has to agree with it. I don;t put it into articles, or even into discussions of them. Most of your recent editing has, in fact, been pretty good. DGG (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

one more thing

 * ''I was not addressing just you, (& in that phrase not primarily you, actually), but the other people who were likely to read it.'

Oh, ok. I misunderstood you.


 * Most of your recent editing has, in fact, been pretty good.

Thanks.

I've enabled my email.

...I do have one last concern.

These edit wars recently have become quite taxing. When I post an argument or idea in discussion, the response invariably doesn't even address the points that I raised, but rather makes claims about my supposed evil/cultic motives. When I respond in turn by posting the policies about assume good faith, their subsequent response is usually further accusations about my motives.

This was illustrated when I tried to move a "Discover Magazine" reference from the "peer-reviewed journals" section to a different section, since "Discover Magazine" is not a peer-reviewed journal. The response was labelling of my edit as "cultic", and the pressing of "undo" many times. When the editor was asked (by someone else) why he had done that, he responded that I intended to use the movement of the magazine as a "springboard" for an "attack" on the criticism section! Of course I had no such intention.

Obviously, debate/consensus with such people is impossible if they can't even get past my alleged motives.

When I take the issue to a noticeboard instead, these editors respond by flouting the consensus from the noticeboard and by pressing "undo" repeatedly anyway. Then they start edit wars with the neutral editors and call into question their neutrality. When administrators show up, they start edit wars with the administrators, and press "undo" many times. Once, they even accused the administrator of being a cultist and called into question her motives.

The editors in question appear to me to be relentlessly irrational. The only kind of argument they ever use is the ad hominem kind. That would be fine by itself, but they interfere constantly with everything.

I have no idea what to do here. These editors don't stop until they get a "final warning" from an administrator. Since I can't issue warnings of any kind, it seems to make editing (by me) an impossibility. I'm interested in your advice as to how I should approach this problem.

Feel free to respond to me by email if that's what you prefer.

Thanks for your time. I realize this must be taxing for you as well...Twerges (talk) 03:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you take Discover, to the Reliable source noticeboard? If so, I must have missed it. By the way, any editor can issue warnings. the only thing you cannot do is block on their basis, but the warnings serve to alert admins that there has been some prior problems. Use very cautiously, because its a likely way to escalate & we have a nicely Procrustean solution when it does, which is to block everyone in sight equally, regardless of the merits.
 * & I can give one piece of general advice that helps me deal with problems here: after I've posted once on something, and someone has replied, I'll post once more--and then I stop. If it needs more, I continue the next day. a problem with any web based instant reply system like Wikipedia, is that it's too easy to go back and forth impersonally & it gets worse and worse. So, following my own advice, I'll email you tomorrow. :)

DGG (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

librarian needed! ;)
Hiya. I wonder if you'd take a look here, where there's a discussion about how to determine a book's date of publication. It's the most trivial discussion imaginable, in some ways, and perfectly amiable, but I thought a librarian's input would be of interest. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delighted to have something interesting to do on a Sunday. DGG (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Demob (band)
Sorry to bother you with this, but I would be grateful if you could spare a moment to take a look at the deletion of this article. I spent quite a bit of time improving this article, which was subsequently subject to some COI edits by one or more former members of the band, but nothing that couldn't be coped with by reverting. The article was deleted by User:JzG on 4 April, while I was taking a break from WP, but I can't see any evidence of the deletion procedures being followed. I have raised this in JzG's talk page but he doesn't appear to be around on WP at the moment. I was tempted to raise this at deletion review, but there does not appear to have been a deletion 'process' to review. If there's a valid reason why this was deleted, I'll accept that, but if it was just deleted because it has been subject to vandalism or COI edits, I don't see that as a valid reason. Thanks in advance. --Michig (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It was deleted with the following reason: "Marginally notable, locus of an edit war since day 1, subject of external legal action over rights to the name, dispute brought here. Wikipedia is not the place for this dispute." The deletion process followed in this was Speedy Deletion, even though it does not explicitly say so in the deletion summary. I do not see that this corresponds to any of the acceptable reasons for speedy deletion listed at WP:CSD, so deletion review would certainly  be appropriate.    DGG (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. I've taken it to deletion review. I find it worrying that admins can speedy established articles without apparently any discussion and without informing editors who have worked on the article.--Michig (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yuor comment in AfD
What is the reason behind this comment? I have responded in AfD.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * perhaps you just made a typo--check: You wrote Like Christian terrorism ...., and looking again at your general line of reasoning, you may have meant Unlike. DGG (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Deleted Article
Your User Page says that you can provide deleted articles. I would appreciate if you could resurrect an article I wrote on the subject of Richard Sumner. It was killed after an AfD debate about a month or two ago. I would like to expand and relist the article. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

PS I would also appreciate if you could provide the text or a link to it at my Talk Page. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * restored to your user space at User: Ecoleetage/Richard Sumner. If you add the material mentioned at the AfD about his career, I think it might well hold up. If enough new material is added, there's no real need to go to deletion review--it would not be a re-creation. But of course, the stronger it is, the less likely it will be to be challenged. I hope you'll be able to find reviews of his work. DGG (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Many thanks for your words of support for my submission for Connie Clausen. Sangroncito (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Robert M. Hirsch
I've restored it. I guess I missed the previous prod in the history. Sorry about that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC) --thanks. I'l see what I can add to make it stronger. DGG (talk)

Another deleted article
If it is not bother, can I ask you to please resurrect one other deleted article that I lost to the AfD process? It is "A Charlie Brown Kwanzaa" and it was killed off a couple of months ago. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Emailed this one. tho rewritten, the content waa the same as the deleted version--is there anywhere they content could be merged to? DGG (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this and the other article. I am going to try to expand these. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Development life cycle
When it's been pointed out for over a year that the article doesn't meet Wikipedia standards, and nobody's bothered to do anything about it for that long, I disagree that a failure to improve the article isn't a reason to delete. Articles are saved all the time because someone says, "Well, it's obviously inadequate now, but give it a chance to be fixed." My intent in my prod comments was to say, this article has had that chance and clearly nobody's taking it. But I'll go ahead and put it up on AFD. Propaniac (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * see WP:Deletion policy. There may be reasons to delete this article, but the ones you give are not among them. DGG (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * On a subnote, you may want to archive - this page stuttered on my connection. Sceptre (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Kavebear
What templates do I use if I am not finished with an article and would like to continue on it later on? The article Kalaimanuia will be enlarged in a while I have to research the informations first. So do you know how to show I am not done in case anyone might want to delete it?

Put at the top of the article:. It should work for 3 or 4 days. Make sure you have a backup copy in case you need to re-enter the text; sometime things carelessly get deleted in spite of the template. DGG (talk) 03:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

CDS Global page update, 27 May 2008
The latest version of the CDS Global page includes information regarding "volume of business" and "market share," with external references. Please examine and provide comment. Thanks again for your input. Donny Scott (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

your threats
I left a comment on my talk page about your threats.--Moldopodo (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've commented there. DGG (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

New Focus at Unreferenced articles
The huge set of unreferenced articles from June of 2006 is finally completed. Thank you for your contributions. The new focus at Unreferenced articles is Category:Articles lacking sources from July 2006 which as of May 28 is only 1,322 articles and should go much quicker. Thank you to everyone who has contributed and listed themselves as a volunteer. Jeepday (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:Your comment
Thank you for commenting DGG, it is always good to hear a third opinion in any matter. Personally, I am just going to let things be. There has been way too much wiki-drama for me over this single image, and I have already explained myself the best I can, so there is no need for me to continue the dispute. Thanks again for your opinion, it is always welcome. Cheers, <font face="Harlow Solid Italic"><font size="2px" color="teal"> « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @  '' 18:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree it's rarely worth it pursuing one image (or article) too long. There are always a few thousand others to deal with. DGG (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

References added to CDS Global
References have been added to verify the acquisition section, including an article from The New York Times. Let me know if I should not be posting to this talk page as well — I'm still pretty new to the Wikipedia community! =) Donny Scott (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * you've said enough, unless the article does get challenged for AfD. If so, you'll be asked whether the NYT coverage is substantial. It is possible the trade press might have something also; a lot of it is still not electronic, or wasnt until just recently. DGG (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, DGG. I appreciate your insight and time given to help with article improvements. Donny Scott (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Characters
Thanks for your opinion, but I have no interest in deleting those articles. You should probably post to judge's page, since he's the one who nominated a few for speedy deletion. I was discussing with him the possibility of saving a few of the other articles. Randomran (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * oops, yes, my mixup. Sorry. DGG (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Good luck and good editing. Randomran (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Fearnhill School
OK, as suggested the sources are now in the page and I have started its expansion. TerriersFan (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Big Doe Camp
Hi, I was told you were a good friendly guy who could help me out. I am trying to save the article Big Doe Camp from deletion. It was deleted once and I was told that if I could find some sources than it would be ok. So I founded sources and rewrote a much longer article after unsuccessfuly trying to get a copy of the original article to work on. I uploaded the second article which I went through the list of criteria for speedy deletion with and thought in my mind that it should pass all the criteria. The article has a lot more information than other articles about summer camps. As as refernces showing importance, significance and notability as camp information and memorabilia has been preserved in a museum, the Trent University Archives, As well as an old article in the Toronto Star. I was hoping you could take a look at the article and tell me what you think it needs, if you think it is good enough if you could undelete that would be great. Otherwise if you could send me a copy of the two articles that were deleted so that I could combine the info from each of them and try and improve the article further. Hopefully when all is said and done I will have an article that will not be deleted when I attempt again to create it. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. --Magnetawan (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll email you the articles, but you first need to go to your preferences page and activate your email. As for the article, I'm not sure it met the speedy criterion for immediate deletion, but if it went to AfD it would be certainly be deleted very quickly. There are very few articles on summer camps that pass AfD. The problem is that it needs to show the camp is notable, as proven by substantial 3rd party independent reliable published sources. Merely finding evidence of its existence is primary sources like archives, or a mention in a newspaper, is not enough. The sort of thing that shows notability for a camp is some evidence of national or even international significance, or participation in major events that get substantial newspaper coverage, or athletic or other championships on at least a provincial scale, or some very distinguished former campers where the camp can be shown to have some relevance to their career, or the historic nature of the camp and its discussion in appropriate article or books (as with the sources for Camp Pathfinder).  I've supported some possibly relevant articles on summer camps here from time to time, and they all of them have gotten deleted by the consensus. Secondary schools can be supported on the basis of their influence on the community and the alumni. Camps simply are not generally accepted for that.  Perhaps they ought to be, but I am not prepared to try it as a general argument, because I think it is much too unlikely to succeed.  Hint, though: all members of the provincial legislature that there ever were can have articles here; at present, only the current ones do. If you can find a large number who went to the camp, you could possibly build the article around it, if you do the articles on them first. I don't know if it would work, but it would be worth the try. DGG (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your tips and advice. I have updated my e-mail preferences to allow e-mail. I see some of your points, and finding international and national competitions and such will be difficult. I know most of the articles about camps on Wikipedia do not have any of this, I also believe this articles has a lot more information that many camps on wikipedia. I guess it just depends on which administrator sees the article first and approves of it or marks it for deletion. Thanks again for your help! --Magnetawan (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it depends ultimately of what the result is at AfD and Deletion Review, which can and do over-rule any admin's individual decision. It's probably true though, that some of the existing articles would have a hard time there. If you can find anything more for this one, put the article in user space & I'll take a look. I emailed the versions to you just now. DGG (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Big Doe Camp
Gee, I am glad this worked out. Hey, DGG, this one's for you:

J.M. Hayes
There was absolutely no assertion of notability. I'm an author; non-self-published. Do I get an article? No. Nothing in this article gives him any qualifications per WP:CREATIVE. - <font face="Verdana">CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My interpretation of WP:CSD is that there need only be a reasonable assertion of notability. I did not see that in the above article. - <font face="Verdana">CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * that someone has published four books is cause to think that person might reasonably be notable. Speedy is not AfD. As the article would almost certainly fail afd, I'm not going to take it to deletion review, unless i find some references. But I am going to discuss this at WT:CSD. If you are misinterpreting the meaning this way, it is time to change the language.  I've moved it to User:DGG/Hayes for the purpose of discussion. DGG (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

How is publishing four books cause to infer notability? Multiple publications is a direct assertion of notability? I really would like to see that opinion here on Wikipedia; if it's here, I'll change my interpretation of WP:CREATIVE. - <font face="Verdana">CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Found two reviews for Plains Crazy mentioned at Amazon.com: one form Publishers Weekly and one from Booklist. - <font face="Verdana">CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, that makes him quite possibly actually notable, thanks. They are both selective. OK to restore to mainspace? Thanks for you cooperation. DGG (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Selective"? Yeah, go ahead; but we need to include an assertion of notability vis a vie reputable reviewed works" or something that makes another CSD tagging much less valid. - <font face="Verdana">CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * of course I'll add an explanation, but I did start a discussion at WT:CSD--for this is a poster boy of an indication of why we need less restrictive language. Nothing should be speedied that might be keepable--at least that's what I think. I seriously do appreciate your help. DGG (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Electoral Bloc Democratic Moldova
hello, in the Electoral Bloc Democratic Moldova I used template, cause I didn't know a other way to make article for deletion. Now the idea is that that electoral bloc existed only some months, and was dissolved. currently this information does not present any userful information about the political parties in Moldova. Bloks of this kind appears in Moldova before every election from different combinations of Moldovan political parties, and writing about it is how to write about the a particular molecule of ozone: it time of live is insignificant.--serhio talk 14:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think it should be deleted, take it to WP:AFD; the community opinion as expressed there will decide. But be aware that we have a rule that if it was ever notable, it remains notable. DGG (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks... (confused a bit)You mean the article once refused to be deleted, will never be deleted? --serhio talk 14:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, my decision is not even remotely final; let me explain. Speedy deletion is for articles that are unquestionably proper to be deleted, because of their total lack of any claim to importance. For a political association of any sort to make a good showing in an election is a claim at least to some notability. It may or may not be sufficiently notable according to our practices at WP:N.  If there are  good newspaper sources referring to it as a bloc, then my personal opinion it is probably real enough for our purposes. And if it was notable in one election, it remains notable forever. But my personal opinion is not what decides things here; the question of whether it is actually notable is decided by the community, not by me. My role is only to throw out the absolutely hopeless, & those the community decides are not suitable. The way we examine the matter and decide is to list the article for discussion according to  WP:AFD. People will give their arguments, and another administrator will interpret what the community opinion is. But before you list it, you should make a good-faith effort to find local newspaper sources & add  them so it clarifies the matter for the discussion. Perhaps you will then decide it's notable enough to include in an encyclopedia like this. Other options include redirecting it, making it a cross reference to the article on the election--see our WP:Deletion policy.   DGG (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand. thanks for explanations.

DR
Thanks for your comment at Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_30. I'm concerned about your use of the word "fraud" there though. See my comment after yours. N.B. I have no connection to this person or the incident. Toddst1 (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Adjusted, FWIW. thanks. DGG (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Feedback on Big Doe Camp
I have posted the article temporarily in My Sandbox. If you want please take a look and give me any feedback you may have, or feel free to edit the article a little. Let me know if you think it is at a stage where I can post it to the Main Wikipedia Space again. Magnetawan (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It has an adequate reference, but it might be advisable to cut down the details on the camp program. You've got to write the article on Murray before the link will help. The song will need some context. e.g. "A jocular variant by the German camp cook was ..." and that needs a specific source. But OK for mainspace while you fix it further. Best way to do it: I've restored the original & added an underconstruction tag--now remake the edits in that version. DGG (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK thanks so much Magnetawan (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's me again -- DGG, thanks (once more!) for your help here. Feel free to check in on the article, as your input is most welcome. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sales Catalog

 * If you permits I would like to ask you for a advice of other article: Internet in Moldova. There are a list of prices there, and the author in my talk page explains his behavior. I've composed a template: for pages like this. What can you suggest on this topic? --serhio talk 12:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your contributions. --serhio talk 22:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * as for the template, I think it will be very useful. My only comment is that I think "sales catalog" would be a more usual wording.DGG (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * oops, unfortunately, I'm not an English man. Fixed ;) --serhio talk 22:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikigender
Dear DGB, thanks for your advice added on my talk page.

For your information, I do precise that I am allowed to edit some articles. It's just what I did by adding some biliographical references to the Maryse Marpsat page that I have created a month ago. But I am not allowed to write the web-link leading to the OECD Wikigender site. This site is only an information sharing platform on gender equity which was officially launched by the OECD Development Centre on 7 March 2008 on the occasion of International Women's Day. If you are sufficiently curious, you can get its web-link in my contribution page (at the date of 11 march 2008), and if you follow it, you would observe that it is difficult to say that this information is a kind of SPAM.

It's one of the reasons justifying my protest. Now, I would like to know whether I'm "definitely blocked" or not. Mr or Mrs Hu12 don't give me any answer, neither to my protest nor to your comment. What can I do? How to get any answer? Wanda007 (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * replied on your talk page. You are not blocked. The link is blocked, I think quite wrongly, as an example of what I call "spam paranoia" DGG (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Does "spam paranoia" include abuse of Wikipedia's electronic messaging system? Additionaly French administrator (fr:Utilisateur:Like_tears_in_rain) even posted on her french talk page "Your additions of external links were not a good idea. While I understand that you want to publicize the site, the only place on a relevant page would suffice, making it five times gives the impression of spam.". --Hu12 (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to know, I emailed the ed. in question to ask point-blank what I do not like to ask openly on Wikipedia, whether the person had used other accounts. I consider this a highly appropriate question, and I always ask this before getting involved in helping someone in a situation like this--if they have in fact used other accounts deliberately, I am very reluctant to defend them. Questions regarding possible sock puppetry are often inquired about confidentially. For the record, it was denied (I do not think I am breaking confidentiality in saying this) and I am prepared to help the user further to edit within the rule and to put in links appropriately.
 * As for the links, I think they were added in good faith. I agree they were added over-enthusiastically. I have not examined that site in detail about appropriateness. Obviously there can be different opinions on that. I take the French admin's opinion seriously. You and I have disagreed about this sort of thing several times. The community has often supported me. If they think the links are wrong this time, then they will not be added. I have been wrong about various things before, and I have sometimes been in the situation where the community does not agree with what i continue to think the right view. In such cases I do what I have always done, which is follow the community in what I actually do. There are some rules I think wrong, that I enforce nonetheless, and there are some things I think should be prohibited that aren't, and I don't try to act against people doing them.
 * I agree with our linking policy, but I think the enforcement is sometimes over-harsh, both with respect to the links and the individuals. Too many usable links are on the spam blacklist and if one of them catches my attention, I sometimes try to do something about it if I think I will have support, though I do not have time to do as much of this as I would like. I spend more time removing them; about 200 of my watched pages are for possible spam, and yesterday I removed about a dozen links of that sort. I also blocked someone earlier this week for persistently adding unsuitable links, but that was after multiple warnings. DGG (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)