User talk:DGG/Archive 31 Aug. 2009

Oct08,  Nov08,   Dec08,   Jan09,     Mar09, Apr09, May09 ,  Jun09    Jul09,  ..., Sep09, Oct09, Nov09, , Dec09,

Orquesta Tabaco y Ron
I wanted to create an article on Orquesta Tabaco y Ron, but I see it was deleted once and I wanted to check with you before re-creating it. I had no difficulty locating some sources providing basic information, such as:, and this detailed article written about the band in Latin Beat Magazine:. I know that my notability standards are often lower than others though, and I'm biased here in that I really like this group, so I wanted to make sure that I'm not re-creating a page in vain that is just going to be deleted again. If you had any information on the page that was deleted (and if there's any salvageable material, if you could userify it) I would be very grateful, or if you have any information on why the page should not presently be re-created, I would like to know that too. Thanks! Cazort (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not a very knowledgeable person on this type of subjects. The usual advice is to make it as a page in your userspace, so people can see what it would look like, and then ask for opinions    at a suitable Wikiproject DGG (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Soap Opera "supercouples" : Luke and Laura?
DGG, you always seem to be fair in these types of discussions and have a good grasp on Wikipedia policies. With these nominations, linked to above, I am more concerned about the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber article (one I and Rocksey plan to fix up). The article/topic is clearly notable, but I feel that this could get overlooked due its current messy state and the fact that it is lumped into a debate with other messy soap opera couple articles, most of which should be deleted. Should I trust in the system in this case, or what? Flyer22 (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind. The nominator has withdrawn Luke and Laura from the debate upon my earlier request. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The others need to be considered individually also. Group nomination of this sort always leads to lack of consideration for possible individual merit. Personally, I would eliminate the provision except in exceptional instances, such as related cases dealing with the same non-notable topic made by the same group or at the same time. I despair of compromise on fiction--the extremists have taken over, and the necessary assumption of good will and desire to reach an acceptable conclusion is no longer present in this area. I am reluctant to let those who wish to minimize the coverage of human imaginative creations drive me out of the area. But their lack of understanding and the obnoxiousness of their tactics is so great I find it difficult to maintain equilibrium in dealing with them. DGG (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply
I've read your comments and have disregarded them. DJ 17:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * considering that i proposed to you that you could better accomplish your end of getting the inappropriate ones deleted or merged by re-nominating them individually, I can only thank you for the perfect   demonstration of what i say above about the lack of good will in this area. DGG (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

More work
Is this user page on your watchlist? If it's not, could I recommend it? As User:Bittergrey seems to be in perpetual content disputes, the most recent interchanges there are presumably mirrored across half a dozen related pages, including WP:SEX. I'd be happier if someone else were thinking about this problem before it gets any bigger. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I replied at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. I am apparently to be relied on as the sort of fool who will rush in where angels fear to tread. :) DGG (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't buy the 'fool' part, but if you weren't reliable and responsive, I wouldn't have bothered asking.
 * Your response seems to have already done some good. Thanks.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Katie Howard
I bow to your greater experience, but have you been following the great redirect kerfuffle. That dab page redirects to two topics that we don't have articles on.... However, if your opinion is it's OK to create two entry dab pages to disambiguate between non existent entries, then as I say, I bow to your greater experience.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been following it. I think Tyciol has been overdoing it. As everyone else there seems to think so also, i see no reason to get involved.  DGG (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I quite sympathise. And Black Kite has fixed up that page handy dandy, much better than my suggestion of deleting it (now why didn't I think of Catherine Howard).--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Black Kite's additions to the page were indeed excellent. I didn't know there was a General Hospital character with that name nor did Katie>Kate even occur to me (this shows BK's good experience with disambigs. I strongly oppose the removing of the 2 terms I initially added though (I had links to legitimate characters! Just because someone is on a list and not an entire article to their own doesn't mean you don't get mentioned!) and am glad User:Boleyn restored them. Tyciol (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been slowly going through the logs of the various people secretly assaulting my redirects without telling me. WP:RFD encourages that the polite thing to do is to notify people about redirects up for discussion (much less, applying for instant deletion without discussion). Good faith is assumed that deleters will only speedily delete obviously bad redirects and that's being abused, so I am thankful for editors who take the time to consider each one and not assume bad faith (and ignore obvious usefulness) through the deletion of anything with my name on it. Tyciol (talk) 09:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Getting Things Done NPOV
Thanks for cleaning up the Getting Things Done article. I have removed the NPOV tag, but would appreciate your comments in the discussion area if you see other opportunities for improvement. The page is subject to spam from software vendors claiming to be inspired by the methodology, but I think the core article describing the methodology is fairly NPOV. Open to suggestions. Cyberscribe (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Brad Lander article
The council race is of some note and Brad Lander is a citywide known advocate. I clarified that on the page, let me know what else I can do to make the article stick. Thanks. Michaelfs (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to defend the article, you can find some references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. You are right that the most likely notability will be his previous activities, not his running for city council. the article had been  nominated for speedy, and I moved it to AfD to give you a chance to find the material. DGG (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 09:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Communist genocide
At you said communist genocide is "a well-known concept". I tried to check a few sources used in the article, but found nothing to confirm this (please see my expanded comments on the AfD page). All this material is surely present in the individual genocide articles, so why do we need this synthesis article? Also, do you think this article really representes WP:NPOV? Just take look at the first sentence ("Communist genocide refers to the genocide carried out by communist regimes across the world. From the very beginning, communism forged a new order based on genocide") - no attribution, and this polemic opinion of a journalist is basically stated as the truth. Offliner (talk) 10:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Maryjo Adams Cochran
I would appreciate your comments on this stub. If you think she passes WP:PROF, I will close the discussion with a keep. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See my comments there. DGG (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Americans for Responsibility in Washington
Hello - I thought I was doing the speedy delete thing properly. However, it appears I was mistaken and need some guidance. Can you help me understand how this article is notable so I may not make the same mistake again? Regards -  Blind Eagle  talk ~ contribs  18:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * doesn't have to be notable to escape speedy. Just has to indicate some degree of possible importance or significance. This is a very much lower bar, deliberately set low--set so low that everyone would agree the article had no chance whatsoever. This article is borderline that way, and it would be fairer to use AfD.
 * but the delete reason was "This article no longer warrants placement on Wikipedia, as the organization named no longer exists (and only existed for a few months when it did)

" and this is not an applicable reason even at AfD. We have a very firm consensus that if something is notable and worthy of an encyclopedia article at any time, it always will be, and whether or not the organization still exists is therefore irrelevant.
 * On the basis of the references given, I doubt that it will survive AfD. The first step is to look for other references, per WP:BEFORE, and if you can't find them, send to AfD. DGG (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use
Hi DGG

Don't know if you're a fair use expert, but the most recent photograph of John Hughes (director) I could find was at Macquarie University. Any idea if there's a fair use rationale for including this in the encyclopedia?

Thanks, Bongo  matic  02:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * noted. Thanks. Bongo  matic  04:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Communist genocide
Did you notice my question above? You haven't answered it yet. I think your argumentation at the AfD was wrong, so it would be nice if you did. Offliner (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a qy to the comment you made on my remark there. Otherwise I have nothing further to add to the discussion. DGG (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Matthew A. Hunter
You have sharp eyes! Its true, I based that article off of 2 sources. Most of it was just shifting sentences around and changing a few words. Don't worry, I will try to re-hash some it and probably find some more references and information. Thanks, Danski14(talk) 17:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

fyi
I thought you might be interested in this -- another plan to archive web content -- this one run by librarians.

I've wondered about the legality of these plans, whether they lapse from a strict compliance with copyright.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * as long as people can opt out, which is presently always the case for all legitimate schemes, there is no problem. Personally, I think libraries can take an even more proactive role. Just as they have the specific legislative permission in the US to make copies of books they own for preservation purposes if they are unavailable on the market--and even for unpublished material in some circumstances, they should have specific permission to do this also. One of the advantages of print was that one could not un-publish. I am reluctant to lose that safeguard, at least for material formally published on the net. Material illicitly there, or personally published without full realization of the implications, is a harder question, for it can be argued that the much greater possibility for invasion of privacy with the internet may require some compromise with the preservation needs for the future.  DGG (talk) 07:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

A tiny error
You wrote "AfD" when you meant "RfA" on WP:ANI. I tried to just fix it, but another editor reverted me and even warned me about my "inappropriate" edit. As such, I came here to waste more of my time & yours to tell you you'll have to fix it yourself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * you did right, of course, in the first place. For the record, I appreciate it when anyone fixes any of my typos or obvious errors, & nobody need ask my permission. The topic at issue seems to have produced an outbreak of irritation generally, and it seems to be expressed in unexpected directions. DGG (talk) 06:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the diff to prove you fixed it (diff). No matter if you grant permission for other users to fix your typos, I think you should still be asked permission first before other users correct typos like these. I made the revert because there was no evidence that you gave any sort of permission, and I think it is a good thing to ask permission first, and until permission is granted, no action should be taken. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  06:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!
Thanks for your support in reserving the Public housing estates in Hong Kong. Ricky@36 (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Mr.TrustWorthy Got Something to Tell Me? 04:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Ratel warring? vandalizing? bad faith?
User Ratel is trying to archive an active discussion in Aktion T4. This User Ratel is clearly involved in the discussion.


 * First attempt to archive the active discussion
 * Second attempt to archive the active discussion
 * Third attempt to archive the active discussion
 * Fourth attemot to archive the active discussion


 * First warning
 * Second warning

comment made by 190.25.101.144 (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think he was right. I closed the discussion and collapsed the section. the discussion was becoming disruptive and repetitive. DGG (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In the discussion it was asked for a "reliable" (according to Wikipedia Policies) source, supporting that Aktion T4 was euthanasia and that any euthanasia is not unlike Aktion T4, because the current article claims the contrary in this section: Aktion_T4.
 * There are a lot of sources, but at least one "reliable" (according to Wikipedia policies) source was provided in this post:Talk:Action_T4. This source ( Alexander Leo, Medical science under dictatorship, New England Journal of Medicine, No.241, pages 39-47 ) states that Aktion T4 was euthanasia and that any euthanasia is not unlike Aktion T4
 * User:Ratel claims euthanasia has nothing to do with Aktion T4 and he is involved in the mentioned dicussion.
 * Therefore: why is he allowed to archive exactly all the discussion including the post providing the demanded source?
 * Note that User:Ratel posted his first attempt to autoarchive the discussion some hours after the post providing the demanded source.
 * comment made by 190.27.99.91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC).
 * I stepped in because I was uninvolved in the editing, and intend to continue to be uninvolved in the editing. At some point, disputes have to end. Whether I agree entirely with Ratel's position on the article is irrelevant. But FWIW, in my opinion, the 1949 Alexander article --available at various places on the web -- & his famous book are the classic source for the Nazi medical experimentation program, but his discussion of the relation of these practices to the contemporary meaning of euthanasia is very old-fashioned, & by current standards, naive.  DGG (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So, in this case (not reporting in wikipedia that Aktion T4 is euthanasia and any euthanasia is not unlike Aktion T4) doesn't apply the allegedly objective criteria to decide if a respective source is a reliable one according to the wikipedia policies? in this case it is not a reliable source because it is your own opinion that it is "naive and old-fashioned"? why?
 * comment made by 190.25.108.250 (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * that's why I mentioned the date. You didn't. DGG (talk) 03:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * At least, it is also your own opinion, not a fact, why I missed the date.
 * Do you need another example? Nuremberg Code (which deals on medical experiments on humans), also written by the same author of the mentioned source about the same date 1949, but also a lot of laws are still ruling, no matter the old date when those laws were written. Are you really allowed here in wikipedia to refuse those laws, at least refuse to publish them, because it is your own opinion that they are old-fashioned because the date when they were written?
 * Again: in this case (not reporting in wikipedia that Aktion T4 is euthanasia and any euthanasia is not unlike Aktion T4) doesn't apply the allegedly objective criteria to decide if a respective source is a reliable one according to the wikipedia policies? in this case it is not a reliable source because it is your own opinion that it is "naive and old-fashioned because the date"? why?
 * comment made by 190.25.108.250 (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * right, I gave it here explicitly as my own opinion. As I said, I am not working on this article. Discussion here is closed, please. DGG (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Amos Daragon
Why did you suggest to merge to Bryan Perro? Both the book series and the author seem notable enough to me from the French-language media coverage for separate articles. Fences &amp;  Windows  15:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am being very cautious with articles submitted by that publisher. DGG (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Transitioning Applications to Ontologies
An editor has nominated Transitioning Applications to Ontologies, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedies
If you think my DB tagging of new articles that do not seem (to me) comply with guidelines is not helpful all you have to do is politely ask me to stop. I'm trying to be helpful but I'm happy to stop if I am not successful in this regard. Threatening to "enforce" a Twinkle removal is a bit excessive, I'm not sure why you're telling me that since I already know it can be disabled or I can be blocked. I'll just stop the tagging altogether. Cheers, &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want you to stop tagging--you have been catching many articles that we need to delete--I've deleted some myself after you tagged them, and checked some others for recreation and tagged or deleted them again if they weren't improved. What I asked is that you do it slowly and carefully. I didn't ask you to stop using TW either--it can make things much easier to send the right notices. I just asked you to be more careful.  (It's possible to go too fast even manually), We need more good patrolling and it's therefore important for everyone to tell each other about mistakes. People tell me about mine.  They even let me know from time to time if I'm going too fast, or seem to be getting sleepy. This is a co-operative project & we need each other. DGG (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough. Also, I added 2 more refs to Civil Auto Liability, they're in Romanian but translations to English can be viewed via Google. &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for My Tomato Pie
An editor has asked for a deletion review of My Tomato Pie. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hornbook project
I am not sure if this is encyclopedic, but I am willing to try it out. Bearian (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that anyone asked my opinion, but this seems to me more likely to fall under the mission of Wikiversity. Bongo  matic  13:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Mmwilgus (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Please go to and vote again. Thank you. LargoLarry (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on WPCite
Ironically, I spent much of today (when I was supposed to be working) looking at that page. I also looked at the citation project page, but it doesn't look very active. I was reading it in the context of canonical reference - I'll look again for bibliography info. Thanks-- SPhilbrick  T  00:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

John Fisher school
saw your post and I agree. User marlon was warned about edit warring but continues. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_John_Fisher_School&action=history He says to discuss but he would rather revert every other editor & call it vandalism than discus anything. thank you User:Husounde —Preceding undated comment added 13:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC).

also I just warned him for edit warring and he called it vandalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marlon232&diff=307742704&oldid=307741003 Husounde (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

He's reverted 11 times this summer if that helps. I think more before that. Husounde (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep up the good work Husounde!Marlon232 (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"PlanetWM.com"
Dear DGG! Sorry for taking you time, but I would like to ask you about this matter. In my opinion, article about PlanetWM.com service can be usefull to some of readers, because it's one of leading digital currency exchangers. Many similiar services have articles about them here, so I think this one can be usefull too. Tonxxx (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Thanks, Anthony
 * you can always ask, no need to apologize. The thing to do is to find some references about it. You need references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases.  I can find none in Google News archive, or  even in Google. So how is anyone to tell if it's important? If you can find anything at all, rewrite the article with it--if I still think its non-notable I will send it to AfD, where the community will judge.    (I already had it in mind to check some of the other articles)  The article was also deleteable as promotional. saying it is especially rapid, or has 24 hr. help service, is not really encyclopedic  content. Please read WP:ORG, &  see  our FAQ  about businesses & other organisations .    DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I understand your point of view Will write another article later then

Re: Speedy
Please forgive me, I'm very inexperienced with CSD. I'm actually working on a coaching program with Juliancolton, and the one area that I told him I needed a lot of help with (and am currently working on) is CSD. I'm in the process of trying to gain more knowledge in speedy deletion. Thank you very much for the note, and please let me know in the future if I mess up again (although I hope it doesn't happen!). ''' iMatthew [[User_talk:IMatthew

Talkback
Mr.TrustWorthy Got Something to Tell Me? 02:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

RfA !vote (Headbomb)
Your vote is killing me right now. I've answered you and I really think you made too hasty a call on this. Your two main objections (or at least what I think are your main objections) were the deletion of Proc Natl Acad Sci U S a and the AfDing of Vacuum genesis. I'm pretty sure I've addressed those sufficiently. The former serves no purpose whatsoever, as the search engine isn't capital sensitive (try both "go" and "search"), and the later was not some kind of reckless AfDing like you suggested it was. I consulted with the Astronomy project first to confirm that my concerns had a certain basis, and one of the resident editor there thought that it was non-notable too and should be sent to AfD. Only after that did I send it to AfD.

If there's anything else I would need to justify or explain to convince you to move from oppose to neutral/support, please let me know. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Of interest?
Major book related Wikipedia hoax: Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_20. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been under discussion at Wikien-L. The best couse seems to be to make use of amazon's comment facilities, and comment. Amazon are not fools, but they will judge by the results.    DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Just as a heads up you are being discussed at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents (obviously I did NOT start that thread) and thought you should be aware. Sincerley, --A NobodyMy talk 05:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see it appeared to be over before I got there--but this is one topic that is not going to diminish in virulence during my lifetime.  when people with skills in academic controversy get involved in matters that challenge their sexuality,  as well as their credentials, nothing good can be expected.  The only practical popsition for the rest of the world is to stay clear, l'd go in only with heavy personnnel protection.    DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Isola (fictional island)
Hi DGG. I sent this for AfD. This is just a fictional island named in some certain video games. I played on of these games and I didn't know the name of the island. Nothing important in google as well. You may want to write your opinion there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * afd is the place, not prod, from which I deprodded it. --almost no deletion of this sort is incontestable. As you know, I do not think the GNG ought to apply to this sort of article  DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Lake Hayward
Sorry, I will not use delete templates until I become more familiar with them. -- An ' ha ' mi  rak  12:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Eight Nine RR and counting by SPA
User:Johnnypd on Communist genocide. PD as in law? Johnny Law come to make things right?User talk:Johnnypd Special:Contributions/Johnnypd

18:40; 19:03; 19:20; 19:39; 19:55; 20:03; 20:09; 20:24. 20:39new Anarchangel (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not claim any quality for the content of Johnnypd's edits. This is an appeal for the bright line to be invoked, only.

As for the article itself, it is currently a release valve for anti-Communist sentiment; garbage in, garbage out. There is no GA content in it atm; the only way there can be is if the genocide tag is dropped (I am not aware of intent to eliminate ethnic groups having been proved for any of the incidents), and the grey area between 'happened in a communist country' and 'policy of a Communist state' is firmly delineated. I am just biding my time until the heat is off, and then I think one day it can be a useful way to show the overreaction and zealousness of communism that lead to few mass killings, the inexplicable bloodbath by purported communists (Cambodia) and a few mass negligent homicides (Ukraine and China). Or perhaps I am wrong, and WP cannot sustain such an article against incessant waves of PoV editors. Anarchangel (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * maybe I was wrong when I !voted that the article should be kept. And probably you are right that the article should be retitled. Personally, i prefer the meaning of the word should be limited to the original, but the common use seems to be much broader, to mean a massacre comparable in scope to a genocide, & if so we must follow it. I do not think, btw, that "negligent" can be used of the Ukraine. Or for Mao--there is a difference between merely negligent, and callously indifferent. & I would not characterize the events that happened under Stalin (& probably Lenin as well) as not being state policy.   There are also, of course,  things to add, that will help demonstrate that it is perhaps characteristic. What is in my personal opinion characteristic is the ideological justifications that can be given, which are distinctive to their theoretical perspective, & the article does discuss some of this. But I very much want to avoid actually working on this article.    DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * as for 3r:  In a situation where the others have manged to keep barely under 3rr, my idea of fairness would be to also give them lesser blocks,if I were to punish people, which I try to avoid. I consider 3rr inconsistent with blocks being used for prevention only, & I have so far never actually used it. See my comment at   My own impression is of a long string of POV edits, not a revert-war, though about to become one. If it continues, I will consider protecting the article for a day or two.  DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

JFS again
As some editors are going on and on about this paragraph that a local newspaper reported some students as saying there was aggression and verbal abuse etc directed at some pupils, and you said you read the article, could you say how you got to read it and if possible put a transcript on the jfs talk page. ThanksSayerslle (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * the burden is on those who want to insert the content, especially with BLP, but I will take a look. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Gerald Celente article needs admistrator attention
It's perverted by pro-Celente partisans (GwenGale, Laura289, now Celente himself apparently -- see Celente discussion page) who continually, systematically use it for advertising, who consistently violate WP's rules (reliable sources, no COI, no advertising, verifiability, etc etc). I sent you an email. I do not know what to do; I'm a neophyte editor, hard working, wanting to help, but the battling with Celente partisans for some kind of neutrality is wearying. Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
 * I made an extended comment there. Gwen is a reliable editor. Guard yourself against going on a crusade--you have made your point.   DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your helpfulness. I'm heeding your excellent advice. I'm leaving the GC article alone for a long time. And you're right, perhaps I'm slightly biased too. Again, thanks. Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Symphony CMS
Sorry to have wasted your time (validly) removing the speedy template from Symphony CMS. The article was deleted in January so I didn't remember the contents. The fact remains that, notwithstanding the expansion, notability not demonstrated in the article nor have I been able to establish it myself (I did a good faith search). So I have renominated it (Articles for deletion/Symphony CMS (2nd nomination)). If you disagree (or agree, for that matter), please opine.

Regards, Bongo  matic  17:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

DRV:Alan Roger Currie
You made a comment at Deletion_review/Log/2009_August_12 that "two local articles for someone claimed to be of nationwide significance is not significant coverage". Would you still so consider four articles from two widely separated states?
 * depends what they say. "significant coverage" is not a black|white divide. Most of the things we word as sharp distinctions are actually not. I do not actually like the entire current system of deciding whether to include articles, but that's what I have to work with. the entire article focus is obsolete--we are still archaically trying to look like a print encyclopedia.    DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

On a different approach, the article author has completely rewritten the article as User talk:Chicago Smooth/New Alan Roger Currie article. Would you consider if this different version would meet our Notability standards? Thanks. --GRuban (talk)
 * I'll take a look.  DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * enough improved to relist, as I commented there, but I shall probably say to delete once again. Scattered local coverage does not = national coverage, and talk show appearances = PR. I would strongly suggest you let it take its chances without lobbying this time around.   DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks .... for the first part of that, then. Appreciated. --GRuban (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your objectivity in this issue Chicago Smooth talk 14:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding This diff who did you warn and where can that warning be seen? Thanks.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I seem to have forgotten to press "save" I will follow up if the warning is still needed tomorrow.   DGG ( talk ) 07:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTIFY
I was sure that this existed, but as you can see, it doesn't. I had understood the particular warnings on the various noticeboards (AN, ANI, WQA, SPA, etc.) that you should notify an editor if you are reporting their conduct there to be manifestations of a deeper policy, or at least community norm, of notification. Viz. that as a matter of wikiquette if nothing else, if you are trying to get someone into hot water, you should notify that person so that they have basic due process (notice and opportunity to be heard). Thus, whether you are asking for sanctions against someone at ANI or on an admin's talk page, or anywhere else, you should let that person know.

I therefore have three questions. (1) Is my understanding correct, in your view, that there is a broad community norm of notification? (2) Is this reflected in any existing policy? (3) If the answer to 1 is yes and to 2 is no, how do I go about proposing such a policy? Do I just create WP:NOTIFY and slap the "proposed" tag on it?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * sorry, not seen among everything else. Yes, there is a broad community norm. On some of the noticeboards there is a specific statement: WP:ANI say at the top "As a courtesy, you must inform other users if they are the subject of a discussion (you may use Hello, . This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.     Thank you. to do so)."  ANB has a similar statement. as do the others you mention. (The content-oriented board do not, though they should require one on the article talk p. if a specific article is being discussed, which is usually the case.)  The only conduct-oriented ones I watch I ANB and AN/I, and it is almost universal that if an editor is being discussed, someone checks to make sure they are notified, and if not, notifies them--and mentions in the discussion that they have done so. There is reluctance to set barriers in the way of someone making a complaint, so tho they should be more formally required, we wouldn't turn someone down if they didn't, just request that they do.  As for user talk pages, that gets harder to insist on.  Many people simply watchlist likely pages DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Otechestvenniye Zapiski
Hello. I was just checking from your edit summary on this dab if you were planning to create articles on these. At the moment, it's not a valid dab, so I thought I'd check with you what your intentions were first before taking it to AfD. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * One thing I do not want to do is quarrel with a good editor, especially one who write articles in an important and interesting area very neglected at Wikipedia but very close to my own interests. Another is to start yet another policy discussion in yet another area.     But I think it isn't in the spirit of NOT BUREAUCRACY to remove navigation guides that will obviously be needed.  Red links are helpful: This page could be seen as a preliminary combination article for the newspapers. (true,.  they are likely not related except for the name. but someone looking there will find at least the dates for whichever of the newspapers they are looking for, and this by  itself may be the information needed.   I'll make stubs, though in the next few days or so.    DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Wuh Wuz Dat 01:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

please comment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#single_mention_in_a_foreign_language_tech_blog_to_show_notability:_reliable.3F - your objectivity, regardless of your decision, is requested. Theserialcomma (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * commented16:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You made a small mistake
Please see User talk:NIHKZ. In the history, see the difference between my edit and your edit. Then have a look at the version before my edit, and you'll understand your mistake. Debresser (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * yes, I left out the WP: . Thanks.   DGG ( talk ) 14:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You used instead of Page and that caused the whole page to be transcluded. Debresser (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Symphony CMS (2nd nomination)
You have either edited Symphony CMS or you participated in the discussion at Articles for deletion/Symphony CMS. Please consider contributing your opinion at Articles for deletion/Symphony CMS (2nd nomination). Regards, Bongomatic </

"No_on_3 (2009) Pierce county, Washington"
Why do you delete this with no notification?


 * because it was a blatant political advertisement, and thus qualifies as G11-promotional. Wikipedia may not be used for the purpose of promoting commercial products, or non-commercial causes. If you want to try again, write an article on the proposition,    not the movement to oppose it, or the committee advocating opposition to it. Include references to reliable sources--newspapers, for example.   I do not know if it will survive anyway, but it might have a chance.   The responsibility for notifying you was not mine, but the person who nominated it for deletion.   DGG ( talk ) 07:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * >>Although incomplete, it was not 'blatant' and it wasn't an advertisement. I didn't go into any arguments.  It's a profile of an organization.  But I suppose I had it backwards; putting the activity before committee.  Since there's three charter amendments this year, though, there's two sides to each.  Since there is activity of the public following the county council's action, I rate that higher for coverage.  Look at my /PROJECTS/4 page if you think it's gotten better.  Thank you.  -- #TTiT#  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; The-Traveller-in-Tacoma • 08:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I made some suggestions on your talk page.  DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

sub> 03:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels - Narnia Task Force
Hi! You would be glad to know that a new wikipedia ad has been created by Srinivas to encourage users to join Chronicles of Narnia Task Force. You can display that ad on your user/talk page too using the following code: -- Alan16 (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinion
Your opinion would be appreciated here. Thanks,  Majorly  talk  15:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * well, you now have it. My opinion is that we need to reconsider the entire question of what we want to include in Wikipedia, and perhaps consider adding a new basic principle, of being encouraging to new editors.   DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels - August 2009 Newsletter
The August 2009 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. Alan16 (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

BSA_Troop_1_Frankfort,_Kentucky
Good Afternoon. I nominated this article for deletion as a group that does not show significance. You denied the speedy because it was a pioneering troop. The article itself says that the Troop is often confused with the first BSA troop and admits they really are not the very first troop; they merely share the same number. So it's not the pioneering troop and I think it still qualifies for speedy. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I read it, it was the first troop in the US, though it was chartered under the British association. In any case, to pass speedy, an article only has to indicate some significance, which is a very low bar. Whether it actually is, is a question for the community at AfD. What is actually needed before taking it there, per WP:BEFORE, would be a real try at getting some more information.    DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP at Norman Davies
Re: - I was never happy with that section, recently a chunk was deleted (see article's talk). While I am tempted to rv the anon, I do wonder if the section is BLP-compliant? Perhaps you could share your thoughts on the article's talk? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Like you, I don't like removals of substantial content by anons. The question of his possible bias is  certainly relevant, and the sources adequate, it being recognized that any source on this subject will itself have a bias. I think it meets BLP. But the section needs considerable improvement & probably elaboration.   The sentence Davis supporters... needs to be sourced; the relevance of his quote is not that clear to me--it does not answer the criticism but deals with a somewhat different issue. Whether he underestimates Polish anti-Semitism is one question; whether his view of the events diminish the uniqueness and significance of the Holocaust is another.  And what others say in his defense is more relevant here than what he says, in any case.    DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Mega64 episode lists
Given that the main subject itself is only barely notable "Mega64 is a DVD-exclusive series that can be only purchased on their website.", do you think there's a requirement to have four articles about it? Black Kite 17:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think there is. The solution is a merge.    DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is what I would have done, except the content of the DVDs is already mentioned on the main page, so there was nothing to merge IMO. Black Kite 17:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's listed only, but the nature of the episode is not specified. This is what has to be merged. I agree its not worth going to great length about it, but something needs to be said.   DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion wanted re: Cultural memory
Hello, DGG. First, let me assure you that I have not been involved in any way with editing/ tagging or discussing this article with any other editor. I just came across it today while doing a Google search for "Nostalgic Depression" (a wholly-unrelated subject). I can't quite pin down exactly why, but I feel this article is unsalvageable and should be deleted. I thought you might be a good resource to consult, as you have access to collegiate library resources. Some obvious problems I can say about the article are: While these things could certainly be improved through editing, I just am not sure if the article is worth the effort, because it: I also note from the article history that it was penned by a single-purpose account, whom several other editors have suggested is likely the fringe theorist who wrote part (one chapter) of one of the books listed in the references section, which is extensively referred-to in the article. As such, the article may serve as a self-promotional piece. Do you agree? Any suggestion on how to proceed? Thanks for your time.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Lacks inline citations for numerous statements that are either stated opinions or apparent statements of fact that are likely to be challenged
 * Does not have a lead paragraph that provides context for the reader prior to getting into deep technical discussion
 * Is written in the wrong voice; speaks directly to the reader and uses "your" and "our", (like a children's encyclopedia or textbook does)
 * Seems (to me) to be one person's thesis or essay on an obscure subject
 * Does not appear to make any assertion that the subject is notable
 * As you say there are two questions: whether the subject is worth an article, and whether this article is satisfactory. First,. as the article says, the term has been used in different ways. The historiographic concept is not obscure or fringe in any sense: its principal proponent is in the Académie française.  . Personally, I my first impression is to see this as an apparent example of  European theorizing in which words are deliberately used other than in their common meaning--I think the ordinary definitions of " history" and "memory" are exactly opposite to the definitions here. However, I have not read Nora's work; his bio in Wikipedia lists an accessible article on it in the major US history journal, and reading it would seem the obvious place to start, if one decides to have the patience to try to understand it.
 * The "embodied memory" concept is I think mainstream, and since there are academic publications on it by several authors, it too cannot be considered fringe or obscure. (In fact, unlike the historiographic, it even makes a certain amount of sense to me. I think it is explained fairly well by the short article in the German Wikipedia; the Dutch one may also be helpful, but i cannot do more than guess at the contents.)  The importance of Stewart's use of the term is unfamiliar to me, but she is clearly a major author, with multiple books from a major university press.; I therefore cannot see how her work can be called fringe or obscure either.
 * More generally, a Wikipedia article need not say "this is notable because it is covered in several academic papers", it just has to show that it is discussed by them and the references seem fully sufficient to show that.  Most of the contents of an encyclopedia like ours can be expected to be obscure--to provide information is why comprehensive reference works are written. No subject is too technical to be covered, if it is explained properly--properly means so that those people who are likely to be interested in the subject can understand the article. As for me, I have little interest in theoretical cultural studies or current historiography, and I am therefore unwilling to judge by the fact that I cannot understand parts of the article.
 * But I can judge enough to see that the present article has major deficiencies, and I agree with your analysis of them. Yes, much of the article has been written by an author with COI, & it is therefore a fair question how much it reflects that person's views. The article needs inline citations (not all articles do, but a discussion like this one cannot be supported by merely general references), It is definitely written as an essay, making generalizations & evaluations to an extent that is not appropriate to an encyclopedia, certainly lacks clarity, and does need a better lede paragraph: it therefore needs to be rewritten completely by someone who understands the subject. I would suggest that the first steps would be an article on Stewart, and expansion of the article on Nora based on the one in the French Wikipedia .   An approach by author often clarifies  things.    DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank-you for your response, DGG. Can I have your permission to copy our correspondence here to the article talk page, so that others can see our observations and then I can tag it for improvement?  Perhaps one of our many wikignomes will take interest in this article and endeavor to clean it up.  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 13:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just did it. But it will take an expert, not a gnome.  DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Deprodding Headcrab and Father Gregori articles
For one, the Creatures page has no more value as an article than Headcrab, and Father Gregori is a minour character and can be summed up in a single sentence, which is probably already done in the Half-Life 2 article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is consensus on anything in this area, its that compromise is needed. Using combination articles for characters and settings is the obvious compromise. Won;t solve everything, but will solve most of the problems of character and setting articles. I agree that not much is needed for Father G, but if you actually look instead of guessing, you will see there is no character  section in the main article at all. (I'm not sure how this has happened--it was probably unwisely removed at some point, or else people were unwisely too concerned with making over-elaborate articles on individual characters.  Both extremes are not good.  Nor does there seem to be any combination page. Perhaps if you were to start one, we would be able to work this out.  Those who reject compromise will fight indefinitely.  But anyway, don't try to do these things via prod--you must know that they will not be uncontroversial.    DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There IS a plot section that mentions as much as is necessary about Father Grigori. And articles that collect merged information are useless if the merged info isn't important. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * a/c WP:N, notability is not equal to importance--whether it's more, or less, or different, & in what way(s) is one of the many ambiguities which make the various sections of WP:N capable of being used to defend  almost anything with a real existence, or to attack almost anything less than famous.
 * The characters in a work are not important? Cf. for video games (eliminating Pokemon guide), and for television    for film    & for novels  &  and for fiction in general, . And add similar searches for other search terms--I just did a sampling. About one-half are relevant, and that's several thousand books, many of them from academic presses. And that's just the books, not the 10 or 20 times as many articles.   Or you are perhaps arguing that though characters in fiction may be interesting in general,  the characters in the Half-Life series aren't?  Remember, we're talking about combination articles for characters in the work as a whole, not about any specific character.
 * If you want to argue that characters and characterization in video games as a genre are not as important as in other genres, or that they (and the plot, for that matter) are not the most important factors in video games, as compared to game-play and action and visual effects, I'd certainly agree with you.  But we cover all aspects. I'd agree we should not cover most video game characters in the same detail as we would for film or the novel.  But that does not mean we should not cover them in separate sections or subarticles. (I am not defending individual articles for video game characters--except when its necessary to counter the attempts to not cover them at all, or only submerged in other content).
 * Incidentally, characters in video games are not at all interesting to me--the only video games I play are simulation games and some strategy games that are mainly simulation. And my feeling about Halflife is some amazement why people like it so much. Perhaps the characters are more interesting than typical.    DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Camps and safe houses
There are a couple of articles on training camps and a couple of article on safe houses like this one at AfD. What do you think? Is there a way to include them or combine them? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * commented there. Expand and retitle.   DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Might have had edit conflict, but I don't see your comment. <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  06:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Calling a living person an "amateur"
I think there might, potentially, be some BLP issues involved in the discussion regarding calling a living person an "amateur" at Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen, but am far from being really knowledgable about that subject. I was wondering if you had any opinions. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * replied to there   DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

On a List of the disappeared up for deletion
Hi David hope you are fine. Don't know if you will get to it before it is deleted but I though you could provide a word or two on this deletion. List of MIR (Chile) members assassinated by the Pinochet regime. Regards, Moshe-paz (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a discussion at the WT:NOT page. If the guidelines on this change, this can be reconstructed if it meets whatever rules we then have. This sort of list is one of  the things intended by NOT MEMORIAL. (the other is obits of non-notable people).  I previously supported some such lists, but I now think there's a pretty firm consensus otherwise. What I think ought to be the policy is another matter entirely. I sometimes think we should have a secondary part of Wikipedia - not Wikia, free from ads, still following our basic policies of V, but   with some of the guidelines relaxed, such as perhaps this and also the one on local notability.    DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A very similar issue resulted in the 9/11 wiki being moved to a separate - advert free - project. (See 9/11 victims for the garbled discussions that led to it.) – iride  scent  20:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

`

Articles about Palestine-Israeli violence
Hi David. I was wondering what your thought about articles like Violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict 2000. Do you think we should have articles listing every civilian that ever died in a conflict, especially when it is unreferenced and contianing a lot of unbalanced missing information according to some people. Does wikipedia really need to list every civilian who ever died? To me it seems problematic and likely to continue to be a target for conflict... As you have much experience with AFDs I wanted to know your thoughts before I take them to AFD. Himalayan   13:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Don;t do this one at a time, but start a general discussion. If it's done via AfD, the results will be inconsistent and confusing. But one of the things which is not relevant is that we would be missing information or have unbalanced coverage for some people--except for a few obvious groups like Presidents, whenever we do a group we're missing information for some people--there are many Olympic athletes where we know no more than the name and the sport and the year. In some cases, it might be extremely difficult to find more even with  serious research.  Similarly for state legislators, even in the US.   DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Universities
This redirect was wrong. Saint Petersburg State University used to be known as Leningrad State University named after Zhdanov. Leningrad State University named after Pushkin is another university (fairly non-notable and rarely heard of), which is known by this name right now (and Leningrad in its name refers to Leningrad Oblast). Colchicum (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * perhaps you can add sufficient clarifying information to the article, so others do not make the same mistake.   I had not known they kept the Soviet name for the region--interesting...    DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tags
I see you removed this speedy deletion tag I placed on the article of Juan M Clouzet on August 14. I haven't been around, but when I checked today, I was kind of surprised. How is this article notable and where are any sources? (I did a quick check and nothing popped up on google) BrianY (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * to pass speedy it has merely to indicate some possible importance, and it indicates he was involved in the founding of a railroad line. Since then, additional material has been added. The requirements for speedy are deliberately very low, intended to weed out articles such as "He was a member of his high school football team and is now in college".  As you say, the requirements for keeping an article are much higher. The article  obviously still needs work--G Books lists 2 sources. I've left a note advising the author what to do to make it meet our standards.    DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

speedy deletion for Michael Barrett
You recently tagged Michael Barrett for speedy deletion. I've now tweaked the sentences some and have added new material to try to avoid the suggestion of copyright violation. When you have a chance, please take a look. If you have additional suggestions, please reply either here or on the article talk page. Thanks.--John Foxe (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * much improved, so I removed the tag, but more is needed. You must do more than tweak, you must rewrite from scratch. Some of the later paragraphs come much too close. Paraphrase is still copyvio.  Try to find some published books reviews of his books, and add them.    DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Way to go, God (Danish Tolkien Society)
I take it that none of my pointers about why my page should stay were accepted, or even discussed, as it was deleted without any further comment. If it is indeed Wiki's policy to rule by "dictatorship" and to deliberately ignore all comments against it, then Wiki can, quite frankly, go hang itself. I did expect a bit more from this place than the usual "I don't like what you like and don't agree with you, so all your comments and arguments are obviously irrelevant", but being merely an online source (one still not accepted in university essays, for instance), I should have known better. It's the same petty policies and bickering as can be found everywhere else, and people are not really likely to be unbiased just because they suddenly get gifted with some online influence - on the contrary. --Ethuil o Lorien (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * it's very simple--unless the organization is obviously of major national interest, there has to be actual evidence of importance beyond the group's own site. it ideally needs to be references providing substantial coverage from  3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases.  For fan and sci fi groups we sometimes as an exception do interpret the "published" and the "not blog" parts a little loosely, recognizing where such coverage is likely to be, but this is always a matter of judgement & cannot be counted on.  We're in some respects less flexible than university essays--in an essay you're usually expected to give your opinions, here you must only cite the others of others who have published them.
 * Wikipedia is the opposite of a dictatorship--it tends if anything to be chaos. An administrator here does not make the rules. All we get to do is apply them in obvious cases. The rules we must enforce are the one the community uses.--we're the opposite of dictators. Personally, if I made the rules I would accept well-reputed edited blogs (I've been trying for years to liberalize our guidelines on that), and perhaps be a little more flexible about local organizations. But I have to do what I'm supposed to do under the existing rules.)  This deletion had agreement of two separate random admins, working independently. I think any other two would have done just the same.  You have now copied it to your user page, but there are some problems even so. A page that lists membership fees for different classes of members, and contacts to find out where meetings are held, is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, wherever it appears, even in  user space. It's considered promotional, so you should remove that part. there  are two ways to go: one, is to find some non-trivial references--Danish is perfectly OK, (we might ask you for a translation of the key parts, but usually we can tell by the Google translation  if the material is online--if not online, you probably should quote a key phrase and say specifically how long the article is.) "non-trivial"  means not just the announcement of meetings & the like. It does not have to be specifically and solely devoted to the society, but it has to be more than a paragraph as part of a listing of events or of clubs, If you do have such sources, add them, and let me know. If they  seem good, I'll move the article back & anyone who doesn't like it can send it to AfD for a community decision.  If they seem borderline, I'll move it back, and then start an AfD discussion myself so everyone who wishes can comment. The references will need to be very good to succeed, because fan clubs usually have had a difficult time there (I'm not necessarily saying I want it that way, just telling you what usually happens).  The other way is to inset a single paragraph describing it very briefly into the Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien article, as the Swedish society did. I can then make a redirect from the name of the society to that paragraph, so anyone who enters the name of the society will immediately be taken to that paragraph. From there  they should be able to figure out your website easily enough,  and that will tell them the rest. You might do well in any case to add some information there about the available Danish translations. Let me know what you want.    DGG ( talk ) 16:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, this is actually the first useful comment I've gotten in this whole debate - thank you for that. A well-written, thought-through reply is infinitely easier to read than the vague, non-descript replies I've been getting so far - and easier to accept, as a whole. As for what to do with the article; we'll have to see - I don't have time to re-do anything at the moment, and will need some time to figure out where to go from here.

(On a whole other matter, your username seems familiar to me. Do you frequent other sites as well?) --Ethuil o Lorien (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Article on Turek Clinic
David -

I wanted to thank you for taking the time to respond to my concerns and also to educate me. I have books on working on wikipedia and I have been doing articles - but MAN there is a lot to digest.

I am going to rewrite the article per your comments tomorrow - and I believe we can make good on all your requirements. Do have a couple of questions:

1. The Turek Clinic is obviously led by Dr. Turek. If he has received recent awards, or published recent research, while running the clinic, does that count as the clinic doing it since it was done under their aegis?

2. When a page becomes a company template - does that change the standard of verification required?

3. In many cases, I am writing articles with graphics where I have received authorization from the owner to use on rwikipedia and put into the Commons. What documentation do you require to prove that I have the right to use the photos? Alternately, should I have the photo owner post the photos and put them under commmons licensing?

I am really looking forward to being an active contributor on Wikipedia on a variety of subjects, and I greatly appreciate your guidance as I get up to speed.

Please respond back User_talk:Arthurofsun or talk:The_Turek_Clinic —Preceding undated comment added 01:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC).


 * Let me answer here, for other people sometimes comment also.
 * 1. Sometimes an institution grows beyond a single founder, much as he may have influenced it. Such practices are notable in their own right. Not talking of obvious ones like Mayo or Menninger, I can think of some medium sized ones that probably could get articles, because they have grown to encompass several senior investigators, and not all the funding comes via the original founder. If he has received awards for his medical work, that doesn't make the place he works in notable even if he founded it. If several people working there have received awards, it can be another matter. If you cannot demonstrate it, the best thing to do is to withdraw the article and add the material to the one for Turok. There can still be a cross-reference from the clinic.  Much better one really strong article.
 * 2. A company web site is sufficient to show routine uncontested facts, just as a person's CV on his official university site is sufficient evidence of his degrees unless it's contested. . It's not enough to show it's own importance. That needs outside sources. And non-trivial ones--not just announcements, and not ones derived from PR. It rather frequently happens that someone or something that probably is notable simply cannot be shown to be so from the available published evidence--and then we regretfully can not have an article. You'll understand the incentive that would drive people to make articles for the purpose of publicity, and if possible multiple articles, and you'll also understand that our trustworthiness as an encyclopedia depends in considerable part in preventing this. We get several hundred of such articles a day, & it takes quite a few people working together almost full time to keep them out. :
 * 3. The rules for graphics are strict, literal, and the epitome of bureaucracy. This is necessary, because given our prominence, we can take no chances with copyright. You must explicitly license the rights to the material according to our licensing using the CC-BY-SA and the GNU  licenses, as explained in WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:Donating copyrighted materials ; these  give everyone in the world an irrevocable license to reuse and alter the material, even for commercial purposes.  You can either put a tag on the web material itself, or send the email to OTRS as specified there. The copyright owner must send the email. The problem is, the owner might give you rights to put it on Wikipedia, without understanding the extent to which it means giving up control, or under the impression that he is giving the rights for non-commercial use--a common misconception, since Wikipedia itself is non-commercial-- but our material must be freely used by anyone. I think it is probably enough to say that the owner has assigned you all rights. In practice, a  great number of people have posted work that actually belongs to their employer under the assumption they would give permission--and it is not necessarily clear in a large organization who does have authority to release the material under a free license.  Let me put in a mention for some of my favorite projects: if Dr. Turek were to publish anything in an open access journal like PLOS Medicine or a BMC journal, that material is usable without specific permission.    DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, again, for the clarification. Here's what I plan to do:
 * 1. Rewrite the Turek Clinic article to make it pretty thin but with specific references from valid sources (e.g. CNN, Elsevier) as to the work done there. All facts and validated, and hopefully newsworthy
 * 2. Put the balance of awards and other items in Dr. Turek's bio and then refer from there to the to clinic page
 * 3. On pictures, have the original owner post them to the article and claim the CC-BY-SA rights that way rather than doing it as third-party reference.

 Arthur Coleman' ( talk ) 06:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

--Ethuil o Lorien (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * comment deleted*

Wrong editor?
Hi DGG, I saw this comment of yours and at first was a bit taken aback, but then quickly realized it was likely you had simply confused me (or rather my username) with someone else (please see my reply here for the full explanation). If that is the case, obviously it would be good if you could clarify the matter over at ANI. And if you were referring to me, well then I guess I'd want to hear more about it! I'm pretty sure though that this is just a misunderstanding, in which case no worries. I'm going offline now (was supposed to be awhile ago) but I'll check back for any reply tomorrow. Best, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * By now I have corrected it--i hope in all places it appears. I meant Bytebear. Totally a mistyping; my apologies.  DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, you missed one strikethrough so I went ahead and did that on ANI. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Advisory Council on Project Development
There is a thread on the talk page of the above named article regarding whether that council is still active at Wikipedia talk:Advisory Council on Project Development. As one of the listed members, your input would very likely be useful. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Back to the proposal to recodify civility
DGG, please consider revisiting and commenting on the remaining issues. Tony  (talk)  02:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A friendly open letter to Mr. David Goodman on the Wikipedia article concerning Nova Science Publishers
Nova Science Publishers detractors are back again in what I perceive as an unfair anonymity which the system permits, to detract again the publisher in a general way, beyond permissable criticism, which might be raised against an academic publishing company (in the particular context on their journals, as stated in the article by colleague Dr. Bade from Chicago University Library, which should have a continued place in future Wikipedia articles on the company, as the "flagship of criticism"). To be honest, the recent and renewed changes to the article, which you, Mr. Goodman, improved months ago to meet Wikipedia standards of objectivity, could be - when published in the press - the subject of lengthy court-room proceedings initiated by the authors and the publishers against some of these anonymous Nova critics, and if Wikipedia takes no action, against Wikipedia itself. As an author who published with such publishing houses as Palgrave-Macmillan, Dutch University Press, Rozenberg (Amsterdam), Saint Martin's Press New York and Nova Science Publishers in English, and Braumueller, Wilhelm Fink and LIT-Verklag in German, and whose works were well received in such journals with a very high impact factor as the Journal of Common Market Studies, Politics Studies, etc. and who himself has written articles in journals around the world (just look at the EINIRAS network or Cambridge Scientifc Abstracts) I am really startled, as one of many Nova authors, by all this destructive rage and negative energy, which two of these anonymous authors develop on the pages of Wikipedia against this particular publisher.

As I could show on the peer-reviewed pages of the Social Science Research Network in New York, re-published at Chicago Business School, the European Corporate Governance Center in London, Korea University and Stanford Law School at:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1162241

Nova has indeed an average record as an academic book publishing company, and by July 2008, 518 world class scholars contained in the "Cambridge Cientific Abstracts" all published books and or articles with the company. Social science authors know that the most powerful companies are indeed such publishers as Cambridge UP, Cornell UP, Oxford UP etc. and authors also know that there are smaller book publishing companies, such as Amsterdam University Press (EU); Ashgate (EU); Campus (Frankfurt/Ann Arbor) (EU); IOS Press (EU); Nova Science Publishers (US); Springer-Verlag (US); and Transaction Publishers (US), which often serve as an outlet especially for authors from outside North America on the big and important North American academic market. Well-founded and legitimate and even tough criticism of the work of publishers of course is permissable. But it is beyond my comprehension to find now this Wikipedia piece on one of my publishers [with the Wiki article now ranked as number 2 or 3 also on "Google"], when searching for "Nova Science Publishers", stating in paragraph 1 of the article on Nova that:

"Nova Publishers is a publishing house based in Hauppauge, New York. Frank Columbus is the current editor-in-chief. They publish both books and journals for an academic audience, but have been criticised for republishing material in their journals that is available in the public domain, and so-called "cross publication," where the same paper is published in more than one sources"

as if that would be the most important fact, to be stated in paragrpah one. User Weber did not remove the sentence, but only moved the sentence downwards to a criticism paragraph, but to no avail, and User "Famousdog" states on the discussion page:

"Regarding Franz Weber's 17th Aug 2009 edit (which I reverted), I would argue that the controversy over cross-publication and re-publication is of primary interest and may even be the one fact that makes this publisher particularly notable and worthy of a WP entry at all... Famousdog (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)"

So, not the works of 518 internationally re-known scholars are worthy of a Nova Science Publishers entry at Wikipedia, but only this controversy (which by the way could be applied also to many other academic publishing houses). I only generally say here that the law of most OECD-democracies protects with good reason the credit and the economic existence of persons against incorrect statements by other persons.

What I say here is that such statements and the context of how they were formulated potentially infringe on sales figures of the company and the author royalties of hundreds of Nova authors around the globe, and that such statements really could become the subject of court proceedings in various countries.

I hope that Wikipedia editors take strong and firm action and fix the article in an objective way, i.e. by stating that Nova Science is an academic book publishing company with decades of record in academic book publishing and by giving also due room to the criticism formulated by colleague Dr. Bade, which should have a legitimate place in the Wikipedia article, but also to the facts stated by me in my SSRN article, transmitted also by various other high-quality academic networks.

Kind regards and thank you for your attention

Dr. Arno Tausch, Adjunct Professor (Universitätsdozent) of Political Science, Innsbruck University, Austria, Lecturer of Political Science at Graz and Vienna University, recent member of the tribunal in Doctoral Commissions at the Universities of Montpellier and at the Sorbonne in France etc.etc.

E mail address: arno.tausch@yahoo.de (copied from user page, unsigned message by IP 85.158.226.129) BusterD (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also see ip's recent contribs. BusterD (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't Nova Science the evil military contractor in Short Circuit? I hope they don't set their surviving SAINTs on Jimbo (at least, not unless they post it to youtube - is it part of the apparent remake?) <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  12:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a good job they assert it's friendly in the title, because with the legal threats I might have been mislead... <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b>  chat  12:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have responded on the article talk page, & personally to Dr. Tausch.   DGG ( talk ) 20:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Dumb question
Dear David, I have a kind of dumb question which you must know the answer or can point me to some instruction. I want to create a sandbox that can only be viewed by me because I want to freely place half-baked or far out ideas there, not for public consumption. Is there a way to do it? Much obliged. --EJohn59 (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)EJohn
 * sure.  Just save it on google docs instead of the wiki. . Google docs is particularly useful, because then you can share it with whom you choose. if you want to see how it would look on the wiki, start a page of some sort, paste it in, but remember not to save, but to copy onto Google docs. To help remember not to save, set your preferences to require an edit summary.   That's the easy way. The hard way is to  run your own installation of Mediawiki.   It's supposed to run on a Mac, but I haven't tried.  DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, it's time for me to sign up for gmail.--EJohn59 (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)EJohn

Please can you clarify about your change to Taxi Games
Hello, you removed my prod from Taxi Game stating that I should look for reviews for the games per WP:BEFORE. However, could you please clarify this to me as I am still unsure what I did wrong in this process. I nominated the article for deletion because it is claiming that "Taxi Games" is a video game genre, which I believe it is not as I couldn't find any sources stating it as such outside of forums. I am unsure how reviews of the games would be a reason to not prod this, as they themselves state the games given as examples are in the "Driving" genre. Thank you in advance for clarifying, I want to improve my understanding where I can. --Taelus (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note that I have now nominated the article for AfD in order to gain concensus, as reviewing the article and looking up game reviews for examples given again, I cannot find usage of the term as a genre, nor a sub-genre. The reviews and current examples seemingly contradict the idea the article is trying to assert. Regards, --Taelus (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * we will see what the community decides; that's what AfD is for.   DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of article on Emmett E.Miller, M.D.
Hello, I have just made the unhappy discovery of the deletion of this article I had created (I had had earlier questions about which to which I had replied, so had stopped following it closely). I cannot find the old version via google archived cache, is there a way to find it under wikipedia?Contrary to what you or one of the other deleters asserted the article was not "completely without" any "outside" sources, I had found and included I believe at least 2, I am certain at least one, completely independent sources. Please clarify if you would, 1) how to find the old version if possible (so I can use it to build a new one more quickly, which also addresses any questions/concerns) and 2) is there a way to be notified when any change that is a Deletion call is made to one's talk page? This part of wikipedia I'm still not familiar with and thought I had asked wikipedia to send me an email when something this big needs my attention yet I received n no such note, so how to do this info, would be appreciated, it would prevent me being caught blindsided long after a deletion request or similar urgent matter comes up. Thank you--Harel (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

1. I have moved the deleted version to your user space, at User:Harel/Emmett E. Miller for you to work on further. This is temporary; it cannot stay there indefinitely. When you consider you have improved it enough according to the suggestions below, ask me about reinstating it. Things sometimes get removed wrongly or unfairly or prematurely, but one thing is true: we can always get it back.

2. There seems to be a notice of its nomination on your talk page, and that's what you should be looking at frequently. There's also your watchlist. You should take a look every few days. (Many systems do email people when there's a change to their user talk or to particular pages they designate, but Wikipedia had to stop doing this when we got too large.) Nobody had ever designed a system of this type as large & complicated as this, so we're pioneering. And unfortunately our  system does work best for the heaviest users. Some of it is inevitable for anything large & complicated, but I'm afraid some it is because they're the ones who design the system.

3. See the discussion at the AfD for what other people think. The problem is that the material showing the notability must be   references providing substantial coverage from  3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. If you can find a few such sources, there should be no problem reinstating the article. If not, it won't stand. The rules for this are at WP:RS. The best guide for how to do things here is the free online version of How Wikipedia Works by Phoebe Ayers, Charles Matthews, and Ben Yates (also available in print).  DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * First, many thanks to you for the copy, I've now saved one for my files so I have a backup. I understand you to be saying notification-by-email no longer works, which is unfortunate and hopefully will someday change, but that's a separate issue and not your doing. As for the article:


 * I need to improve the links to the "ref" style, even though they are web pages. They are very much, indeed, independent published reliable sources, and not press releases. One of them, the first, is


 * http://www.newdimensions.org/program.php?id=2694


 * And might have been misread as a press release, but in fact, it's a National Public Radio program called New Dimensions Radio that is listing the program on which Dr. Emmett Miller appeared. (and yes, New Dimensions Radio sells CDs of their interviews, no different from NPR's Prime Time program by the AARP which lists its individual programs online, featuring guests, etc)


 * The second link was bad, I can't recall if it was originally different but it doesn't seem to mention Miller. The third is http://www.mothernature.com/library/bookshelf/books/47/123.cfm and I might have taken it to be "press release" if reading it too quickly but a careful look notices that it is an article on healing in which not one but several physicians and others are quoted including Paul J. Rosch, M.D., and also Dr. Miller. Miller is listed as among the five on a panel of advisors. However if a former surgeon general is on an advisory panel of a health organization and he is interviewed, this is still not a press release, and is independent if "advisory panel" has the usual meaning, then Miller has no power, they are not Chair or President or voting over articles, but merely advisors - not that different from a featured journalists, the only difference is instead of occasional pieces by these people only, you have occasional short interviews with them.. The prisma-qc.ca link is broken.


 * The link http://www.healthyshopping.com/books/Cart.asp?ItemNumber=1561703362 is a book by Miller in which the publisher is quoting Joan Baez. The publisher isn't as well known as Random House, but if let's say Random House had a quote by Jimmy Carter saying "Andrew Weil is..." on a book by Weil, that would seem to me to be independent, unless it was exposed as a false quote (it's been 11 or 12 years since publication and it hasn't happened), then Joan Baez is indeed independent of Miller. And this publisher is quoting her favorably about Miller.


 * I'll delete the "read this excellent resource and heal" part of Bernie Siegel's quote if that helps relax people until a solid online copy is found of that quote.


 * I've just now found a story not in the original article, at

http://www.theunion.com/article/20090823/NEWS/908219971/1066&ParentProfile=1053?FORM=ZZNR2 which is a story in a newspaper based in Grass Valley, CA. In fact in the interview Miller points out that his latest book is entirely online for free(!) so that is clearly no money for him to make. Dr. Miller's work has been powerful in my life and he is not very interested in self-promotion, so despite being one of the fathers of mind/body medicine and having originated the relaxation cassette tape in 1970, he's not as well known, but I hope all of the above links combined are more than enough to address the earlier concerns? Thanks. --Harel (talk) 02:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, New Dimensions Radio is not a National Public Radio show. It is a radio show that is carried primarily by NPR member stations, but appears to be wholly unrelated to NPR. <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  03:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Bongo, do you know who does produce it or what it is? i've seen it cited here before. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to be produced by this organization, a separate 501(c)(3). <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  07:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bongo..I didn't even mean to say what I said, I meant to say NPR-carried; its definitely not NPR-created like All Things Considered...at http://www.newdimensions.org/stations.php they say they are the "longest running independently produced...interview program on NPR" so "on NPR"or carried by NPR it is. If your user name is based on a certain 1-eared rabbit that is great, by the way. --Harel (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me clear up a misunderstanding. Promotional applied to non commercial as well as commercial, and it can apply even thee is no conventional conflict of interest. If, for example, I want to promote the work of someone I admire, that's different from if I intend to write a neutral encyclopedia article about him. The difference is that promotion is telling people how good something is, as contrasted to providing encyclopedic information about it. So telling us how highly Joan Baez or any other celebrity, thinks of him, is not particularly relevant--and such testimonials are hallmarks of a promotional style of writing. If there were to be a published article from a reliable source discussing his work, written by someone who has authority to give opinions on the subject at hand, then it would be relevant--but such sources say things much differently, which is one of the ways we judge them. It is possible Miller is notable--I note that many of his self help books and tapes are in libraries--see. What you now need are reviews of them.  DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point about the possibility of non-commercial promotionals. I do think, however, that while non-commercial promotionals exist, there are still cases where quoting someone is relevant...especially when in the double-bind of needing to prove subject is "notable"... I imagine a quote from Jimmy Carter saying "organization X's work is a good complement to Habitat for Humanity" would be legitimately included in X's entry...even though this is a (non-commercial) "promotional" statement..I think of it as relevant-testimonial. If not direct quotes, then certain "(item Y) has been used by (person Z)" is something that I'm sure I've seen in WP entries about Z, so long as there are references...so I hope you can see this point...That said, I agree that things like Reviews are the "heart" to start with, regardless of what other material may or may not be added..have made some progress on, and will keep looking for more,of that type, then will re-create the entry, as your other comments above seem to suggest notability with such documentation, would no longer be a concern.Thx--Harel (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Canon_DV_012
Hi, DGG! Further to the decision at the above AfD, I'm in the process of implementing the merge that you and I opined (and the closer agreed). Want to help out? Cheers—<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">S Marshall <font color="Maroon" size="0.5">Talk /<font color="Maroon" size="0.5">Cont  15:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Vegetarian v. Vegetarianism
Hi David. I hope you're enjoying your weekend. When you get a chance I'd appreciate it if you would have a look at the vegetarian article and the related AfD. It's new and was formerly a redirect to vegetarianism. There is a debate about whether it is a distinct and independently notable subject and I would be interested in your opinion and that of anyone watching your talk page. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Responded, but I hope you did not assume what I would say.   DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I appreciate your candid input and expect nothing less. You made some good points. At the very least, I think the vegetarian cuisine and nutrition articles you pointed out should be made more prominent (in the opening paragraphs) of the vegetarianism article since vegetarian diet and vegetarian redirect to it. A merge of vegetarian to those existing articles might be okay.
 * I think it's unfortunate that new articles aren't given time to fully develop and blossom. Retitling, merges, etc. evolve over time as sources and content development indicates how best to handle a subject. The rush to abort anything that isn't fully developed deprives the encyclopedia of a lot of good content and many notable article subjects. I still think the ideology is distinct from the diet. But c'est la vie. Cheers. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Armenians in the world by country
I want to delete this page to make a new one, more better.--Hovik95 (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

When is it appropriate....
To refactor another editors talk page? [] I have left a lvl 1 warning on this page for refactoring another users talk page that was clearly not vandalism. I have since been told that because I have a colorful history it is an invalid warning. I would like to have a few admin go and comment one way or another to this as I believe my actions were not only appropriate but very moderated. Thank You.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. "
 * Also: No personal attacks but nevermind, because reading over your section you have another problem.
 * You may want to give DGG a edit difference, saves him time searching. Ikip (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I saw this. The matter is resolved as much as it is going to get however it is on my talk page and spread around a bit too.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

United States House of Representatives Office of Emergency Planning, Preparedness, and Operations
Consider changing your !vote? 652 .gov hits.

You really, really need to archive your comments. thanks. Ikip (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I would support a redirect. I appreciate you reconsidering your opinion. Ikip (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Ouanani Vote Etnik
I was going through the speedy delte template removed backlog and stumbled across this article and felt before I took any action I should notify you. This article, originally at Ouanani - Vote Etnik, I believe should be speedy deleted as a violation of A9. Vote Etnik is a recording of the artist Ouanani, whom does not have a wikipedia article, which is black letter case of A9 in effect. Not even factoring in the COI provided by that the creator appears to be the musician himself I think wikipedia rules would prevent me from overruling an already declined speedy delete without discussing it with you first. –– Lid(Talk) 06:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * if you think it should be deleted, put on the tag for it. It's not my subject & I can't judge. I leave the A9s to those who can.   DGG ( talk ) 15:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Biography
Hi DGG. is this person notable? <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  15:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If he founded the Computational Linguistics Program and Laboratory for Computational Linguistics at Carnegie-Mellon, probably he is. Why not check his books & add them to the article.?    DGG ( talk ) 15:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The "books" found in Google books do not appear to be actual books for the most part (I don't see anything in WorldCat Identities for him). The few papers he authored that can be found in Google scholar do not appear to be widely cited. The program / laboratory do not appear to have been given any meaningful coverage even in internal CMU documentation, leading me to believe they are likely simply the names he gave to his funded research programs, indications that&mdash;like any working science professor&mdash;he received grant money.
 * You could argue that he meets WP:PROF on the basis of his election to academic societies&mdash;but do you see any evidence for more personal basis for inclusion here? <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  16:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability
Kenneth Kronberg - I would like your opinions on the matter. It seems that this individual was only notable for a suicide, and then other information (some of it original research) appears to be tossed in based on notability from being a suicide. The WP article is merely an obit and there are much longer for other non-notable people. I found this because someone added the name as a notable graduate of one of my almas under the claim that he had a "philosophy degree" (my school does not offer "majors" for undergrads - there is one set curriculum, so the claim was patently false). This reference bothers me - that book was written by the current president of the Annapolis campus and has no mention of the individual from what I can see. There aren't even any page numbers to check where the claim came from. The book itself deals with the founders of the school's graduate program during the beginning of the 20th-century, so it is very different from the article. This appears to be the only use of him in the book, which deals only with a letter about offering students a chance to come to the Kenneth's group.

The Larouche movement stuff appears to be a coatrack and has very little to do with him directly. Mere mention of him as a member is used to justify tons of sources not about him or having little to do with him. As such, I would like you to look through it and see if it really falls under notability (or should any info about him and Larouche simply be merged into another page). Ottava Rima (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ISee my earlier comment at .   DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But this is a later concern and one that was not brought up before - coatrack would say not to use a biography to describe another topic. Regardless, I am talking about if the non-Larouche stuff can accurately be a determiner of notability. I say no, as many of the sources do not stand up or are incorrectly used. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Independent companies
As per the discussion at WT:MILHIST, I've started a deletion discussion for the 722nd Ordnance Company (United States). Please come and give your opinion. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 21:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)