User talk:DGG/Archive 33 Oct. 2009

Jan09,    Mar09, Apr09, May09 ,  Jun09    Jul09,   Aug09,  Sep09, ... , Nov09, , Dec09

Question to You
Hi, My name is Mieszko Olszewski. I'm from Poland, my mather maiden name is Skajnowska. I found a discussion about delating an article "Skajnowski" in wikipedia and another one about Ruriks dynasty (where this (my mothers) name is mentioned). I'm very interseted to verify if my family realy is descended from Ruriks (as it is suggested in the second article). Becouse You participated in the discussion about delating this article, I guess You know something about intresting me issue. Could You help me please? Or may You contact me with anybody who knows something? Mieszko Olszewski 21:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mieszkoolszewski (talk • contribs)
 * no, I'm not knowledgeable here. you might try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland --  this is not really the purpose of Wikipedia, but someone there may possibly be able to help as a courtesy.  DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Now I now everything. There is a person with a nickname "Perque250" who is (probably) correcting his family tree. This person also has made a mess in "Piotrowski" subject - adding inexistant "Peter, High Duke of Poland". God knows what he have done more... I'm rather new here, so I really don't now what to do, but this person should be ban. Sorry for taking Your time. Thank You. Mieszko Olszewski 11:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * what you do, is discuss it on the talk page for the article.--and if necessary mention it on the wikiproject talk page also. This article has been a problem, and you are probably the person to clean it up. I'll take a look in a day or two.   DGG ( talk ) 15:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

re: Children
Hi there DGG, I agree with you, and in some cases (where I think that the author is obviously writing a page about them self, and preferably it's not in third-person) I'll userfy the article for them. In future when I do tag a self-bio about a child I'll try and use a less BITEy notice. Best - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Standards for socks
In response, nothing can be done until we fix the sock puppet policy loop hole in which people feel that they don't need to notify ArbCom and the rest. My problem is that people who are actively against Jennavecia are the ones that were actively trying to protect Geogre when he used his account to directly harass me. They want a double standard in order to use it to wage war against their enemies but claim a loop hole when it comes to themselves. Nothing will be accomplished until we have tight sock puppeting rules and policies that directly link friends who are complicit with problematic behavior with the problematic behavior. I have directly challenged those who I see as friends and supporters, and have even gone so far as to oppose them whereas I have defended those who have shown themselves intent to cause me problems but yet could still offer something to the encyclopedia. However, few people bother to do the same. I think we need to ensure that our policies for my type of actions upon the community in a manner that adminship is lost when you allow friends to break rules. That would end a lot of the corruption across the board, and it is corruption that jeopardizes Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * actually, I agree with you and have said so elsewhere. Our policies about banned editors  are self-contradictory and stupid. You've done poorly here--go to another part of the system and we'll see if you're disruptive there also? -- that shows contempt for the other projects. If you do well nobody will track you down, and you're safe? -- for an active ed., that  amounts to a topic ban, or an invitation to be deceptive.  People do reform. Good people have started as trolls. The practice of increasing block length deals with these cases. The current pattern of indefinite bans followed by asking for unblock greatly favors the hypocrites. The way to deal with sockpuppets is to    require identification,  with the necessary safeguards for those who need to be anonymous. If the community refuses to do it, it should at least be much less restrictive about checkuser. The temptation to sock is so great, that it requires technical measures of prevention, not just punishment.
 * I am aware of possible motivations. Thats why arb com is so hazardous to anyone bringing cases. The motivations however do not matter--there is at least one clear limit which has been transgressed, that of RfA-- & if it applies to  anyone else, as most of us probably assume it does, it will apply equally. We can't prevent friendship and favoritism, but we can prevent the worst   abuse of it.
 * My own view about difficult but helpful editors is that they must learn to be less difficult, since this is a community project and requires a certain amount of good will. I keep saying  we will get more good writers if we do not accept too much in the way of excuses for the ones who cannot work in our environment. Equally, it requires a certain amount of tolerance. It is rather common for people to be insulting themselves, but take great exception when others insult them. OWNership is widespread, and it drives away new contributors. Keeping the project alive requires  new  editors. Developing the areas of most concern to you and me, specifically, will require many. We should accept idiosyncrasies, but otherwise guide people   to adopt modes of cooperative participation.      DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But don't forget - as my own situation revealed, Bishonen and others were complicit in Geogre using his sock account while as an admin to harass, so its not just banned users doing it, but secret accounts in general. While AGF is key, it is hard to AGF when the very basis of an action is deceptive (i.e. a secret secondary account), because the standard is to expect people to be on a level playing field with a single editing entity (instead of pretending to be multiple or different ones). I find that such practices keep people from being forced to work together, as isolated groups if they can band together are able to resist having to actually build consensus and work with those who disagree. I take pride in working on many articles with those who hold absolutely contradictory views to my own, and if someone is fiery and worked up about an article and not resorting tot he above tactics, then it is obvious that they care about the article, and I would rather have someone like that working on a page then someone with contempt to it and to Wikipedia as a whole as rule violators at such a level tend to be. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * yes, there are multiple ways to do things wrong. Let's stop here==this entire range of topics is being sufficiently discussed elsewhere    DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you already have seen the one place. Is this appropriate wording to close any loop holes or gaps in the system to ensure fair practice? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Student article
Sure, I didn't expect them to create an article now. I did link the WP:STUB from the assignment page but... I will take care of this, thanks for the heads up. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to merge!!
I don't know how to merge for a start that's why I haven't done it for some of them. I will take such deletions to ADF for deletion if you propose that as an alternative because the whole Masters of the Universe articles really do need MAJOR REWORKING. But how does on take it ADF? Dwanyewest (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont think taking to deletion is a good idea--I was suggesting the merge. OK, merging can be complicated. The official directions and policy are at WP:MERGE, but I consider them suitable only as a reference for experts.  The best guide is at the free online version of How Wikipedia Works by Phoebe Ayers, Charles Matthews, and Ben Yates (also available in print) in chapter 8, at the section on "Merge split and move".  But if you think the entire group of articles is in need of rework, and it probably is, the way to go is not to try to delete individual small articles, or even merge them, but to discuss the general problem   at the relevant Wikiproject.  What needs to be done is best done in a coordinated way, and if you are new to merging and deletion here, you will need considerable advice and assistance. Unlike some media franchises, Masters of the Universe does not have a wikiproject of its own. The place to ask about it would probably be at {[WP:WikiProject Media Franchises]] talk page.  But if nothing happens in a day or two I will mark them myself as seems best to get things started.    DGG ( talk ) 16:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not correct
"1/ the repeated declared intent of one administrator, Jennavicia, to act to support her friends rather than to support the best interests of the encyclopedia"
 * Can you please provide the diff where you believe I said that. Lara  17:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Diffs, not diff :
 * "anyone that would put this website before a friendship is a rat. "
 * " I'll always have his back no matter what, because we're friends regardless of what's going on with Wikipedia. I would never put a website before a friendship. "
 * But  I would like to interpret your message to me here as saying you want to retract, because you did not fully realise the implications, or how people would interpret those statements. But I should add that I support much of what you said at that time, especially about the need for increased enforcement of civility. And remember that I was not involved in the underlying disputes, and  have no position about who should or should not have been blocked or banned about that. I am perfectly willing to believe injustice was done, because it often is.      DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I never said I would support a friend over the best interests of the project, and I wouldn't. That's not what I'm talking about and that's not why I'm here. I didn't support him in everything he did. There were things I didn't agree with, and those things I talked to him about. However, where I thought his actions improved the project, I supported him. Where I believed it was for the benefit of the project, I supported him, regardless of SOCK. He attempted to appeal his ban and his request was ignored. Not rejected, ignored. I may have broken the spirit of a policy, but I did so with the belief that the project would be improved for it. And it was. I wouldn't rat out a friend for a website, though. If he had gone rogue and started causing trouble, I would have handled it on-wiki as if he was just another editor whose behavior needed to be dealt with, and off-wiki I would have ripped into him in that way I do. I didn't have to do that, though. Anyway, I don't expect to bring your view around to mine, but I would appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting my words (and I don't believe you were doing so intentionally, by the way). If my wording was poor, then I apologize, but I've always had the best intentions for the project. That said, I'm not certain what you speak of wrt a need for increased enforcement of civility. Lara  22:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

question
per your comment on ani, did you notice the wording of my delete vote in [], and then the wording of his vote in an afd he followed me to 20 minutes later? []. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * yes, I did realise it immediately after posting my comment, and I modified what I said there accordingly very soon afterwards. I apologize for my failure to spot it initially. it was wrong for him to respond that way--it's a rather common response to someone putting in cookie-cutter reasons, but it is never a good idea to retaliate in kind. Wikipedia is not happy about using irony and sarcasm in arguments. so I know, because I myself incline to doing it   sometimes, and I find the necessity of avoiding it here rather cramps my style.      DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

mass-AfD'd articles
Since you've stumbled onto some of these mass-AfD'd articles you may wish to see this discussion where I attempted to document and stop this behaviour before it got to this point. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

New Cambridge encyclopedia
Hello DGG,

Do you still work as a librarian in New York City? If so, I'm told that the New Cambridge Encyclopedia of Islam is now available in the United States (as of Oct. 1). Are you able to take a quick look at it? I think the people at WikiProject Islam would appreciate your thoughts (it's supposed to be extremely comprehensive, six vols. in total). I'd also like to hear what you think about the article on Afghanistan becoming a buffer state (in vol. five). Cheers, Ottre 22:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are I think referring to the New Cambridge History of Islam. None of the three libraries I use most have it available yet. It tends to take a while.    DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the right title. I've had trouble sleeping lately. How long do you expect they will take to get it in? It is published by Cambridge, so ... another month or so? It won't be available where I am (Melbourne, Australia) until April 2010 or something. Ottre 23:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * the academic world is infuriatingly slow. A month is optimistic. I wouldn't expect any serious reviews of it for a year, but I'd have no hesitation using it in the meantime. For such works, each chapter must be evaluated independently.  Do you know the exact title and author of the article involved, and its length?   (FWIW, I'm retired, but I still know my way around).  DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Adolphus79
Greetings, David. As part of a recent search for potential administrators, editor Adolphus79 has emerged as a possible RfA candidate. As you were an influential opposer of his previous RfA, I was wondering if you would consider briefly reviewing his contributions since that request as vetting? If you are so inclined, please feel free to email me or Adolphus himself your thoughts. Cheers, Skomorokh,  barbarian  11:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
for stepping in with your proposal(s) - it was a right sanity check for me also. :) I've tried to draft your proposals with formalised wordings, so if you can check if that matches what you were proposing (more particularly with regards to the bans), that would be great. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. Have you considered archiving part of this talk page? :P Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

AFD of Robert Gurtler
Hey, uh, I think you might have forgotten a step on that one. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been using Twinkle--maybe it's broken.   DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2
Since you participated in Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination), which was closed as "no consensus", you may be interested in a subsequent DRV. Since I disagreed with the close, I contacted the closing admin, who responded, "To be honest, Cunard, I would tend to agree with you, but I am not sure if the balance of things heads to delete rather than no consensus. Listing it at DRV might be a good option here; I won't endorse or oppose the close and will allow the DRV community to decide it. Therefore, I have listed this article at DRV; if you would like to participate, please see Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * there seems to be a very great anxiety to delete this article. I suppose its the principle of not accept more than the old-fashioned way of  very narrow view of what count as RSs. Strange for such a innovative group as ours to be tradition-bound. Perhaps we think it has an   effect of making us appear to be respectable to the old -fashioned, but they'll never accept group editing, so we might as well aim for those who do understand us.    DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Pro se...
Hi DGG, something went a little funny in the merge template you added here. I'm a nightmare when it comes to templates so I'm hoping you can figure it out and fix it. Good to know that you have taken an interest in this page; it's had "problems" for a long time, and I have great faith that you'll bring it up to your usual fine standard. Risker (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * fixed template, just a colon where it didn't belong. I was hoping that if i marked the problem, others might work on it, but I'll give it a look in a few days if nobody else does. some actual article work would be a good break from drama.      DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Lord Edgecombe
Er, you forgot to sign your opinion at Articles for deletion/Lord Edgecombe‎. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Email
I've gone ahead and e-mailed you as you requested on my talk page. I don't check my e-mail very often, so when you reply it would be most appreciated if you drop me a line on my talk page to let me know. Thanks! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to access the e-mail function; but I do appreciate the offer. I will follow-up when I figure out how to do so. --Tenmei (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI
Thanks for your warning on WP:COI. I was upset at the extreme non-adherence to WP policy that a user was exhibiting, so I tried to edit with balance. Retrospectively I see it would have been better to learn more WP policies (never having done substantial editing for an article for a living person). Thanks for your instructive help. -- kosboot (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks. I recommend the free online version of How Wikipedia Works by Phoebe Ayers, Charles Matthews, and Ben Yates (also available in print)    DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing and libraries
Your quick work on Al-Buraq mosque reminded me how bloody good you are at using your librarian powers to come up with sources. I want to expand my local library's article using its own excellent historical collection, and I was wondering if there was a particular way to explain my intention to the research librarian to get the best support for the project.--otherlleft 02:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * that was just from the first few hits in GNews Archive, btw, which anyone can do. Now, all librarians know about Wikipedia. About half of of them like it, & even the ones who do not will be interested in seeing it improved with good referencing.  Also, any town  librarian will always be glad to encourage people doing research on local history.  But  the article already essentially consists the appropriate material; I am not sure how far it  can be expanded without doing what amounts to primary research.  That is undoubtedly very well worth doing--but perhaps not for Wikipedia.  What can & should be expanded here is the history of the building, but it might appropriately be a separate article under its former name. See some of the other pages for buildings on the historical register. The text of the information you will find in the supporting documentation for the listing is normally US government public domain, and can be used freely at Wikipedia.    DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about bibliography articles
Hi David,

I know you were involved in a previous discussion on this topic and thought you might be interested in participating here.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Greek user vandalizing my greek wiki talk page
Hi there. Your admin assistance is needed here please. In the past few days I've been asking several greek translators for a translation request for a short english article in a civilized and friendly tone (e.g. here). Today, this user wrote me a reply on my greek wiki talk page, "ordering" me to "stop sending emails to every single user of this project." With "this project" he probably means the greek wikipedia. So far so good, I simply deleted his tell from my talk page. Now, this user has kept on reverting what I did on my talk page. Please check the history here. Would you please be so kind and use your admin tools to stop this vandalism on my greek talk page? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You have to deal with one of the administrators of the Greek Wikipedia, my administrator rights only work on the english  wikipedia .    DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Another company level deletion
Saw you were interest in the earlier discussion. You may wish to comment at Articles for deletion/101st Chemical Company (United States). Buckshot06(prof) 20:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * commented there.   DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Requests for comment/new users
Interesting, because I've personally found G11 to be easier to notice (for speedy deletion) than A7, at least for me. MuZemike 15:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * yes, it's easy to notice promotion, but it's hard to say whether it is "exclusively promotional," and especially hard to define "fundamentally" in deciding whether it "would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". I know I am affected by the possible notability in deciding if a rewrite is worth it.    DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

A delicacy
Here is something that I think is rather beautiful, in its distinctive way. -- Hoary (talk) 11:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * do we keep it as a curiosity, or would it be an unfortunate precedent?   DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to be simultaneously up for AfD, blanked, and redirected. I presume that without any input from me it will be removed one way or another. Its removal will be correct, but slightly sad. -- Hoary (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Move of Wikipedia:List of missing journals
I moved this to WikiProject Academic Journals/List of missing journals. I wanted to let you know since you opposed it. Thanks for participating in that discussion, I wish it had had more participation. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  20:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * what you did is OK. I thought the move unnecessary, but it isn't harmful.   DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, not harmful except to my editing fingers *joke*. With the 4-part file, there were a lot of fixups required for this move.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  21:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

On the Phoebus page
Not sure how to do this as I struggle for the first time with the Wikipedia...anyway. Thanks for your advice for the list of personnels. You are more than welcome to find / modify / find references for my team mate. We all have written articles but our CVs is not necessarily on line. So I would appreciate any kind of support. Thanks ! Tappourc (talk) 06:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC) tappourcTappourc (talk) 06:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC) ( talk)

Do I Favor?
Hello David. Can you do me a favor and close my RFA here. I officially withdraw. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 19:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * responded on your user talk p.    DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Butt hat's?
This was a rather amusing typo. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * one of my usual typos. A spelling checker won't catch it.   DGG ( talk ) 21:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

An article you commented on in the past is at AfD
I noticed that you commented in a past AfD discussion of the article Nicholas Beale. After being deleted then, it has been reposted and is now back at AfD again, so you might be interested in commenting again (but you are under no obligation to). Thank you, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * commented there.   DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Smartsaha
Hi, DGG. You placed the AfD notification in the wrong place, on User:Smartsaha instead of User talk:Smartsaha. Could you delete the userpage, and move your notification to the user's talk page? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

RAMAPURAM NARASIMHAR, Ramapuram narasimhar and Ramapuram Narasimhar
I saw you declined my speedy of Ramapuram narasimhar but please see Ramapuram Narasimhar and the deletion history of RAMAPURAM NARASIMHAR, not to mention the talkpage of the creator of these pages. Thanks. Dr.K. logos 23:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. and this. Dr.K. logos 23:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * for that matter, take a look at the image on the present talk p. It seems to be on Commons, not WP, but look at the file history. we have a confused editor here. If the prose were better, it would possibly be a copyvio, but it may nonetheless be one, transcribed carelessly. What I want to do, is rescue an article for the temple out of it. Can you help do that?   DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that currently there are no reliable sources to support all this information this is very difficult. The article may need to be stubbed until reliable sources can be found to expand it. If you have any better ideas please let me know. I wouldn't mind helping out. Dr.K. logos 01:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comments at User:LessHeard vanU/Dead minimum
Hi. Referring to this edit, was this supposed to go in the essay page or on the talk page? It seems to be "responsive" rather than "discussive". I realise that the page is not mine, but I am not sure if what you posted was intended for that spot. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * moved, thanks.~   DGG ( talk ) 16:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

WT:CSD#Second opinion
Hi, I notice you haven't commented at WT:CSD, and I'm pretty sure you must have that page watchlisted. Just wondering if there's a particular reason I should know. cheers, Rd232 talk 07:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

MTV Generation
Hi,

As you have shown an interest in the subject in the past, I was hoping you could comment on the current discussion at Talk:MTV Generation. I am hoping to finally settle the validity of the topic of the MTV Generation for Wikipedia. There have been two previous nominations for deletion, here, and here.

Those discussions chose to keep the article, with the caveat that the article would have to be "cleaned up" and purged of original research. Coming up to four years after the original request for deletion, I see little evidence that this has been accomplished. The article is still rife with unsourced claims and speculation. MTV Generation is a term in use around the internet, but it is "not clearly definable, and has different meanings to different people," wikipedia's own description of a neologism, which it clearly says are to be avoided.

Based on my search of available internet sources, I cannot find any single authoritative definition of the term. I believe that the article currently fails WP:NEO. To quote: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term&mdash;not books and papers that use the term. (Note that wikis such as Wiktionary are not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)

Neologisms that are in wide use&mdash;but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources&mdash;are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles."

I have no axe to grind against this term, but I think it is high time that we included some actual sources to support its claims. I have made an honest effort to find some, that talk about the term MTV Generation, rather than simply mentioning it, but have failed to do so. If you can find some I would really appreciate if you could present some, as I would like to settle this issue soon. Otherwise, if you could simply comment on the potential for this article I would be grateful. Thank you very much.

Peregrine981 (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the general problem of deciding between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. There is no clear line: articles in Wikipedia normally start with a definition, and of relevant explain the meaning, and so do articles in a dictionary. My principle is that in doubt in should be in both, with the reasons that people might well look here for something like this, that we can very often expand beyond the material that would be appropriate in a dictionary. Otherwise, many of the interesting & notable things in the world are "not clearly definable", & that can be what makes them interesting. And the question is not whether it needs to be in Wikipedia, but  whether it needs to be removed from Wikipedia.    DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Not worry about it too much : Expert retention
Hi, Enjoyed your comment on | Expert Retention: Do not worry about it too much to the effect: "well, there are a number of authentic experts here who seem to think otherwise. People come here looking for a phrase, perhaps, but then may stay on long-term." Of course I looked at your user page to get a sense of who you are - and am willing to accept that there is truth to your position. Since you have both a scientific background and a library background, you certainly qualify as an expert - and with that education, you will also understand my interest in substantiating data. So I'd inquire: Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 03:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) How have we at Wikipedia established that there are a number of authentic experts here (on wikipedia) who seem to think otherwise? Have we done a survey, or are there citable references. or...?
 * 2) What qualifies one as an "authentic expert"? Is a Ph.D. in the field necessary?  Is a Ph.D. in the field sufficient, or does one require a number of peer reviewed publications in major journals on topics related to the article? If my Ph.D. is in, for example, nuclear physics, am I considered an expert in astrophysics as well (I could argue that either way)?
 * 3)  Probably rather like you, I have spent much of my life in school, grad school, and working in a research environment (in my case at National Laboratories). When I publish, I do it to build my career and to make a living. It is hard to come up with an original thesis and to apply the scientific method with sufficient rigor that the article survives peer review and is publishable in a refereed journal - I do NOT find that relaxing. Hence I avoid working on Wikipedia articles which relate to my professional life other than the occasional fix when an article has a particularly egregious error. When I work on Wikipedia, I work on Wikipedia articles for recreation - as a hobby - to learn about things that interest me outside of my work. I am very interested in understanding what would motivate an "expert" to write for Wikipedia on topics directly related to their work if they don't get to add it to their resume and they don't earn anything for it?
 * 4) If we go with experts, how do we avoid more Essjays?


 * I decided not to name there for several reasons: first, expertise is of varying extents--one is not either an expert or a non-expert second,it would be invidious for me to mention only those whom I am sufficiently aware of; third, some whose expertise I know from personal discussions prefer not to have this mentioned on-wiki, so I must not out the; fourth, it is not my role to certify expertise in general, though I am certainly willing to make a comment in context, and try to support it with objective information. At Citizendium it was decided early on that the qualification was a doctorate or other terminal degree, with possible exceptions for non-academic fields. I think this eliminated some highly qualified people, and let in others whose actual knowledge seems a little one-sided. But it did serve as a rough distinction to get started, when things had to be done from scratch, and there were no pre-existing experts to certify others.  So here, I would indeed accept those with a relevant doctorate as experts, and there are a good number of them. Take a look at some of the workgroups, for example in Chemistry and in Medicine. I would also accept many other people as experts here. An amateur, too,  can be an expert in many fields--there a quite a few very successfully self-taught people here, just as one might expect.  (There are, btw, some people here whom I believe to have genuine degrees on the basis of not just quality but style, & are unwilling to confirm it even privately--I can hardly mention them either.)


 * The reason we want experts is not to exert their authority, but because of what they can contribute. The basic principle is that by their work you shall know them. We do not need inarticulate experts, or pugnacious, or domineering, or condescending. Fortunately, true expertise and self-confidence go together, & the better you are the less you will need to bluster. I've been fortunate at Princeton & Berkeley to have known a few Nobelists, all characteristically modest & eager to gently teach the uninitiated.  Trying to win arguments by   credentials  can indicate that someone may not be quite as good as they think themselves to be.


 * Since expertise is relative, one can assume that a physician will known some physiology, but not as much as a physiologist;that a physicist will know some astrophysics, but not as much as an astrophysicist. I know some information science, but nowhere as much as if that were really my field. Librarians need the skill of learning a little bit about unfamiliar subjects very fast, but we know that's not deep understanding.


 * Some people like to do research and would rather not teach. Where I've worked, the researchers were teachers, or aspired to be. They want to make sure their subject is presented right. They like to talk about it. They like to think their understanding of it is just what the students & the public needs. It is not easy to do this well. Not everyone can write a good textbook, it's an additional skill, and can need considerable help from editors who understand the medium. Experts accept this help. But they also like to guide people to learn the subject themselves. So many of them here do what you do, and do not undertake major article writing but rather fix things. (That's in fact what I do too). The real problem here for genuine experts is knowing that after they have gotten an article the way it should be, there is no way it keep it so. (This applies throughout Wikipedia.  I found I did not like to  mediate, because  the results were usually too transient.)  I don't think there is a fix for this--it's inherent in our basic way of doing things & will inevitably prevent many otherwise  well-qualified people from being willing to work here.


 * People who say they have a particular degree or position from or at  a particular university can be verified--many link to their official CV, and it is even possible to check with authentic sources. I can recall one  article where I showed after considerable primary research that the  CV of the subject represented a degree that was not received. Such cases do occur, but they're rare. Had Essjay  given an actual specification of his position or degree, he would have been uncovered immediately. But on an old version of his user page, he said " I have been asked repeatedly to reveal the name of the institution, however, I decline to do so; I am unsure of the consequences of such an action, and believe it to be in my best interests to remain anonymous." (ref 1 in our article about him) And so it was.    DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Appreciate the thoughtful response - much of which I find immediately compelling.
 * I suspect much of my personal reservations with the expert approach comes from my community experience prior to Wikipedia during which I contributed to distributed proofreaders (as you're probably aware, they are volunteers who prepare materials for Project Gutenberg). Like Wikipedia, they started off with a huge burst of productivity. Like Wikipedia, they grew ever more complex in their bureaucracy, including requirements for expertise, until they grew too tedious for a recreational activity. Fortunately there are still folks who enjoy the grind over there at DP, and are willing to contribute. Unfortunately there are a range of books in the public domain such as the early works of Ibsen that are still not published on PG because those of us who were working on them just gave up and moved to Wikipedia.
 * Wikipedia will survive, regardless of the route taken.
 * And a note of appreciation. Folks like you who obviously devote a large block of time to Wikipedia as Admins are what keeps it going. Thanks for doing it.
 * Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 14:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Email
Email, if you haven't seen. So far, one deletion, one block, an MfD, adding cupcakes to the RfC, claiming the RfC isn't valid even though standards have been met, and making false claims then trying to close a WQA about them. It is amazing the lengths these people are going to when the evidence of aiding sock puppetry over the course of a year is very blatant. Yet these same people wanted to get rid of Jennavecia and others for the same. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * answering it now, but in short, I think the matter is better dropped.  DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * With all of the corrupt acts, the abuse of process, and the rest, it is a sign that they realize that Bishonen cannot hide anymore. If this was meaningless, they wouldn't be going to such lengths. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the merits, the main person who will be hurt if you continue will be yourself,  DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Your input is requested...
I realize I should have asked a week or two ago, but... I was waiting for the WP:VETTING process to move forward, but it appears to have stalled... I don't know if Skomorokh sent you an email, and/or if you replied, but I would like you to read this, and possibly provide your input... Thanks... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of fixed-wing aircraft without flaps
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of fixed-wing aircraft without flaps, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - Ahunt (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Bullshido.net
At Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination), you wrote that "the article had potential content." Could you please revise the article and remove the original research? The article would like User:Kelapstick/Bull or User:DoriSmith/Bull. I would remove the original research myself, but I do not wish to be accused of deleting the article's content after failing to get the article deleted. Since you voted "keep" in the debate, actions from you would not be viewed in such a light. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles about baronets
Hi, per Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles) point four, articles about baronets should be located generally at their simple name and when necessary for disambiguation with their title. The correct format in the latter case - according to the same naming conventions - would be then "Sir Adam Adamson, 1st Baronet". Therefore please unprotect Alexander Cockburn, 12th Baronet and move it to either of the correct names. Thanks and best wishes Phoe   talk   23:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * why the Sir? I see the rule, but it makes no sense to me, & I have challenged it on the talk page there. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility).    DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But it's a part of the title - and how I said above the title is generally used for disambiguation. Without the "Sir" the title is incomplete and utterly wrong and should be used not at all. May I also spotlight you to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage ... Greetings Phoe   talk   00:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have unprotected,as I see the special rule; do as you like pending discussion. I see no reason to use the full title in the heading, unlike the article lede--it's the one exception--otherwise we use just as much as we need to disambiguate. I apologize for not checking more carefully first. Normally I avoid MOS questions, but since this was raised, I have  moved the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) to get a  more general consensus. If necessary, i will RfC, because the question of overriding principals for such reasons is I think a significant one. (Personally, btw, I disagree with the entire MOS approach  to disambiguation, & would use full names in every case, complete with dates for people, & qualify everything where there is likely to be a conflict. I think this helps readers, and that's our purpose. But I do not intend to challenge this now, as there are even more important things we need do to help readers, such as avoiding removing improbable articles and encouraging rather than discouraging the new editors who write them.)     DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you; but the unprotect does not seem to have taken effect.. The guidance is really threefold: Use the simple name, if unambiguous; disambiguate somehow if it isn't; if you disambiguate using the baronet, include the Sir which usage requires. Can you think of a clearer way to put this? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of putting it clearly--I agree the special rule puts it clearly; it's a question of whether that should be the special rule at all, and whether just what is needed to disambiguate, rather than including a small unique class of Wikipedia subjects where the names begin with "Sir". It may be part of the official title, but that does not mean we need it. We are not bound by outside formal usage when it is incompatible with out general system. This sort of special provision when it is not necessary is what makes problems for ordinary editors in dealing with the MOS. I was careless not to check for one, and I didn't mean to do one of the main pages differently,  & I'd never deliberately do something the wrong way according to our existing rules to make a point. Changing this rule is not on my high priority list.
 * As for the protection, I re-did the unprotection and it seems to be unprotected when I look at the log. Let me know if it still does not work.   DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't exaggerate the special provision. We recommend against using the title or prefix at all when disambigustion is not necessary (although some editors seem to be ignoring this) and disambiguation by other means is perfectly acceptable. But if we choose to diambiguate by 12th baronet, we should do what anglophones do when they use that form. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You protected the redirect Sir Alexander Cockburn, 12th baronet at some point; please unprotect - or delete, since your protection may count as an edit make it impossible to move the article over it. (You will notice some moves on my part, figuring out what was happening; ignore them - the net effect is to create a redirect the hard way.) At that point, let's have a move discussion if you really feel that having 12th baronet without Sir is the best disambiguator. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Never mind, either you anticipated me, or something really strange is going on. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters in Johnny Test
Sorry, I was tied up this weekend, and then there was a fire in my building on Columbus Day. Bearian (talk) 23:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

cambridge who's who
I'm not sure. I checked Lexis-Nexis (news & academic law version) and only got a couple of potential things; only one is probably worth including as a source. I sent it to you. Agreed there should be an article on it, though it could probably be rewritten to be slightly more NPOV. I'd say it could redirect to Who's Who scam, but that's not very NPOV either! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I added them and cleaned up the language considerably.   DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hi, DGG. I have questions about your votes at AfD. In Articles for deletion/The Gelato Fiasco, you voted "delete" because you asserted that the articles provided by Milowent were not reliable sources. In Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination), you voted "keep" even though there were not reliable sources about the topic. What is the difference between The Gelato Fiasco, an ice cream parlor, and Bullshido.net, a website? You said at the DRV that "The only solution is to work elsewhere than here to establish some consensus about how to deal with the problem of what constitutes sufficient sources for establishing notability of web sites such as this one as a general question." If so, shouldn't this be done for the ice cream parlor and other topics that have trivial coverage? Cunard (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * first, we're talking not about RSs for content, but about sources reliable enough to show notability according to the GNG. As I see it, since  the GNG doesn't really match with common sense for many types of articles, we deal with it either by resorting to NOT, or by adjusting the concept of sources reliable enough for the purpose. We already have a long-standing custom of being very cautious about admitting   local  sources for local people or things, on the basis of their being non-critical and indiscriminate.  I think it applies very much to local businesses. As for web sites of some sorts, and blogs in particular, where the only documentation is likely to be other web sites and blogs, we are normally just a trifle looser. I think we should be much looser, and match ourselves to the way the world actually does document things. different topics have different requirements. The WP:N GNG doesn't recognize this--we really need to replace it, but this is close to impossible because of the difficult in getting a sufficient supermajority for any one proposal. When I first joined, I was fascinated by the concept of using one simple Procrustean rule for everything, but as I learned more, I saw that it would cause great overcoverage of some things, like local figures, and undercoverage of others. In a very few cases Wikipedia has specific rules we use instead, but in practice we tinker with what the sources must be till we get the desired result. We generally all don;t agree about the desired result, so we adjust the balance by resolving individual cases at AfD.  I don't have much interest in blogs and web programs, but I don;t think we should wait to cover them till the conventional news sources get around to it.  This is one thing we can do better.  As for local establishments, local news source blend into advertisements, and we needn't follow their lead into being used for promotion--we should have higher standards. The argument for inclusion is that this company might be about to  become nationally known, but the effect of the article is to use Wikipedia to help it become nationally known. The danger to Wikipediafrom over-inclusion is not things that some people might not consider important, but the use of it for promotion.    DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Bullshido.net lacks reliable sources and unreliable sources. I believe that GNG is an important notability guideline and does not need to be changed. First, it allows topics that have received coverage to be included in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not made of paper, so there is no reason to discount local topics that pass the verifiability requirements. I agree that the sources in The Gelato Fiasco AfD debate are not stellar, but at the very least, they can verify the information in the Wikipedia article. I doubt that The Gelato Fiasco was created for promotional purposes. Maybe the owner created the page, or maybe someone who heard about this ice cream parlor created the page. I believe that its the latter because the article was devoid of promotion in its first version. Therefore, Wikipedia should be accommodating because not only is the article sourced, but it is also not an advertisement. Second, GNG reinforces the verifiability policy and thus improves Wikipedia's credibility by weeding out topics that have no reliable coverage. Because Bullshido.net lacks coverage in reliable sources and unreliable sources, the article can only be composed of original research. You mention above that other websites and blogs are sufficient coverage, but if these sources are used, WP:V is ignored and false information can be easily introduced and referenced in a Wikipedia article. What indicates to you that this website should be included on Wikipedia? The lack of coverage in both reliable sources and unreliable sources (such as the blogs you mention above) strongly indicates that Bullshido.net is non-notable.  Finally, after checking the page history of the article today, I have discovered that most of the content was written by, who states on his userpage that he is "the designated representative for Bullshido.net." Although this does not mean automatic deletion for the article, it does show where the information came from. When this website lacks coverage in both credible sources and non-credible blogs, and the author of the content is a representative of the website, it strongly indicates that Bullshido.net fails the true spirit of Wikipedia's inclusion policy. Cunard (talk) 07:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The place to discuss a particular AfD is at the AfD. (this one was closed as non-consensus, so I  imagine we'll hear aboutit again). It's fine to ask me here to take another look, and I frequently reconsider my opinion, but not always.  I rechecked Bushido when you first asked, and I am of the same opinion still: what I said at the deletion review was no consensus, which I think describes the variety of views there and at the AfD.--that is a change from my keep at the AfD, . As for GF, I agree that the purpose of GF was  not  entirely  promotional--but such is the effect.


 * More generally, Local subjects have their place, and the best place might be as a supplement to Wikipedia, perhaps called WikipediaLocal. There is a need for a free NPOV verifiable encyclopedia covering local subjects, and perhaps some of what we currently dispute about could be moved there also, thus simultaneously satisfying deletionists and inclusionists of all varieties (we could for example include there both high schools and elementary schools). We could include local politicians. It would cut the AfD workload in half, and provide a place for beginners to write articles. There would still be a need to exclude misrepresentation and puffery.   It would be better for us to do it right, rather than rely on the totally uncontrolled editing there can be at Wikia. More general topics, on the other hand, would remain here. Notability is not actually an internal technical question: like it or not, inclusion in our Wikipedia is taken by the public to indicate at least a certain degree of importance. Actual importance, not the details of how we determine it. Once one gets to local businesses, the boundary for which ones are important gets very fuzzy. I can see the attraction of using the GNG, but it's a very rough correlate in both directions. I think we should continue to accept it when there is no other basis for deciding, as one step better than IAR.


 * I agree about the importance of verifiability, but GNG is not the verifiability policy--we accept a wide range of sources for verifiability that would never by themselves indicate importance, as well as sources that would do both. Some  blogs are usable for V--it depends on what needs to be verified and on the authority of the blogger. "Blog" is merely a type of presentation--it covers everything from the highest quality professional edited independent product reviews (that would prove N as well), down all the way to the lowest grade of irresponsible fandom. And even self-published and primary sources are acceptable for V of facts if they are not controversial.


 * We have many good pages written by company or organization representatives. In my field, I've helped some of them to edit properly, using the guidance in  our FAQ  about  organizations.  Unreliable PR can be written by a fan as well as the company, and the lowest level of it usually is. A good PR person can work to our standards once they learn them. Of course they need to be watched, and quite skeptically at that.    DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion_review/Log/2009_October_15
Hi DGG - just in case you're not watching it, you may wish to revisit your post at the above DRV. The deletion review is indeed related to an AfD that was recently closed, so this isn't as out-of-process as you think. Thanks ~ mazca  talk 17:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks, I fixed it.   DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Ferrell (2nd nomination)

Hi, DGG. Because you participated in Articles for deletion/Kari Ferrell, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Kari Ferrell (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of education articles by country
We disagree sometimes. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to your message, please see User talk:Tone. If the closer does not revert, I may take the matter to DRV. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Tone has responded saying that it's ok to restart the AFD. Please could you arrange this. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Canadian health claims
I know you are an admin. And you must have been busy or you would have read the following: If you would have read these three things, you would have seen that they are not necessarily constructing an article for the purpose of expanding wikipedia, they are creating an article just for a college project. I told them that if they wanted they could create their project in one of their user subpages (eg. User:Cathygabo/Canadian health claims). I noticed that instead of deleting the article like it should have been (under CSD A1); you said the article was under construction (using the template). Please explain. ⊥m93 talk. 03:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk:Canadian health claims
 * User talk:Cathygabor
 * User talk:Antonialazarova
 * I see no reason not to write an article in article space.   I    advised  them to go about completing the article right away, because there is a tendency to delete very incomplete articles-- I added a template which should preserve it for a few days.  for related information see School and university projects and Schools FAQ  -- and    our guide to writing Wikipedia articles.  I did a brief rewrite to get things started,  and if an article is actively being rewritten, it fully justifies the "underconstruction" tag.   That's what it's for.  if they do not do any additional work, remind me about it, and i'll give it a further look & perhaps see what I can do myself.      DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I see what you've done. If "they" can pull together an article, more power to them. My original view was that their "creation" was a mere personal project (or "game") rather than contribution. We'll see how they pull this off. ⊥m93  talk. 03:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Message about declaration of affiliation
Dear DGG;

Thank you very much for your message about declaring one's affiliation. I have made it very easy for one to see my affiliation with Immunotec from my user profile, so that has always been out in the open. I have also been clear that it was not my intention to write the page on Immunocal, but to bring it out of deleted pages and acquire the assistance of others for help on the page. My intention from the beginning has been to provide a neutral point of view page which shows notability, two things that were not provided with the first submission. A Nobody, my adopter, feels that there is considerable notability now for this product.

I have received the assurance from representatives at Immunotec that they will take the page from here, since I do not have time to devote to this project. A Nobody has kindly offered his assistance as well. If you see the page being worked on, and you would like to offer your assistance with the aim of providing a neutral point of view page, that would be much appreciated.

With a subject like this, it would be difficult for someone not affiliated with Immunotec or Immunocal to be able to provide accurate information. That is why I have asked for the company's help. As you can see, I have not made any edits to the page on Immunocal, and I do not intend to. Hopefully, all those who work on it from here on out can come together to provide the high quality page we are all looking for to add to the Wikipedia library.

Thanks again for your help, it is much appreciated. Since I am no longer involved in this project, feel free to contact A Nobody or those making edits to discuss this. I made a note on my page sometime ago that I am no longer working on this page. I have a full time job and a part time job and they both keep me very busy. Your neutral, non-affiliated point of view and help is much appreciated.

Sincerely, Serendipity81 (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * actually, it should be possible for anyone to check or even write such an article, because it must be based of published sources. A company web page is sufficient for routine facts, though you will 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 for proving notability. What is true, is that it is usually easier and sometimes very much easier for someone at the company to find the necessary information, which would normally be already at hand. But the article cannot rely on unpublished or proprietary information. Please pass this on to whoever writes the article. `    DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Dogmatism
I would guess the "keep" you are discussing is this one. That was a little weird: found sources, added them to the article, and had it whisked out from underneath me.

I will point out that your percentage argument is flawed on one ground: I have become so disgusted with AFD that I generally participate only in articles that I nominate, WP:CRYSTAL problems, and claims of hoax vandalism. I think it would be surprising if I voted to keep more than 1% of hoaxes and articles that I had nominated for deletion. Can I suggest that a more reasonable measure of dogmatism would be "If presented with new evidence and changing conditions, does Kww change his mind?"

Given that as a basis, I will point out
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stay_(SafetySuit_song)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Despues_de_Todo


 * This sequence:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Paradiso_Girls
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=304064483#The_Paradiso_Girls_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:S2daam&diff=304117250&oldid=302524552

The whole (somewhat long) recent discussion over Latvian charts at WT:Record charts. For context, I had placed Latvia on the WP:BADCHARTS list, and Contains Mild Peril is trying to persuade me that I had done so prematurely. I
 * rejected a long series of sources, but took the time to indicate why for each one
 * received feedback about one of my explanations
 * changed my mind about the reference
 * and then presented a concise version of the argument to a broader audience for feedback, giving fair representation to Contain Mild Peril's argument

The recent discussion over Hit 40 UK, where I
 * added Hit40UK to the bad chart list
 * Was presented with new evidence
 * removed it based on the new evidence

I won't deny that I am a rules and evidence-based person. It comes from having an engineering background, legal training, and being raised in a military environment. I'm not persuaded that any of that is necessarily a bad thing.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted this comment because I was asked to, but I want to lodge a little displeasure here. You had a chance to break up the impression of a voting bloc of inclusionists against KWW and you chose not to. His RfA, nor anyone's, shouldn't be a referendum on how the community feels about inclusion/deletion/etc. That it has grown into one is a shame and it is our responsibility to act and ensure that it doesn't get worse. You are obviously not required to think that KWW would be a good/bad admin. You are likewise invited to offer your opinion, but I'm appalled that it comes down to 'this guy doesn't vote like me and won't commit to a total recusal'. Then the vote becomes a stamp of approval on the poisonous crap Ikip and AN have planted all over the opposing section. The right answer is direct confrontation and rejection of the deletion/inclusion split as germane to the bit. IF we can't get that answer then what is next? Retaliation? Do we have to rely on the fact that only one side is willing to nakedly oppose on partisan grounds in order to keep the peace? I don't want to retaliate. I don't want to dig through AfD contributions of future candidates and oppose because they vote keep to much. That punishes the candidate for the childish battle I am in. But I also don't like unilateral disarmament. So I'm begging you. Please review your oppose. Take a look at the folks who supported KWW who didn't last time. The folks who are neutral who were opposed last time. Protonk (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Protonk, please stop making dishonest and mischaracterizations of my and other editors' edits. Are we here to build an encyclopedia or not?  Please refrain from further perpetuation of a battleground atmosphere on Wikipedia.  It is disruptive and unhelpful.  If you and Kww are truly sincere about not wanting to extend a deletionist/inclusionist debate, you would reach out to myself and others in a good faith and in a non-hypocritical manner.  If, for example, editors citing a diff from Kww from a year ago is somehow not appropriate than that would also apply to either of you citing a diff from a year ago concerning me.  You can't have it both ways.  It is either fair or it isn't.  If you really don't like I or anyone else challenging supporters, then you would discourage HiDrNick from replying to me with "snort" or those who post "Support per Ikip" style of baiting supports.  If anything, such baiting and mocking poisons an RfA more than any oppose post can (had no one replied to my oppose nor made Badger Drink's style of support, I would have walked away from commenting any further just as I did in the other three RfAs I commented in this month), just as surely as falsely declaring thousands of editors a "small minority" in October 2009 and then claiming falsely that none of the diffs the opposes present are recent weakens any aggresive attack on those who argued to oppose.  Remember the fable about honey rather than vinegar.  Thank you.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, I worded my oppose as mildly as i possibly could. I would not even consider modifying it until the promise i asked for in Q4 is given, & I doubt it will be. I promised such at my RfA, and I have kept to it; I expect equally neutral behavior from others. Those who for whatever reason do not promise it when asked, should  not have anyone's support. As far as I am concerned, there are no sides here. I cannot believe you are seriously suggesting I vote in a particular way merely to demonstrate my independence. I oppose people for RfA whom I do not trust, and support the ones I do. I cannot believe you seriously suggest I or anyone should do otherwise. End of discussion here, please. Everyone's position is quite plain enough.  DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that you vote in order to demonstrate your independence. I'm desperately hoping that you would have been independent enough to not vote along party lines. Protonk (talk) 06:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Protonk, I think you forgot to take your medicine today. Suggesting that DGG's vote was not "independent" is not supported by anything cited here, or by the wording of his opinion at the RfA. You should refactor (and apologize). Bongo  matic  06:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Friday the 13th Part 2: Jason Returns and My Bloody Valentine 2 - 3D
You deleted the former as a hoax, care to get My Bloody Valentine 2 - 3D since it's a blatant hoax from the same user? (And maybe block for blatant hoaxery and no good-faith edits?) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm usually reluctant to get involved as an admin in this subject, but this seems obvious enough. Both deleted now, and I left a final warning.    DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Raymond Buck and his AfD
You're right about the copyvio. Sometimes I forget to check the simple things like that. Thanks for the reminder. I've amended my rationale in the AfD but I'm a little unclear about the protocol in closing the AfD. Should someone else close it? Cheers, Pigman ☿/talk 01:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As you see, someone always comes along quickly to do it. But in this case I'd have done it myself, if I had not also removed a speedy on the basis of wanting time for discussion. And so could you--two admin agreeing it's copyvio is enough.   DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It still surprises me that non-admins can and do close uncontroversial AfDs. I'm still stuck in the mindframe that closing AfDs is almost always a chore for admins to do. I've been wondering why, whenever I check for timed-out AfDs, there are none to close. I'm certainly not complaining; there's always plenty of other tasks. Thanks again. Cheers, Pigman ☿/talk 20:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Part of the reason is to give prospective candidates some practice, where people can observe if they  understand the limits.    DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've been paying enough attention to these things of late. I was on a semi-wikibreak for a while and I've lost touch with some of the processes. I haven't been participating at all in RfAs and it shows that I've forgotten that closing AfDs has long been used as a way to evaluate the knowledge and temper of admin candidates. D'oh! And if I don't participate, it's easy to lose touch with the gestalt and general ambient consensus of Wikipedia culture. I've been doing too much wikignoming and not enough participating. Perhaps it's time for me to reproportion my focus. Pigman ☿/talk 01:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
Hi. I'm not sure if we have ever met, but as I've just referred at Articles for deletion/The Shells (folk band) (2nd nomination) to a discussion that you participated in, I thought I should let you know. Apologies, as that page is very long. You can find the relevant discussion by searching on that page for discussion around the phrase "WP:DELETE". Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Tx for the note. The old  discussion concerned a "no consensus" that an editor wanted to re-nom after 2.5 years because of a change (the information seemed less relevant).  He wanted assurance 2.5 years would not be a disruptively short timeframe (which you and another editor gave him).  Presumably under WP:DEL, which states: "After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome."


 * You wrote, "my personal guideline is ... 1 to 2 months after a non-consensus".


 * Prosfilaes had a different take: "Two years is certainly enough. But I don't think we want to establish consensus; it's costly in man-hours and project dissension to AfD something, and if we don't think there's going to be a new result, there's no point in AfDing something.... I wouldn't bring up a non-consensus after 1 to 2 months unless I thought I had something really new to bring up".


 * In the current 2nd AfD, there was absolutely no new information presented, and it came in well under the shortest timeframe that you use personally (and you were the more liberal of the two). The first AfD was widely discussed by nearly 20 editors.  With no new information suggesting lack of notablity, the only way a different result would be reached now would be by the same editors not participating again 15 days later (many aren't -- and who can blame them), or by forum-shopping yielding an admin with a different set of eyeglasses.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We need to distinguish between the time after a keep close, and after a non-consensus close. A non-consensus close does have the practical result of keeping the article, but it's really temporary until there is consensus one way or another. After a keep close, rapid renomination is pointy; after non-consensus, it can be a reasonable attempt to gain consensus. Over the 3 years I've been here, there has fortunately been a greater realization of the bad effect of over rapid repeat AfDs--although there is no fixed time period, and I was not presenting my statement as a definitive guideline but as my personal view. I think after a heated non-consensus argument, there's usually a higher quality discussion after a month, with easier elimination of SPAs, but this can be a matter of judgment.  That I would wait 4 weeks doesn't mean it's wrong if someone does it a little differently. (A quick look at the new discussion does tend to reinforce my view that a longer wait would have been more prudent.) If everyone who disagreed with me were wrong, nobody would be right, not even myself, for my views evolve also.    DGG ( talk ) 06:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I hear you. And understand the fact-specific nature.  If we had had many SPAs in the first AfD, I could see it being sooner.  But (and I could be wrong) I think that here where you had 20 people participate and split the first time, there could not be any reasonable expectation their views would change in 15 days with no new information.  Any "consensus" reached would be wholly artificial -- the result of a new admin, or of (as here) editors dropping out of the conversation.  One could check the box that says "consensus", but that would not be because the original editors views had changed.  IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is anything certain about AfD, it is that the result is unpredictable. Remember,  I'm handicapped in discussing this particular instance because of my lack of understanding of the subject: I cannot really tell what coverage counts as substantial.
 * I suspect that for anything non-obvious., the rate of error each way might be 15%, which would mean only 70% decided right--and I think people of different persuasions would come up with this error rate, though they wouldn't agree about which decisions were the wrong ones. The only real hope of greater accuracy--besides retraining some closers who frequently make errors-- would be general wider participation. I've learned that even for articles I care about deeply, the only way to keep equilibrium is to accept there will be many decisions that go unfairly wrong. I once had a list of articles I wanted to renominate or restore, but it's gotten too long to deal with. So I just go on to the next one.    DGG ( talk ) 07:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Understood.  Quick tangent.  There is language chilling the argument that other stuff exists, but there is language within it that says that other stuff exists while not by itself a good argument can form part of a cogent argument.  But I don't imagine that often serves to convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced.  Thoughts?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me start more generally: Wikipedia seems to have decided early on not to go by precedents--a decision in line with the general chaotic and user driven nature of the project. Any such project will inevitably produce errors, distortions and inconsistencies--enforcing a standard uniformly requires authority. If we did follow precedent in AfD discussions,  we would need a much more formal and reliable way of making the decision which is to be used as precedent.  Yet we do to some extent, though it is always subject to chance.  A consistent coverage of  subjects requires editorial authority; there is no way of getting there by chance contributions. We do have consistent coverage in some areas in several ways: adding all the relevant articles automatically or manually from an authoritative  source; a group of specialists who agree about the standards and dominate a subject; a field so popular that everything will get included.   The argument, like most deletion arguments, can be used in multiple ways. If there are many accepted articles on really equivalent. things, the other stuff is a good argument for inclusion; if the other ones are on more notable subjects, as is usually the case, other stuff exists is a good argument for deletion. Where it's a problem, is where it attempts to get rid of an article on a very local consensus that does not apply to the general view on that type of articles, or when it's a sign that there is in fact no agreement on what to do with articles like that.   DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing edit in Articles for deletion/List of Kemonomimi?
Hey DGG, I was looking over Articles for deletion/List of Kemonomimi from home late last night, and I saw that you had posted a reply to my !vote. Looking at it now, though, there is no reply, from you or anyone else, nor are there any edits in the AFD's history showing replies to my !vote being added or removed (there's nothing in the deletion log, either). Did I just imagine it, or did your edit simply disappear or something? 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They are all there as I see them. Your edit is . Try to link to it directly. My reply is ; the latest entry is Kotra's at . There are no deleted revisions.  If going to those links does not solve it, try restarting your browser.  DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Aah, now I see - you "replied" in your own !vote. Sorry for the confusion! =) 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
>>>> Posted By Alex Waelde (Leave Me A Messgae) 07:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Countets, earlets, dukettes and the Ronettes
My dear Sir David (17th baronet), I thought you might be interested in this move request. -- Sir Hoary, 79th marvelette 15:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it hilarious, the desire to use full formal titles for the lowest rank only.  DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Could there be some relationship with the (non) topic immediately below? My Bloody Baronet 17 - 3D: The Complete Collectors' Edition, with Extra Gore, Medals, and Pallbearers does have a certain ring to it. -- Sir Hoary, BlT but hold the mayo 00:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Howard Press
Hi DGG

I was surprised by this opinion offered at the AfD discussion for Howard Press.

Claims for invention are not considered to be a basis for notability&mdash;not under WP:BIO, not under WP:PROF (there, explicitly so), and not under WP:OUTCOMES.

Moreover, despite the verifiable fact that the patent was issued, there is no evidence&mdash;and there is evidence to the contrary&mdash;that either its issue was valid and enforceable or that the process described therein was necessary for the manufacture of any drugs relating to it.

Without OR, all that can be said is "HP was issued a patent for X." If we wanted to allow a little bit of synthesis about the subject (rather than about the purported topic of his patent&mdash;I'm certainly no expert), we could add, "He sued to enforce it but his action failed at the summary judgment phase."

I don't see how this meets any prong of either guideline or practice. Care to expand your reasoning?

Regards, Bongo  matic  05:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I found it rather hard to sort out who actually made the discovery, and if he did, he's notable for it. What I'd really like to see is a clearer more NPOV article.    DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How would having made the discovery make him notable? Patents are given for extremely narrow inventions, and many patents are issued for similar similar processes or inventions. There are millions of discoveries that do not confer notability on the discoverer&mdash;without independent sources indicating the significance of this discovery, how do you come to the conclusion that it is not such a discovery? Bongo  matic  01:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Checking back, I find i said weak keep. Weak keep for me means I think it should be kept, but if other people think otherwise that might be reasonable also, & I'm not going to argue the point. When I say keep, I am fairly sure I'm right, and if you think differently, I intend to try to convince you of that.  (and similarly with weak delete and delete). I can't argue everything, & it's a rare argument when my weak keep or weak delete would be decisive.    DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood, and not trying to bludgeon you to death over it. I genuinely wanted to understand if you think that verifiable discoveries evidenced by patents but no other coverage confer notability, and if so, under what conditions. But I'm equally happy to drop it. Cheers, Bongo  matic  02:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly prepared to talk on the purely general question: Patents as such prove nothing, any more than isolated articles do. Patents are citable in academic papers just the same as articles are, for the facts they report. In chemistry particularly, all the bibliographic handbooks discuss how to use them, and Chemical Abstracts indexes them in detail. In any technical field, for a person working in industry, patents are part of their CV and count at least as much as do articles. The importance of a particular patent, like that of a paper, depends on what issues from it. For papers we can tell two things:  we can easily measure their citations; and with considerable difficulty we can judge the importance of the work and the practical applications to which they lead. For patents, though citations are one measure, the overwhelmingly important part is the degree to which they are exploited. I am not here alone in saying that. The typical patent cited for notability in a weak bio article is the sort of odd patent by an individual working on the fringes from which nothing results, and we all properly discount them. In the case of someone whose actual work they are, they can indicate importance. Whether it is so in this case will require a little research In the case of contested discoveries, both parties have a good measure of importance, though generally not the same amount of eventual fame or actual notability. I gave my impression of that, but I did not fully investigate it, which would be more of a research project than I am prepared to do for most afds.  DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please
First off, I am offended by your rather dismissive "not bad for a Canadian" crap; cut that nonsense out and be aware that there's a world beyond the US. Ok, national offense aside, and more to the point, please pay at least some slight attention to the AfD in question and make sure that when you do a google search you actually search for the right thing.

This is utter garbage. No one would ever suggest that Cameron is unnotable, not even by the apparently lowly Canadian standard that we settle for up here in the filth. Did you notice the AfD topic though? DGG, you disappoint; how closely do you even bother to look at these, or are you just desperate to find a reason to vote keep? Seriously, you're better than this piece of sloppiness. Eusebeus (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * not bad for a Canadian" means "not bad, considering that the Googles and other databases we frequently use, such as WorldCat, have a very strong US bias." It does not denigrate Canadians--it explains why they may get fewer hits that equivalents from the US. I think my meaning was very clear in context, and if not I apologize. As for the AfD, Ij ust made the following comment there: "I apologize for the disconnect between the AfD and the search; I did slip up here. I will revote after I check again." I did read the article; I did a search for a reference listed there; and apparently got confused by what I was commenting on. I should have caught it, because there was a residual concern: I could not figure out why such a reliable ed. like you would possibly have wanted to delete an article on the subject of the search. That should have alerted me to check further.   DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I apologise for my misplaced umbrage. Btw, google is currently systematically biased against non-English material. But in my experience Canadiana is typically as well-represented as any other English language topic through the search engines, at least, accounting for our size difference. Eusebeus (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean...
...by DNB. Do you mean this? Because it seems unlikely that Campbell Leckie would be in there... I couldn't find him using the free online index, anyway. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My error. I misread the citation. I've restored the prod. I seem to have made more mistakes than usual yesterday.     DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

over-speedy
I do not consider csding an article as showing no evidence of notability, done 1 minute after it has been entered into Wikipedia, to really be appropriate, even though DGG''' ( talk ) 19:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC).


 * David (If you permit me to use this familiarity), as always i compliment your dedication to save new article's, but don't you think your going a bit to far in this case?


 * What we have here is an article that is either a COI or autobiography. A check on the subjects name revealed no source that related to the subject (The freewebs page revealed the connection to racing, and the edit summary showed drag racing - yes, i check that before i press A7). Besides that there are so many red flags regarding notability - The use of free web hosts and Myspace as primary sources and the age of the subject which is added now.


 * I respect your decision to give the article a chance nonetheless, but no, i will not be monitoring it. As it is your judgement that the article should have that chance, it is up to you to decide if is successfully improved. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone who wants to call me David instead of DGG is welcome, ( I've seen a trend towards this with other people also), but I spot thing on other talk pages meant for me or mentioning me by automatically highlighting the  the DGG. I understand perfectly your impatience with sub-stubs like that and I share it also. But neither COI nor AUTOBIO is a reason for deletion, let alone speedy. My guess that it would be a college dorm is apparently wrong,-- I immediately thought that because I have been actively trying to get all such articles deleted unless there is something special, & did not check further, though I should have.  (I guess that's the hazard of looking for deletions of a class of articles--everything is grist that comes into the mill.) And I know the problem of possibly missing something if not dealt with immediately.  Yes. I'll keep an eye on it. (the alternative I could equally have done is changing it to PROD).    DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Benton PROD
Thanks for your note. It's one of those situations where the subject created the article but isn't happy about its current contents. I'm corresponding with him and hope to resolve the issues, so I won't AfD it right away.  Will Beback   talk    21:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi DGG, regarding the Nicholas F. Benton prod, did you have an alternative in mind, or were you thinking of AfD? He has requested deletion, he's borderline notable, and the issues are such that there's no clear way of resolving them. I was thinking prodding it would be the quickest way to sort things out. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the rationale for giving weight to such a request from someone who (presumably voluntarily) was interviewed for a feature article in a widely-circulated magazine? Bongo  matic  23:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing involving this organization is uncontroversial, so I guess it has to be AfD if you want it deleted. Better discussed there than on my talk p. Deletion of even borderline notable semi-public figures based on their request is optional, not required, so I think there should be a wider range of opinions. But before doing that, I would first let Will try a few days to get some stability to the content of the article. I am not sure which way I will actually !vote at the eventual AfD--I'd want to see the matter discussed a little first.    DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How has he requested deletion? All I see is that some SPA has claimed that he (Benton, and in the third person, not the first) has claimed deletion. (Oh and DGG, I think you misplaced a comment.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * how is it misplaced? This is a user who has made substantial comments about keeping or deleting the article?      DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's on the user page rather than than the user talk page. (No big deal, of course.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI question
Hey DGG, do you think there is any need for a response from me at WP:ANI? I didn't notice this thread in the morning and then I was away from the computer all day; I have some things I could say but, to be honest, it looks to me like the thread is going nowhere and I can't tell if anyone is waiting for my response anyway. It seems to me that responding would just prolong an unnecessary argument, whereas ignoring it would let everyone get on with their lives; personally I'd prefer to just let it go, but if you or other editors have been waiting eagerly for my response then I can write something up. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 23:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * some of the things you said were not judicious, such as . True, others did equally poorly. You should simply lead the way in apologizing. It does no harm. What you should not do is start defending, for then it will indeed escalate, and nobody will come out of it all that well.  DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, to be honest, I don't see a need to apologize, as the editors raising complaints at the ANI thread now are those who were behaving very poorly at the AfD and deserved any criticisms they got&mdash;Draeco and Epeefleche have been very selective in sending ANI notifications only to editors who complained about me before, and not to any of the people who were not on their 'side' in the AfD (other than me). For the same reasons, I don't see any need to "defend" myself, and I agree with you that that would just make things worse anyway. So I'll keep my head out of that thread unless someone has a question for me. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 04:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Actually, striking that. Epeefleche has changed my mind. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 12:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I consider it always necessary to apologize when I have made a mistake, or misworded things, or said something angrily, or responded to provocation--at least when someone asks me for it. The thing that is needed after con

Eric Zaccar
Hello, …

There is a very contentious acrimonious discussion going on at Articles for deletion/Eric Zaccar, and I've just discovered that the article is mostly a copy&paste of http://eric_zaccar.totallyexplained.com/ … I would have stuck a copyvio on it, but that blanks the page, and I'm really not sure what the proper procedure should be in the middle of a AfD … the benefit of your experience would be appreciated.

Happy Editing! &mdash;  08:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My bad! … that site is a mirror of an earlier version of the Wikipedia article … never mind! :-) &mdash; 141.156.161.245 (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * well, it seems there was something for me to say there anyway.   DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion please...
I removed a prod from Turkmen v. Ashcroft. The contributor who placed the prod asserted the article merited deletion because it didn't indicate notability, and hadn't been edited in a year. Is "hadn't been edited in a year" a good criteria for deletion?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It needs exactly what you did to it, which was updating. It needs some more-- what has the court off appeal done since then? And I don't think this was the case the Supreme Court took for review but Ashcroft v. Iqbal?  (which of course is very closely related.)   But the early article was rather sketchy, so I cannot decide if it was a good faith prod by someone who does not know about the subject -- the recent and current Supreme Court cases about the continued detention of the Gitmo prisoners-- and therefore did not realize the importance, or whether it was POINTy. Looking at the record of contributions from that editor might help answer that.  This does accentuate the need we have for a process for regularly revising articles, or at least checking to see they need revision. It was a problem when I came here 3 yrs ago, and it's a much more pressing problem now. I think it much more pressing than removing articles that fall just short of notability, or even filling gaps. What we do have, should at least be accurate which in many instances means up-to-date.   DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice.


 * WRT to "filling in the gaps" -- you make a good point. There is that old aphorism, we don't use anymore because it uses ethnic stereotypes. Paraphrasing it I would say the wikipedia's quality control efforts are cursed with "Too many executive chefs, not enough bus-boys."


 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin needed
DGG, would you mind dealing with this? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)
 * Never mind; Juliancoltan got to it. Thanks anyway!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

RTTS
Hi! You seem familiar with Smerdis of Tlon (User:Ihcoyc) and have an interest in deletion policy. Are his points valid for Articles for deletion/RTTS? The article seems to have stuck to the facts, though admittedly full of buzzwords, yet Smerdis claims they are "obvious advertising." Smerdis claims that WP:COI has been violated, but that's a guideline about what might happen and a warning to patrol for non-NPOV, not an inherent reason for deletion. In Articles for deletion/Tomos Software pages, he's arguing for a user's page to be speedied, simply because he disagrees with the content! Is that reasonable? --141.160.5.251 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC).
 * these are in truth borderline articles. One unquestionably independent RS would make quite a difference. We need some way of judging. We need to know what other people think of it. A great many articles are considerably promotional when submitted, as were these, and I sometimes rewrite one or two a day, but I need to know that they[re important enough to be worth the trouble. I disagree with him on these, but not by very much.   DGG ( talk ) 21:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

John Driffill
Hey there! Thanks for validating my article on John Driffill!It was my first article and I think I did every mistake posssible :-P I'm going to work on it and make it descent, thanks for your advice and comments! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naelsmiley (talk • contribs) 12:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration comment
I saw your comment at WP:RFAR, and I think you mixed up User:Ryulong and User:Rjanag. The University of Miami thing involves User:Ryulong, while the arbitration is about User:Rjanag. Just a heads up; natural mistake to make. --Chris Johnson (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * too many conflicts in one day.  I will fix it.  DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries, it happens to the best of us, especially after a long day! <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 02:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It took me a minute to figure out what you were talking about, but now I see the problem. It's fixed. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 04:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And FFS, archive your talk page. :-P <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 04:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag Arbitration
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Requests for arbitration and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Requests for arbitration;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --Epeefleche (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Where to turn
Off the top of your head, can you please quickly scan the page California megapolitan areas and then look at the discussion on the talk page Talk:California megapolitan areas? JWB has resurrected article copy which is unquestionably unsupported original research and/or synthesis from the page history, after I acted to define the title of the first incarnation, SanSan, through redirection. Once SanSan was redirected to BosWash, merging with it the only verifiable information from SanSan, JWB opted to wait two days and then resurrect the old article as "California as a megalopolis", which I renamed "California megapolitan areas" because the entire state is not urban by any stretch of any fertile imagination. This article now possesses the history of SanSan, the talk page of SanSan, and was basically reformatted and dressed up with further unverifiable user-generated conjecture. I would like to know what you think about this, and what forum I should use to challenge these actions. I already asked Zsero about using WP:NORN and he said that it was for soliciting opinion, not for challenging article existence. This article is not supportable as is and contains nothing other than synthetic (mostly JWB's) copy. It is using Wikipedia as a blog, nothing more and needs to stop. Sswonk (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not think your redirect makes sense, and I have directed it to [California megapolitan areas; I consider the present article there acceptable.   SanSan is a particular postulated region, and not the same region as BosWash. If you want to try to write an article about Kahn &Weiner's coinages combining the two, it should be under a more general title.     DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding. I totally disagree that the article is acceptable, it is entirely unacceptable as an encyclopedia entry. Other than what is said about SanSan it is made up out of thin air and has no backing that is verifiable through any source given on the page. The rest is on the talk page in part already, and that is where the copy will be dissected as crap in the near future. "Traditionally California urban areas are thought of as two large megapolises"? The lead sentence? Please. Sorry, you are wrong. The time has come to stop people from writing using logic barely fit for junior high term papers, dressing them up with vocabulary and calling them encyclopedia articles. I'll ask someone else where to go to stop this. Sswonk (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can tell you that myself: If you think it should not exist at all go to AfD; if you want to see if there is support for changing the content, get another outside opinion by asking at the Workgroup or  at WP:THIRD; or you can try the OR noticeboard. Pick one route or the other.  As you now know, it is impossible to predict what others will say, no matter which route. My advice remains what it  almost always is, to look for additional sources.   DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats
Hi DGG. Now they are resorting to legal threats. Dr.K. logos 11:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have mentioned this at WP:AN/I, as customary in such cases--    DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much DGG but I reported it earlier at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. I am sorry I did not inform you any earlier. I also left a note at AN/I. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 22:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC))

Advice to Bhayduk
Thank you for your advice regarding the AfD comments. I am taking the Articles for Deletion discussions seriously and am attempting to address the concerns listed there.

Again, thanks for your help. Bhayduk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhayduk (talk • contribs) 19:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Passion Paradox
Hi. I needed to refer to this article today, but it's been deleted. Please could it be undeleted or a copy put into user area somewhere? I think the article was very well written and very useful, so I think Wikipedia is distinctly poorer without it. --Rebroad (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It was deleted merely as an expired PROD--a 7 day proposed deletion to which nobody objected-- and these are routinely restored at he request of any editor, so I have done so. An earlier somewhat more complete form of the article had material which might possibly be used to make an adequate, sourced article, without the  extensive quotation that caused the article to be shortened. Consider rewriting this material ,for in this form, I do not think it would survive an AfD. I advise you to do this very quickly.    DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation
WT:Sock_puppetry. - Dank (push to talk) 18:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Idon;t think I'll want to do this now--a subsidiary concern of mine.   DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Euclid D. Farnham
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Euclid D. Farnham. 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. Mickmaguire (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/David R. Hekman
What is your opinion of the h-test? Bearian (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * it is necessary to also look at the distribution of citations and other details.   DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Cape Cod and Islands
The reason that I wanted to delete it is that it is pretty uncontroversial in my eyes. I live on the Cape, and I have never ever heard that term used, partially because one would automatically add "the" into it to avoid being ridiculed. I didn't want to go through all the trouble with the discussion because it makes no sense to do so when it isn't all that big. I only consider something worthy if it is a person, place, or thing, but not a term that describes a region. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * neither have I, though I've only been there once. But perhaps others have.  The proper names for geographic regions have sometimes caused an unbelievable amount of controversy---even when ethnic matters are not at issue. So list it on the article  talk p. for a few days.  If nobody objects, let me know.    DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

C & G Computers
Hi, I noticed you recently deleted a page I started, C & G Computers. I understand it was deleted as it was considered advertising. This is a genuine company, and I didn't intentionally write it as an advertisment. It may have sounded like one because I got the information of the C & G Computers website, as I sourced. If you put the page back on, I will change it so it won't sound like advertising. Is this okay?  Jackelfive (talk) 09:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You need to do more than exist--you need to be notable enough to include in an encyclopedia The article was deleted for two reasons: first, there was no indication of any possible notability--nor do I see any from your website -- see WP:CORP for the standards.  You need to show notability  by references providing substantial coverage from  3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases.  Second, the article was purely promotional as it said nothing more than the services you offer, accompanied by the definitely promotional statement " A major part of Mr. [ ]'s  role includes the creation of humorous quotes, which adds to the company's unique and distinctive marketing style."    Unless you have sources for notability, there is no point trying an article. If you do, try again, but based on the website, I think it exceedingly unlikely.   DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  21:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  21:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)