User talk:DGG/Archive 34 Nov. 2009

Jan09,    Mar09, Apr09, May09 ,  Jun09    Jul09,   Aug09,  Sep09,   Oct09, ... , Dec09

Questions

 * Hi. I've left you two questions  here, spurred by today's 龗 controversy.  Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Al najah secondary school
Hi, DGG. I have rewritten Al-Najah Secondary School. Would you revisit Articles for deletion/Al najah secondary school? My suggestion is to keep the current article and purge the page history which contains attacks on the school's principal. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see another admin has already done this.   DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Kelana seri angkasa
You closed and acted on this, but the page Kelana seri angkasa was a redirect to Kelana Seri Angkasa‎ (proper case). If you could follow through on the article as well that will close the matter. Josh Parris 03:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * done--thanks, I had not noticed.   DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Journals guideline
There's an RfC going on here and it looks like we're running into some significant opposition. Perhaps you can have a look, too. --Crusio (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy
Commented at WP:ANI. Black Kite 22:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Lexis & JSTOR
Hello! I've seen you on a lot of AfD discussions and I've just read your talk page and seen you know a lot about databases.

I've been using LexisNexis and to a much lesser degree JSTOR when going through AfDs and when adding references to articles. I feel like this adds a lot to the discussion as it's a much more in-depth search for notability than Google news etc.

However, I want to ask you what you thought of these two databases but also how you integrate your use of private databases into Wikipedia. It's all very well and good me saying: There are 2000 sources which support this, but it doesn't seem to be of much use unless anyone else can see it, and I can't show them. Any advice would be much appreciated! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 03:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * They are no exactly databases, but collections of material. JSTOR in particular is a collection of backfiles of several hundred academic journals, mainly in the humanities and social sciences. Some universities have them all, many get only selected subject groups. They have the value the journals do, which of course varies--the wonderful advantage of this collection is that it is so easy to use and search, and any literary or historical topic will have something in it. Most libraries that have it, also get current issues of most of the journals, usually in print, but sometimes online.  LexisNexis is an aggregation of a much wider group of material: journals, academic and nonacademic, newspapers, and legal materials. Try to think of it in terms of the sources it contains, rather than as a homogeneous batch of material. Almost everything there is available in other versions and from other aggregations, but using it is enormously convenient.
 * The way to show them is to add them as references to the article. Give the full citation, including the actual source--usually the print one--the Jstor or Lexis link is just an added factor. There are some other databases for which this cannot be easily done--where the material is a dynamic page that cannot be assigned a url. Those ones are really problems. If there is a search string, it will probably include a part peculiar to your library, and anyone using it elsewhere may not find it works even if they have access. Sometimes, there is not even a quotable search string. Say whatever you can in the reference.
 * Remember that even print sources are usable, so if the material is accessible, it does not have to be accessible widely on line, or easily. The way to go in these cases is to try to include at least a short quotation or a long description, and be ready to furnish the entire material if needed. However, for almost everything there are multiple routes, and there is a great deal of material available freely on line which does not show up directly on google. Knowing the tricks to get these is part of the experience of a librarian.  One thing that often helps for academic papers: find the author's home page at his university: he may have a copy posted.
 * Is there some particular problem you have in mind?   DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice! It is much appreciated. I wasn't thinking of a specific problem but I was thinking about specific instances such as this one and wondering if I had been doing the right thing or if there was more I should be doing to ensure that I'm being thorough and fair about these things. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * as I said there, you should be doing more: you should be including the specific references in the proper format,and if they are not easily reachable, indicate in the text or the reference a bit of what they said about it--enough for us to tell whether it's a mention or a substantial discussion. Do it for every non-duplicative reference you can find. Add them to the article, and say you have done so at the AfD.   DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

do it now,
 * Ok! I've updated the article. I'm very sorry to keep bothering you but I really want to get this right. Is this the sort of thing you meant? I really appreciate you assistant in this! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read what I said to you about full references. You also need to specify where you found them (which is presumably Lexis). And it would hgelp to indicate the extent--either by inclusive first and last page numbers or by word count.   DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added the link to where the articles can be found on Lexis. I'm using the Wikipedia's Citation_templates to cite the content. It already has the number of pages which were written (where applicable) at the end of the citation but it doesn't have anything to help me add a word count. Is this going to be ok? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It'll do OK. I'll make some adjustments later.    DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bose wave systems
An article that you have been involved in editing, Bose wave systems, 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. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * an interesting group of nominations indeed; I have commented there my views of the notability, and the good faith involved.   DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

My Sig
With all due respect, I appreciate your opinion about my sig, but I like it that way it is. The font is Wingdings, if you mouse over the sections of it, you can see what the links are. Thanks for the notice though! — ASPENSTI — TALK — CONTRIBUTIONS  01:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Schlessinger page for WIPO lawsuit
DGG: I have added a section to the Joseph Schlessinger page. In the past, I have made entries which Hillhealth/joseph schlessinger has attempted to censor, which you sometimes accommodate. I have made my best attempt to compose something truthful, while simultaneously disclosing all the facts. Please take a look at at and tell me your opinion and I'll make adjustment if needed. ThanksTruther truther (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have edited it further - I think it's fine to have here, but it should be used to mention the WIPO case, and not to incorrectly state that Schlessinger stole research. The domain was clearly being used to attack Schlessinger (hence the anonymity/pseudonym and the WIPO decision), and it is not appropriate to shift those attacks to Wikipedia. The harrassment allegations are covered appropriately in the page, and the patent dispute is cover appropriately on the Imclone page (now referenced). Truther truther should also be careful in his assertions about the identity of other editors.Hillhealth (talk)


 * This is the only reference to the ImClone case on the ENTIRE PAGE. Joseph Schlessinger was a KEY witness in this lawsuit according to the federal judge CNN, USAtoday and money.com etc.  Its not meant to be any attack, just need to state the facts and INCLUDE the appropriate references.  Wikileaks is an acceptable news reference and there is no reason it shouldnt be included as well.  Truther truther (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * To include the case is OK, but this was an outrageously improper entry. i've fixed it per BLP. Truther, you cannot include something giving your own unsourced critical opinion of the WIPO decision. Nor can you say or imply that he misappropriated research.  I've commented on your talk page. Hillhouse, it would have been better to  have come here first, not tried to fix it yourself.     DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * understood. Regarding what was written being OUTRAGEOUS, I was almost DIRECTLY quoted what I read on Wikileaks and other sites; I'm NOT being biased, just stating the facts.  I already corrected some MINOR things with word placement and punctuation before I got your note.  content is the same.  Truther truther (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, your title for this section "Lawsuit about website" is nonspecific and sounds lame and unprofessional. Why cant it be "Lawsuit for josephschlessinger.com"  That is what it was....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truther truther (talk • contribs) 20:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WIKILEAKS DGG, I just looked at the WikiLeaks article that Truther Truther references. This is a horribly biased (odious and inaccurate) page that even stoops to linking Schlessinger to a murder case. It's unbelievable. When you have time, please take a look. I would like to ask that this reference - which seems completely inappropriate - is deleted. What is this WikiLeaks? Rather the deleting myself, I thought I'd ask you first - since Truther Truther will certainly object. Thanks Hillhealth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC).


 * LINKS Schlessinger to the murder case? No it doesn't!!  I'm sure you think Wikileaks is biased for obvious reasons... but according to WP it is an award-winning bona fide news site.  Quoting the WP entry on WL: "The site has won a number of significant awards, including the 2008 Economist magazine New Media Award"  Furthermore, everything it says about Joseph Schlelessinger is raw, but very factual ie not the "whitewashed" version as is seen in WP.  Truther truther (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look, DGG, and see what you think. For example, what is the 'some background', which should not be dignified with repetition, trying to imply. It's ugly and is just grinding the axe of the aggrieved.Hillhealth (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you going to grind your axe with FOX, CNN Wikileaks, CBS news The Yale Daily News and USAtoday as well? At some point all of this "blame on others/ playing the victim" becomes absurd.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truther truther (talk • contribs) 22:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have in general a very high opinion of Wikileaks, but in my opinion this particular material on Wikilnks is biased and defamatory, and i would advise any interested parties to get in communication with them; I think they will revise or remove it. In my opinion the way the material is introduced and discussed would be reasonably seen as biased, provocative, misleading, and defamatory, by anyone not involved in the situation.    We would never permit such material on Wikipedia nor will we link to it. I apologize for not having read it before I did my prior editing; I have reverted to an earlier version of the article,   deleted the later versions entirely, and protected against further changes for a short period. I shall ask a fellow admin to review my work.

However, the material about the site and the WIPO action can be mentioned if you can find a suitable reliable source for it--other than Wikileaks. If so, please suggest it to me, along with the intended wording.  DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * so your solution is to delete the WHOLE THING including the non-WL references AND remove the history? Shameful, Shameful, Shameful moderator behavior!!  Cant very well edit what isnt there can we?  Why are you helping schlessinger hide this information?  Are you in on this with him?  Is he somehow paying you off too??Truther truther (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I shall go back to this and see if there was another usable reference, and if so I shall add material back accordingly. WP policy in cases like this is to revert to a known acceptable edit, and then make necessary adjustments. If you think I am biased, I point you to WP:ANB.  I will bring this for review there myself, if you wish.   I think though you will find that the views will not be in your favor once admins read the posting on that site.  I have asked two admins, one who has worked on this before and one who has not, to review what i have done.  DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Schlessinger and WIPO decision I think it's appropriate and fine to mention the domain name protection decision - since it is an interesting case. The only reference required would be http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2009/d2009-0695.html This seems to cover it all, and seems to be all that is needed - without dragging up the things that led to the whole problem to begin with. I would invite Truther Truther to write something appropriate along these lines. Hillhealth (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * good. I will unprotect he article right now to allow for the improvements, and hope I will not be abused for doing so, and that my assumption of good faith will be justified.    DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * DGG, I think your protection and related admin actions (and yes, threats of blocking) are justified here, especially in a case that has gone on for almost two years. Protection (semi-or otherwise) of a BLP for a short time period is generally justifiable in such controversial matters.  Keep up the good work. Bearian (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Glagnorra Castle and Grimm Castle
I merged these two very short stubs into a larger stub. If you still feel it should be deleted, it probably should go to AfD. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I shall first have to look and see if the author & the novel are important. Normally an article about details in a work not discussed here is a good deal problematic, but for pre-1995 children's fiction I know that there are a great many major omissions and if so this is a chance to correct them. I've emailed you about something else.  DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

your message on my talk page
"could you please add the references in the proper form, giving both the full print publication information as far as you can find it (title, author, publication title, date, pages) and add the link to convenient online sources. If you cant figure out the form, add the info, and I or someone will fix up the format. Do as many as you can find, if you wish to support the article. See [2]. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)" My reply on the talk page: 'Could you please stop nagging me I have spent a lot of time on this and I'm still learning editing skills, and I'm not your employee.Rich (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)'

DGG, your implication and attempt to manipulate me is obvious, stupid, and unnacceptable.Rich (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What ? You have been editing an article, which I presume you would like to keep in Wikipedia. It has been challenged--not unreasonably-- at AfD; in some people's eyes, the references were not  enough to show the importance clearly. I agree they needed improvement in this regard.  I'm as often trying to rescue it if it is possible and appropriate.  Additional material has been suggested. I'm trying to help incorporate some of them properly, for some seem to be relevant & if done right, the article will likely be kept. I do have a certain amount of experience here is judging and formatting references in the somewhat unusual ways we like them, and have given dozens of people some assistance in it. As another editor just said on your talk page:  "I'm trying to save your article from deletion! if it can be helped."  I suggest an apology to both of us. But in any case,  no matter what you choose to say to me. if the article can be helped, I will continue to try to help it.     DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Stylus (computing)
Dear DGG, thank you for your swift action on this nomination and refusing the request. It was a false positive, erroneously attributed though my own fault. My sincere apology. Many thanks! Yours, Mootros (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag Conduct RfC
A Request for Comments has been opened concerning the conduct of Rjanag. This follows the suggestion of a number of arbitrators at the Rjanag RfA. I am contacting you because you are mentioned in this RfC, and discussed Rjanag's conduct at the prior RfA and separately directly with him.

The RfC can be found here.

Editors (including those who certify the RfC) can offer comments by:
 * (a) posting their own view; and/or
 * (b) endorsing one or more views of others.

You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.

Information on the RfC process can be found at:


 * RfC Conduct
 * RfC Guide
 * RfC Guide 2
 * RfC Rules

Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I'll sit this one out.  DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. I'm just (in an overabundance of caution) trying to make certain I've notified everyone who (from the prior RfA, RfC, and/or AN/Is) may possibly have interest in commenting.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Astrotheology
You are very easy to bump into! I've just tried to create an Astrotheology article and the page is protected, deletion review says I should discuss this with the closing admin before I put it up on there. I can't see the old version of the page so I can't be sure that new evidence has come to light but after reading through the AfD for the article I think mine is very different (at least I hope it is!). My new version of the article is here. I used citations with links from the start this time! Please let me know if either you think you can unprotect the page with this or whether I need to go back and work on it some more. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at the history of the article, it will be more of a problem than you may realize. There was considerable debate over the meaning of the term. I have pasted the text of the  version deleted at AfD on your temp page. & also two versions of the talk p.   It was deleted as a result of the discussion on June 6 2008 at, which will explain the problems with it.  I did not comment at that discussion. I deleted the latest version simply because it was   identical to the deleted version at the AfD.  A discussion at AN/I is also helpful.
 * I do not consider the new article adequate in any case. It's just 4 different definitions. Some of them  are  possibly idiosyncratic uses. They are sufficiently different that if any of them is more than a single use of the meaning, it would need a separate article to describe it.  If it was only used once in any particular meaning, it belongs in Wiktionary. What you would need to do is the following:


 * 1) . find other examples of the Catholic church use of the term
 * 2) . you need the original reference to the 1714 work. I found it in the deleted version-- It ought to be in Google books.
 * 3)  explain how Col Fleming used the term, and whether anyone else has ever used it n the same sense. He does not seem to have been a philosopher or theologian, if it's the same person as in our article on him.
 * 4) ditto for the discussion of Plato: is that an idiosyncratic use, or is it widely used in discussing Plato?
 * 5) . As for your sources, include a quotation from them using the word so there is some idea of what is actually meant. You'd need this for wiktionary also.
 * It should be obvious from the deleted article that, unless you are a expert on 18th and 19th century Christian theology, you'll have considerable difficulties working with this.  Myself, I know enough that I probably could, but I can not say I want to work on this one. My preliminary opinion is that Hrafn's comments are probably correct.  After you've finished with it, you can ask me to delete the temp p.    DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, thank you very much again for your help. With the old article and your points in mind I will start updating it!
 * Secondly, and slightly more awkwardly, I mentioned this to User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry at about the same time as I mentioned it to you last night (he adopted me for help so I asked him before I looked at the deletion review page, which was more than a little silly). He looked at it and unlocked the page as he thought it was fine. I will not touch the page until you say so but I thought you should know so you that could re-lock it if need be. My sincerest apologies for the mix up! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 23:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * that's OK, though it is really better to ask one person at a time *or let us know) so we don;t duplicate each others work investigating it. . His comment was "new non-G4able, half decent article promised in place". Opinions differ: I'd call it much less than half at this point. Please be aware that when you do insert the article, the people who thought the previous one nonsense will be very likely to notice. Maybe you can do this right--nobody said it was impossible, just difficult. They can any of them send it   to AfD again, and nobody can predict what will happen at an AfD discussion.     DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Film Victoria
Hi. I noticed your comment on the AfD for this article. Just letting you know that the article has been expanded further. Thanks!  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * should be ok now.   DGG ( talk ) 14:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Child Left Inside Act of 2009
The nominator of Articles for deletion/No Child Left Inside Act of 2009 suggested that "a bill alone is not itself notable". You may wish to comment on the article itself or the broader question of notability of proposed legislation. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * yes.   DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

re: deletion criteria
"Promotional, G11, is reserved for articles serving primarily a promotional not informative purpose, that cannot be readily improved by normal editing" - which is exactly what this article is doing. The only encyclopedic information I can read out of it is limited to the first two lines. Maybe we can improve it so it becomes a stub, but then it would still fail WP:N and WP:V. Victão Lopes I hear you... 01:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I left the author some pretty strong advice to that effect. If it doesn't get improved soon, I agree it will not be able to stand. I didn' look for references yet myself, but if the author doesn't, it's everyone's responsibility, & I would never nominate for deletion in an unfamiliar field at least without doing this--for all I know, it might be very well known. Neither WP:N or WP:V are speedy criteria.   DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC).
 * The article is way much better now, after Eastmain's edits. There's no need to delete it anymore, I think... Victão Lopes I hear you... 14:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

ConceptDraw DRV
All ConceptDraw DRVs was speedy closed in spite of your vote and the vote of Tim Song. Very democratic way. :( CSOWind.195.138.71.154 (talk) 07:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I disagree with the concept that when a banned editor requests something, we delete the articles they enter afterwards, and reject the process steps they submit. The consensus is against my view, and  no other close was likely. The accepted argument is that this is the main deterrence we have to acting that way.  Considering the extensive puppetry efforts you did, there might be something to be said for it after all.     DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * May I explain you the situation from my side? I'm not trying to hide my COI or use proxies, I behave by Wiki rules, I wrote articles which were approved by Wiki admins and after that suddenly all of them deleted by Hu12. Moreover, my account is blocked because of bad history of ConceptDraw products in Wiki (but I was trying to fix this situation) and the existence of other accounts from this IP (VPN Internet gives us a single IP for all workers, but only I'm writing about our products, no puppets at all) and I'm evading block (write from my IP not using proxies) only for appealing and discussion. My goal is to provide useful and objective information about notable products that will met Wiki requirements. The existence of articles about our competitors products (which are far more promotional and have less references) confirms that it's possible. Could you please give me any advice concerning this situation? I don't want to make things worse. Many thanks in advance. Sincerely yours, CSOWind. 195.138.71.154 (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Janet Allison
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Janet Allison. 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. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to thank you for your comments there. You said somewhere that you struggle to keep up with basic fire fighting jobs, I appreciate that you prioritized writing an extensive rationale at the DRV. Thanks. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ondine
Important! - Round up what few ballet enthusiasts you know on Wikipedia and get them to vote on the proposed merging of the Ondine articles that would see the article about Frederick Ashton's production of the actual ballet, being merged into one about the music.

See here: - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music

Crazy-dancing (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have forwarded this timely message from Crazy-dancing to you. — Robert Greer (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Cross-Sell
Hello. I see that you deleted User:Cross-Sell/cross-sell last night. You may be interested in User: Vincs89/Cross-Sell and the discussion at Requests_for_feedback. Certes (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * commented there.   DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for ConceptDraw articles
An editor has asked for a deletion review of ConceptDraw articles. 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. Tim Song (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You probably will see it anyway, but an extra notice never hurts :) Tim Song (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I went to see Bright Star this afternoon, and I see things started to happen. People really interested in Wikipedia should neither sleep, nor take recreation except by trying to get the most amusement possible at our processes.    DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

GamePanelX
Can you PLEASE archive your talk page (It took me ages to load it ;) ) .Should I AFD that page ?It looks like an article about a website/company advertising their game server (I'll stop csding pages for a while and study wp:csd, check others csds )-- NotedGrant  Talk  10:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Schlessinger comment and proposed revision
Hopefully everyone has had a chance to cool down here. The bottom line here is that Hillhealth=Joseph Schlessinger who has already been banned several times using several different sockpuppets in the past for making disruptive edits. (see page history) Whomever you may believe hillhealth is or is not, doing, he is trying to CENSOR information about Joseph Schlessinger so you will have to decide what should/shouldnt appear in the article. I understand that the BLP cannot use anything that isnt verifiable my major news sources, which is why I used major publications.

Anyway, I have really stripped the section down to the absolute bare minimum (from memory, since the cache was destroyed) while still disclosing the facts. I had to reference the patent lawsuit because it appears nowhere else on the page. Check the references; they are bona fide. The reason I have no references to the sexual harassment lawsuit because it is already addressed in the Personal Life section. What are your thoughts on the following?Truther truther (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed addition follows. Please do NOT edit it. If you need to make changes, make another section below so they may be easily compared. Thanks. Truther truther (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Lawsuit for Josephschlessinger.com
In 2008, the site www.Josephschlessinger.com was registered to host links to court records and transcripts, which focused on allegations of Joseph Schlessinger's sexual harassment lawsuit and 2006 patent lawsuit   involving $900 million in royalties between the Weizmann Institute for Science and Sanofi-Aventis/Imclone, in which Joseph Schlessinger was a key witness, according to the presiding Federal Judge, Naomi Reice Buchwald.

Joseph Schlessinger brought his case to the World Intellectual Property Organization, in order to remove the site, asserting that he owned the common law rights to "josephschlessinger.com". The site was removed accordingly. This decision has been criticized on several legal blog sites as well as Wikileaks as a possible First Amendment violation.


 * I certainly did edit it, and I advise you that I am going to block you for 48 hours for adding this link --not just here, but also to your talk page and to the talk page of the article--after you have been specifically told by  three admins not to. It contained a link  which can not be used here, for while the site as a whole may be acceptable for many purposes, this particular link  is devoted to the presentation of information about a living person in a destructive and prejudicial manner. Anyone who wants to compare can find the earlier version in the page history--unless I ask to have it removed by oversight. The relevant policy in this case is WP:BLP DO NO HARM.  It applies everywhere, user space also.  What you need to complete the paragraph is some Reliable published source saying that it has been criticized on Wikileaks, (in my opinion a RS would be more likely to report that it has been attacked on Wikileaks) and also that it has been criticized elsewhere. For references to academic legal journals discussing the matter, those links you can and must supply or that statement too must be removed. You may add them here after your block, or perhaps someone else can supply them.
 * Your request above not to remove the material here I see as an attempted end-run around our policy, and BLP is a policy where we particularly do not permit this sort of wiki-lawyering.
 * If you continue in this manner, I will consider it essentially a personal vendetta against the subject, and the editing to be in bad faith., and you shall be permanently blocked.

I have mentioned this block at WP:ANI for comment, in case i am not perceived as being neutral.  DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"The Block"
Hey, I don't mind if you merge (or even delete) the entry I just created on "The Block." I created it because I noticed that other significant plays ("The Fumble," "The Drive", "The Catch," "The Tackle," etc.) all have separate entries, and I thought this play was just as significant as the others. If you want to cancel it out, go right ahead. There is really no reason to merge this with the 1967 NFL Championship Game entry, however, as virtually all the information I included in this entry came from that article. After you remove this article, I assume that, for consistency's sake, you will go ahead and delete those other articles as well.

Thanks, Ernie Ernie Scribner (talk) 03:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * that's not the way we do things: 1/there is additional information that seems mergable: the book. 2/What's your evidence that the play is known by that title?  If it is perhaps only referred to by that title in the book, I'm not sure that it is enough, but I would leave it to the experts, whom I would notify. Those other articles have references. 3/I do not go around deleting sourced articles on my own initiative-- nor merging when I am not completely sure,   I tagged it so others would see it and judge    DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Mr. Goodman, I just read your user profile, and I must say that I am not only impressed with you, but I have a tremendous amount of respect for you. As I said, I have no special interest in keeping or deleting this article.  I was motivated to create it only out of a sense of completeness.  By the way, I have heard this play called "The Block" for at least the past 30 years.  I cannot cite any scholarly sources to back that up, but I can direct you to a Washington Post article written by Jonathan Yardley and published on November 15, 2005, that says, "The Block, as it came to be known...."  The Post article can be accessed online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/14/AR2005111401570.html

Ernie Scribner (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * that may indeed change things, and I will review it in a day or two. But remember my recommendation for a merge is only that: a recommendation, of no more authority than any other editor.   DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am hardly what one would call an avid fan of football, but even so I have heard this play referred to as 'the block'. The play definitely passes notability.  That doesn't necessarily mean it needs its own article - that would depend on whether anything addition can be said about it, a question which I am not able to answer at the moment.  In any case, I went ahead and added it to the relevant disambiguation page (The Block) as it certainly warrants mention there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * then the thing to do would be to add the above reference, and make the cross-link from the main article on the game. And this is working just the way tagging things should, in order to start discussion, and the way challenging suggestions or actions should, to get a reasonable outcome. (I saw the article, btw, when someone complained at AN/I that the admins needed to do  some more NP patrolling. That seems to have worked also.)    DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated
Hello, DGG, since you're an admin and a librarian, I would like to get your input for this a little heated dispute at Talk:The Emperor's New Clothes. I first tried to put down a flame between and  regarding some scholarship to The Emperor's New Clothes and the authors. However, in doing so, I feel I need to fetch someone who can make Kathyrncelestewright understand usages of unfree sources (only texts). I think she misunderstands or misreads WP:CITE. She insists that sources such as Project Muse that requires for some fee can not be used as citation, so removed a seemingly good content several times. I'm also concerning her warning message to her opponent, Critic11. Although Critic11 did not properly cite his sources or make tide them, given his sporadic contribution to Wikipedia, he seems ignorant of how to use Cite tags. Therefore he needs some guide, not deserving this intimidating message. Critic11's behaviors are also not good, but well...their feuds expands articles that Critic11 edited or created. So your help would be highly appreciated. Thanks.--Caspian blue 20:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the valuable input. However, the flame between the two user is still blazing fiercely...--Caspian blue 23:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello DGG I agree I should learn the particulars at WP a bit better and I will try. Thank you. I would also like you to ask Kathryncelestewright not to take out her frustration by tagging academic sites; claiming "citation needed" for things like graduation dates on a public source gives the impression that the academic is lying or claiming things that aren't true. I feel that her actions are petty and she is not operating in good faith. I understand that I am partly at fault here, but don't take it out on Robbins.Critic11 (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I've done some considerable work on The Emperor's New Clothes recently but have been bugged by a Critic11 who appears to have ownserhip issues and repeatedly insists on loading material into the article that is unsourced or poorly sourced and loading that material into her own separate section called "Recent scholarship." Recent? By whose standards? Anyway, I'm trying to develop the article for GA and these gnatty little bit and pieces are counterproductive. So far, I've given Critic11 every little thing its heart desires but apparently it's not enough. He/she/it continues to belabor the point and loads counterproductive posts to my talk page. I've asked Critic11 to stop and have contacted an admin. I can't make progress with "You have a new message" flashing across my screen from Critic11 every half hour. Your insight and advice would be appreciated. Best! PS I've developed several GAs and assisted on two FAs.Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Katheryn, I agree a "recent scholarship section" is not a great idea--the material is usually better integrated into the article. But putting it in as "additional reading" isn't any better-- move it into the commentaries with the other criticism. However, Critic is right that those cite tags were inappropriate, and I removed them. A person's official CV is sufficient sourcing for routine unchallenged facts. I've seen only one case here where it was deliberately false, listing a degree that was not received,  & we deleted the article.  And in general,  it's appropriate to mention all major academic criticism, and simply state in neutral terms what the people say, rather than trying to judge it. The way one gets to  publish books and papers in the academic humanities is to dispute the interpretations of other scholars.


 * Even more generally, Critic and Katheryn, you are two of the rather rare editors here working on substantial academic topics--you should be cooperating! the sort of academic conflict I mentioned above is out of place here--what you need to do is help each other and try to include all positions. It might help for a while if you avoided working on the same articles, but I really hope that after a pause, you'll be able to work together again. Even in the academic world, the rule is to take -- or pretend to take --the harshest criticism as if it were a friendly comment.    DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

How do I communicate with you? Critic11 (talk) 05:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Chronology of Star Wars
An AFD discussion that you have previously participated in has been reignited. See here for the new discussion.--chaser (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Input requested
Hi DGG

If you can use your tools to look at sources relevant to Articles for deletion/Steve Murdoch, it may be illuminating. Note that I am not requesting that you opine in that discussion (though you are welcome to do so, of course), but rather to provide information to which you have access that not generally available to editors.

Regards, Bongo  matic  01:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I;'ve been there. FWIW, I found it necessary to use only resources that are freely available to everyone.   DGG ( talk ) 14:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Bongo  matic  20:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Josefina Tanganelli Plana
I have expanded the text of Josefina Tanganelli Plana, with 2 references. --1997 (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Niall McLaren
Thanks you so much for your advice on how to make the article better, I definitely agree that merging the article was a great idea. I will now try to get to the bio and cutting down the article. thanks, user chrisscrewball —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisscrewball (talk • contribs) 08:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Re: your comment. A8 UDI  00:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Polite Notice - Possible solution to Ondine merging
I am creating this notice to invite all interested parties to vote on the proposal to merge Undine (ballet) and Ondine (Ashton) to a new article at Ondine (ballet). You can read the discussion and add your vote to the poll at:


 * Discussion
 * Poll

Look forward to seeing you there to help resolve this situation, thanks! Crazy-dancing (talk) 11:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ondine merging
I've just replied to your message on the Classical Musical talk page, about the Ondine merging, but I just wanted to add that I hope you can understand my reasons for rushing a decision through. It was purely about ending the stalemate, because although I've only recently got involved, I've been following this debate for a while and it certainly is not new and had only been going round in circles up until now. My approach has been along the lines of "less talk, more action" and even though that might not be 'the norm' for such discussions, I also know that it is within Wikipedia's policies for editors to be bold if it services the common good. I think the fact that we have a compromise is more than enough to demonstrate that my actions have had a positive outcome. Crazy-dancing (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand  BOLD--it refers to making a bold edit to start discussion, not to trying to short-circuit it once it begins. As I read the recent history of that talk page, WT:WikiProject Classical music  you canvassed selectively, and then when called on it, asked some people from outside, and then closed quickly before their ideas can be discussed.  Getting a good result can be done by better methods than this.     DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * With all due respect you are completely painting me wrong there, most likely because of the way my canvassing was reported to portray me in a very unfavourable way. Yes, initially I did canvass selectively without prior knowledge of the rules.  However, the poll that I canvassed for was abandoned immediately, as soon as that issue was raised.  The proposal that was then put forward and voted on was completely fresh, with all participants on both sides invited to vote.
 * And again, perhaps you think I was too quick to implement the changes. To be honest, I do not apologise for that.  I pursued a quick resolution to the problem, and the result is, we now have something that is workable and in the best interests of Wikipedia.  Perhaps your interpretation of the guidelines on bold editing is different to mine, I'm not going to get into a discussion about that, but as long as we end up with a good quality article, what is the problem?  I realise you might feel that you did not have enough time to have your say, and that I do apologise for, but perhaps you can accept that I did it for the right reasons, regardless of whether or not I followed the 'conventional way of doing thins'? Crazy-dancing (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course you did it for the right reasons. That does not change the effect it has. Many beginners,  after something like this, never come back to Wikipedia (I'm not a beginner, so don't be concerned about me).  You have too narrow a goal. The goal should be, not just to resolve this particular problem, but to encourage participation in the project. No one of us by ourself  cannot write all of Wikipedia, or even one of the projects.
 * More generally, this is about project autonomy.  The only way of coping with the size of Wikipedia is to divide up the work into sections, but we have no formal way of co-ordinating sections--no editor in chief. We depend instead on openness, and the willingness of all projects to not merely permit, but to encourage opinion from Wikipedians in general.     DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is comment by another WPedian at .   DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not really interested in reading any more views, I just want to get on and work on the article. I might have been a bit rude and obnoxious, and people can criticise me and tell me I should be ashamed of myself as much as they like, but it's just the way I am, take me or leave me.  As far as I'm concerned, it's finished, forgotten, in the past, no harm done.  Whatever their (and your) opinion of me, I would happily make you all a cup of tea and biscuits, have a nice chat and just forget about it, but clearly others don't feel the same way and want to drag this on and on, so I'm happy to just do my own thing and let them do theirs. Crazy-dancing (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Kathyrncelestewright
Hi, DGG, if you have a time, could you look into this case? Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime turns out to be a sock of banned user. However, Kathyrncelestewright has written 6 GA articles and other good articles, and some of them are speedy-deleted based on G5. Would you give your opinion as to the deletion and soon-to-be-deletable articles at User_talk:MuZemike? Thanks.--Caspian blue 07:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
MuZemike 17:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you please take a look at Jeffrey Hyland's page
Hello there, DGG. I have actually managed to keep up with this article to try to make it stand because of your guidance & helpful suggestions in the past. Thank you for that. I hope you’d have a moment to take a look at its current progress. I've also collaborated with other editors/admins who've been very accommodating. I wouldn't have done the right things without their support as well. Like OM who's been guiding me through some things recently. Current issue is the citations/sources to verify the subject’s notability (acceptable citations). It’s one advice that OM asked me to work on last, which I did. It’s just … he’s probably a little caught up with other things now to provide me some feedback. I hope I was able to provide enough of it to finally sort out the article’s current issues. I’d truly appreciate your inputs. Jxc5 (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * At a quick look, I think you did enough to show notability. Now work on the tone: change every mention of his name to he or him or his, and of the company's name to "the company". As for details, are you asserting he is the founding member of Christie's, or one of the founding members? I am not sure the image gallery is pertinent here. Since the images are on commons, perhaps they could be better used to illustrate the articles on the people. Don;t link common words like "history". And aren't there  reviews of the book in major publications?    DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the prompt reply, DGG. I did everything that you advised to further improve this article.  I've added some book reviews from some major publications.  And-- he is "the founding member" - changed it to that.  As for the images, please let me see what I can do as per your suggestion.  Thank you very much. Jxc5 (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

PlaviKit.com
Can I ask what you were thinking here? Really, "America's largest online retailer for books from former Yugoslavia" as evidence of notability? Seriously, "online retailers of books to America which are based in Yugoslavia" probably encompasses PlaviKit.com and Yuri Gregorovich, who traded Windows 95 for two goats and his wife. I'm America's largest retailer for idiocy from the former democratic republic of Pinner - do I get a free pass? There's inclusionism, and there's facepalm-prompting judgement calls. In my opinion, this is one of the latter. Obviously, I have no right to critique your actions as an administrator, and the community has repeatedly shown that I'm not to be trusted with making those kind of calls, so feel free to disregard my statement. On the other hand, when your name becomes a benchmark for a particular kind of blind inclusionism and you get multiple complaints about your calls of judgement, maybe it's time to consider I might not be the one in the wrong here. Ironholds (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't evidence of notability, but an indication of possible importance. Notability is not the bar that has to be passed at CSD, and I merely agree with the consensus view that indication of importance is a much lesser bar  there have been many such discussions there.   Asserting the major market share in a trade is an assertion of possible notability. Such distribution can be significant, your absurd straw man examples notwithstanding.  Obviously, I disagree with your characterization of myself. I suggest you take another look at my deletion log, the articles for which I !vote delete   at AfD, and the Deletion reviews where I !vote to sustain a deletion.  About 60% of articles at AfD get deleted, & I think that's about the right proportion.  As for complaints, most of the complaints I get about speedy are from people whose articles I deleted, not about article I failed to delete.  Disregarding your comments about myself, what you did was correct,  prodding the article. I will try to find something in the way of sources. If I cannot, I will let the prod stand.     DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

reinsertion of declined speedy templates
Hi DGG

There is a long stream of speedy-nominated articles from which I removed the db-banned template. Later, those templates were re-added and the articles were deleted by [|Wknight94].

It is my understanding that once a speedy template has been removed, an article is no longer eligible for renomination, but I am unable to find support for that in the deletion process document. Am I wrong?

Thanks, Bongo  matic  01:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two problems. first, about G5. is a problem. Such deletion is permissible, but not mandatory, and a single good faith objection should be enough to require AfD.   For one particular example, see .  There are some admins who would make this mandatory and automatic, but there is no such policy. What you describe seems to be an attempt to implement it without consensus.   The thing to do first is to discuss it with the deleting admin.  It could possibly be defended as a special case, since this particular group of contributions is so problematic, and the socking so extensive--be sure you;'ve read the discussions about how to deal with this editor. The relevant general policy is at  :""Renominations: Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions, mentioned below." We may need stronger wording.    DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * G5 is inherently problematic&mdash;punishing banned editors by worsening the encyclopedia. Hard to understand the point. Bongo  matic  10:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * G5 looks OK to me, in principle. It only applies to pages with no substantial edits by others, and it allows others to remove the tag, so long as they then fix the page.  How much after you removed the templates were the pages deleted? Regards, Ben Aveling 11:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What does "fix" mean in this context? We're talking about uncontroversial, solid little summaries about works of fiction, sourced to predominantly offline references. The deletion was about a day after. Bongo  matic  12:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, discussion with the administrator did not work. See User talk:Wknight94. Bongo  matic  18:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've commented. But remember that this case is complicated by the extreme nature of the socking involved.  The proper course, which you have started, is deletion review  for every deleted article worth doing. Ben, there is no rule requiring us to use G5, merely permitting it.      DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi DGG. I saw your comment at MuZemike's page, but not at the DRV. <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  23:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

DGG, can you please userify these for me? <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  01:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * considering my comments about the appropriateness of the deletion, I consider myself too involved. Please ask someone else, for the sake of my avoiding any possible impropriety.   DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair 'nuff. Will wait until there's some traction on the DRV before doing so. <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  02:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Founding races from the Malazan Book of the Fallen series (2nd nomination)
The decision to close this AfD as "Delete" seems very harsh to me. Thought I'd let you know the decision, and I wonder what you think the best course of action is, seeing as there are two basically identical articles for different races in the series which should now be deleted if we are to go with the closing admins decision. Alan16 (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For better or worse, Wikipedia does not even pretend to be consistent, or to follow such a minor precedent as that. The other ones need to be AfD'd individually. It has happened that even such totally analogous afds get treated  differently--it this case,  unless the same admin were to close again, it's unpredictable. The argument  is response to such a nomination is very simple: the other one was wrong. there's always deletion reviews: but in practice there may be better courses here  than a deletion review--I would try combining the content of the three articles.    DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Maltese nobility
Hi. I saw your old comments re notability for Maltese Nobility. Please take the time to see the reformatted version just in case something's been missed. There's also a new page Foreign titles of nobility in Malta. Have a nice day. Mobile historian (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Royalty_and_Nobility.   RGTraynor  16:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Adamantius (journal)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Adamantius (journal). 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. Cirt (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * so I did, and I then noticed Guy has closed it after 11 hours. although I think the deletion should be endorsed, I consider this premature discussion. I asked Guy to revert it, which he declined. As he raised no objection to my doing so, and even suggested that course, I have reverted his closing.   DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Check_Game is currently up for deletion, along with this and 94 other Price is Right games
You are welcome to comment in this deletion discussion. You are being contacted because you participated in the first AFD in 2007. Ikip (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering
Any idea what's happened to Uncle G? <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  02:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

== Fribbulus Xax's RfA

List of Sierra Leoneans
In what way do you think the title needs adjusting? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * it could probably best stay as is-looking at the category, Category:Lists of people by nationality, there seems to be no standardization, and if there is, it is to the  format you have.    DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Reinsertion of deletion templates
Hi DGG

While there is support in policy for the non-reinsertion of speedy deletion templates after removal by editors who are not the creators of articles, it seems not to be required by that policy. Given the explicit prohibition on reinsertion of prod templates, this seems illogical. How to change?

<sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  20:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The normal place  to propose a change or clarification of the rules for using speedy  is on the talk page for CSD. Since it is not clear that there would be consensus to change, there is likely to be considerable discussion. But I would not advise doing so now--it will confuse the matter with the particular issue of handling this batch of problem articles-- the discussion is likely to reflect the immediate issue more than the general one, and the immediate issue is being discussed at several places already. Opening yet another at the same time is not a good idea at all .    DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I've seen several good proposals fail mostly due to it being clear the proposal was made b/c of a specific "hot button" issue.  Better to wait for the incident to fade from people's memories in order to avoid partisan votes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, gents. <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  02:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

==

Articles for deletion/Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe (2nd nomination)
Dear DGG, concerning this article, please see here, i.e. the specific topic is the title of at least one book. Thank you. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 13:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting that that 'book' is a reprint of the Wikipedia article.  pablo <sub style="text-shadow: 3px 3px 3px rgba(255,255,0,0.75); color: #c30;">hablo. 15:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * right. that company is reprinting groups of Wikipedia articles on a subject and reselling them, with a minimal indication they were taken from Wikipedia, but not containing proper author attribution.   anyone does have the right to resell articles from here, even commercially, but the way they are doing it is considerably deceptive, if it can fool even experienced contributors here.    DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Concerning the same discussion though, as for what is mergeable, please consider Battles_of_macrohistorical_importance_involving_invasions_of_Europe and Battle_of_Lepanto_(1571). Hanson's quotation that "To sixteenth century Christians, the sudden muster and vast size of the Christian fleet at Lepanto were proof of Christ to resist the Muslim onslaught" demonstrates the religious significance of the victory to the comabtants and would help flesh in that short section of the main articles.  The entries on this list contain various such examples that indeed are not duplicative of the main battle articles and for which we can actually augment those battle articles, notice references that appear in this article at Battles_of_macrohistorical_importance_involving_invasions_of_Europe, but not the individual ones:


 * Battle_of_Thermopylae: Grote and Grant from this article could be used in the battle article, which does not cite them.
 * Battle_of_the_Metaurus: The battle article has few references. The content cited from Davis in the list article is different from the citation in the battle article.  Thus, this and possibly the other reference from this list would add new content/sourcing to the battle article.
 * Battle_of_Chalons: The list article uses Fuller and Davis, which again, the battle article does not. Merging these items would certainly strengthen the sections of the battle article on importance/aftermath.
 * Battle of Toulouse (721) contains NO internally cited statements, whereas the list article features SIX citations that can be used in the battle article, thereby taking an article on a major battle with no footnotes and adding at least six to it.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * replied there. You;re right about reusing the content. You remain  wrong about the acceptability of the article as a whole, or even the concept of such an article. I'm a little puzzled, because this is such an exception to your usual  arguments.,where you provide sources.    DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A number of these battles are significant for the reasons listed as seen in The battle of Salamis: the naval encounter that saved Greece--and western ...‎, i.e. they are battles concerning invasions of Europe that are famous for having macroshistorical importance and that scholars have descibed as such in book length tomes. I am not saying that we must keep the list as is, but that there is 1) material that can be used elsewhere, which makes outright deletion counterproductive and 2) there is the basis for something else, like a list on "battles considered the most important ever" or "battles considered 'decisive'", etc.  In that larger context of "most decisive battles of history," we could base a list on works like this for individual inclusion.  Or if we went with "battles considered the greatest", we could use such works as this and this.  Again, my concern here is that the AfD is just not adequately following WP:BEFORE by exhausting ALL possible other options.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have struck my comments at the AfD as no longer applicable to the present state of the article.   DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. I have actually unwatchlisted it as it appears that those who just don't like me along with those who don't like Richard Arthur Norton have mass flocked to the discussion and that it is no longer a reasonable discussion and that they are perhaps baiting me now.  I expect any reasonable admin would look beyond the numbers there and either or both fulfill S Marshall's request for userfication or allow for the merge of the non-duplicative sourced content to improve the individual battle articles listed above as outright deleting in the case actually would prevent the use of some of this content from improving other articles.  No reasonable editor could possibly support outright deletion given S Marshall's (an editor in good standing) request for userfication or that I indicated some specific references that would actually benefit other articles no one will seriously contest.  This is one of these instances where we can see those who are being serious and open-minded and those who will still say to delete just to either "win" the argument, frustrate me, or whatever even when it means shafting another editor and preventing other articles from improving.  As such, thank you for keeping an open-mind and striking your text.  Kudos to you and have an enjoyable afternoon!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Afd ALD518
Hi DGG, now ALD518 has been expanded, could I invite you to reconsider your recommendation to delete at Articles for deletion/ALD518. Thanks. Rod57 (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you mean to vote twice (11/17 and 11/21) on the nCircle promotion DRV? I'm not the WP expert you are, so there may be good reasons for doing this. I'm just mentioning it in case it was an oversight. You obviously do a lot of work here! Sfba (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * fixed, thanks. I had lost track. It's even more embarrassing when I !vote twice, but differently.   DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)



Effecting change
Attentive cultivation, judicious pruning and patience produce the best results in bonsai and in other activities as well. --07:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC) by User:Tenmai

Suspected blog-promoting sockpuppet
DGG, I understand you are an administrator. I'm seeking admin help on a situation I don't know how to handle. I suspect User:Johnmakers11 and User:Georgehenderson1 to be the same person. Both usernames have made edits within the last month to the Michael Larson article, and only that article. Both usernames have added a section to the article which refers to a three-month-old blog that has only ever had about 1000 visitors (and thus cannot be notable). After User:Ashley Pomeroy initially removed the section, the blog author proceeded to [ redacted link l badmouth Ashley Pomeroy] on his blog. In addition, in the same blog post, the blogger strongly hinted that he was the editor who originally added mention of the blog to the Michael Larson article. In his reverts of the section's removals, User:Georgehenderson1 has made mean-spirited comments which appear to me to be consistent with the mean-spirited comments toward Ashley Pomeroy on the blog. --JHP (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * not worth a Sockpuppet investigatione via the formal method. I will deal with it by deleting some of the abusive revisions,   protecting the page for 2 weeks, and blocking/warning.  We cannot control what happens on outside sites, but if anything resumes here, let me know if I do not catch it myself.     DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, DGG. The Michael Larson article gets few edits, so I doubt a two week protection will cause any disruption. Since the problem seems to be only one guy who edits with newly-created accounts, it's possible that making the page semi-protected so that only established users can edit it may also do the trick. However, I have no idea how established someone has to be to be considered an established user. He might find a way around that. --JHP (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is only 4 days + 10 edits, easily accomplished. It only works to prevent the  trivial sort of immediate drive-by vandalism. That's why I didn't semi.  Since he's been obviously changing account names, he could do it again (tho I did block account creation from whatever his ip is-- We cannot find   out what it actually is without checkuser, & it isn't worth asking for that--and of course he might easily use another computer).    DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki request
The instructions [] are a bit confusing, but apparently I need someone with access, that being an administrator. I want to copy all the information, history and all, from the Total Annihilation page to http://totalannihilation.wikia.com/wiki/Total_Annihilation Also, Total Annihilation: Kingdoms as well, since legally I'm suppose to preserve the history. I'll then fix the templates and user boxes after its copied over again.  D r e a m Focus  23:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no experience with this. Nor do I have experience with Wikia at all. as I read it, unless you use "import" it does not require an admin, and if it did it would be an admin on the remote wiki.  DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I responded on my talk page how to do this dream. Ask Thadeus if you want more details, he is the expert. But I dont think you really need more details beyond what I said.
 * Visit the wiki's Special:ListGroupRights to find admins who can import the information which you exported from wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Rudolf Yanson
Thank you for your message. For Tibetan, it is my area so I add articles about people who I know are famous. For Burmese it is an area I am moving my research into, I am a neophyte. I add articles about people who I come to know about. As for Yanson, his university affiliation can be confirmed on the title page of many of his essays. There is a short bio in Justin Watkin's book _Studies in Burmese Linguistics_ (or something like that) from the 2000s. The fact that he is a dean I read on-line someplace, in a bio for a conference home page, now I can't find it. For his invitation as a key-note speaker I have a copy of the poster advertising this conference. Yanson's books are collected by most major university libraries we have them here, and we have them in the library where I went to univeristy. It can be tricky to find him of course because of different transcriptios systems. Yanson, Janson, Ianson, etc. He romanizes his name Yanson. Tibetologist (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the transliteration may be the problem--I will check further. the St. Petersburg Department home page has him as Chairman of the Department, and I think that will be good enough. I see he is Dean of the Faculty of Oriental Studies, not  Dean of the Faculty for  St Petersburg University--which would have been more important--but it does explain things, because European Universities do not normally have a position corresponding to a US Dean of the Faculty or Provost.  .  Can you link me to the catalog record for one of his books, and I can take it from there--or tell me your university  --by email if you want to keep it confidential.  In general, in looking for notability for academics in the humanities, we need to find at least two books published by major publishers and reviewed in journals in the subject--this is not the formal requirement, but given this, it is usually possible to make an adequate defense. I  doing further articles, keep this in mind. Book reviews in these subjects can be hard to find, bit a specialist librarian can help--oriental languages is very far from my specialty & someone who is, could do it better. If you like, I'll be glad to explain to them the sort of thing thats needed.   DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to his most influential book

http://discovery.lib.harvard.edu//?itemid=%7clibrary%2fm%2faleph%7c001443413

and here is the other book that comes up in Harvard's catalogue.

http://discovery.lib.harvard.edu//?itemid=%7clibrary%2fm%2faleph%7c011202422 added by Tibetologist


 * OK, I see them there and on worldCat, . (Harvard does not contribute its holding  there). Names beginning in Я are a problem. The second one is one where he is the junior editor with Osipov  of a Russian translation of Burmese short stories.  DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Project on Charlemagne
hi there! i just wanted to seek your advice on whether i could embark on a mega Article - descendants of Charlemagne - with some help from the others. Would you mind helping me with that?? It could be a detailed list of who in europe's royal families have descent leading back to Charlemagne.... and could link to ALL the articles about descendants of European monarchs. can you please guide me through this?

Thanks Alot

Nirvaan ( talk ) 12:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.195.48 (talk)
 * Based on your editing experience, I think you know the problems involved. As you are aware, & as is shown in the article German monarchs family tree-- supplemented  by the ancestry of Hugh Capet and of Berengar II of Neustria, essentially every Western European monarch and ruling Prince is a descendent, real or probable--though of course not in the male line, and not for the first few generations of some of the dynasties.  The existing charts show it adequately, though some of the information is based on older less-than-fully-reliable sources. What might be a good first step is to add for the article Carolingian Dynasty a section on how the other   dynasties are connected to it.  This might usefully be expanded into an article of the key relationships.  For a comprehensive table, there are major difficulties in constructing one of the necessary size that can still be downloaded by all of our users.  Certainly you cannot expect it to give  paragraph long descriptions of all of the members, like some of the existing tables. The other problem, is that this really needs to use authoritative modern academic sources--and as you know most of them are not in English. Is your German  &  French up to it? As for mine, I would have problems in reading the more complex academic texts, especially the German.  Wikipedia articles on this subject rely heavily on   the  Almanach de Gotha since the older editions are conveniently accessible online. But I think historians consider this   of dubious reliablity. There is also  Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels and the recent Europäische Stammtafeln, the German article on which explains the limitations of all of them: "da nicht selten spekulative Mutmaßungen" ("the frequent guesswork").   As for modern popular sources in English,  G. Hindley's The Royal Families of Europe did not receive good reviews, but R. F. Tapsell's 1983  Monarchs, Rulers, Dynasties, and Kingdoms of the World. from Facts of File is at least from a reliable reference publisher.
 * My own view is that the most critical line of work to pursue is to improve the existing articles on European royalty with proper sources and rewriting of outdated interpretations--some of ours, even on such important figures as Catherine the Great, still rely mainly on the old EB, which is only slightly superior to the handbooks. The second most critical is to add proper articles where there are missing figures. Most of them do have articles in the other Wikipedias, though the de and fr Wikipedias often have an even more casual attitude towards sourcing than we do.    DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: ArbCom
Would you support my plea to ArbCom  for further analysis of the Evidence provided by EEML in their own defense, at the Evidence Page? If so, I would appreciate your comment in talk, along the same lines.  Thanks. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  22:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not going to say anything. It's too late at this point, for one thing, and they have never shown any inclination to listen to anything I have to say, for another.   DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ouch. when DGG loses all faith in wikipedia, everything is surely doomed. Ikip (talk)
 * not Wikipedia, just arb com. & in fact, I never said but that they might be right to ignore me. I don't seem to think the way they collectively do.    DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing gears somewhat: Rather than focusing exclusively on ArbCom as a results-driven process, perhaps there might be value in construing case development as a kind of arcane choreography?  To illustrate the allusion, I wonder what you might see in the artwork incorporated in three Nobel diplomas, e.g.,
 * Metathesis as "dance" -- illustrated in Chauvin diploma, 2005 Nobel Prize in Chemistry?
 * Metathesis as "dance" -- illustrated in Grubbs diploma, 2005 Nobel Prize in Chemistry?
 * Metathesis as "dance" -- illustrated in Schrock diploma, 2005 Nobel Prize in Chemistry?
 * The serial elements of ArbCom's process might be parsed as a kind of variant metathesis even when the ultimate outcome seems flawed -- perhaps especially when the endgame is opaque? --Tenmei (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Coda: See Metathesis (linguistics)? I'm not sure if it helps to be so explicit? If so, good.  If not, please set this aside as overreaching. --Tenmei (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2009
 * All procedure by its very nature is a formalized sequence of procedures: We nominate for deletion, we discuss it, we come to a conclusion, we delete it--all with subprocedures and customs. I derive it from the steps in a mating ritual, intended to make sure that only two animals of the same species mate in order that there can be viable offspring. It doesn't always go right, but the alternative is chaos. The larger the group, and the greater the consequences, the more exactly it needs to be specified, but there is always a balance between type I and type II errors: in this context, penalizing someone who shouldn't be, and not penalizing someone who should. Fortunately, Wikipedia at its worst offers less dire penalties than the RW.  In this specific context, there is a great virtue in getting the case closed. The result may be better than expected. Ireland worked, so might Eastern Europe.    DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for the questions, they helped properly put me through my paces. And thanks for your discretion over my poor choice of words, sorry for that. Fences &amp;  Windows  22:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

restoration from email question
Thanks for that second option. I've never restored an article from email before - is it difficult? --Malkinann (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * the point of it is that you can use the material in writing the new article. As you'll see if that becomes necessary, you get the wikicode. You shouldn't just paste it in a edit box since someone else wrote it & if there's no restoration he won't be credited,, but you can use the information there as a guide to how to set up the infobox & what the references are. You will want to do it in userspace first. But I fully expect the article will simply be restored either to mainspace or your userspace.    DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I wasn't expecting to have to use DRV for this, it's pretty open-shut in my mind too.  It wasn't notable before, now it is, so the old stuff should be restored to make the article better as a whole. --Malkinann (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Evolution & Development
The article on this journal is currently at Evolution and Development, but it seems to me from the journal's homepage that the correct title is Evolution & Development. I cannot move it, because a redirect exists. In addition, when I look at the history of the redirect, it seems like an article already existed, but I cannot figure out whether it was moved or copied to the current title. Perhaps you could have a look? --Crusio (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: just had another look, looks like Pustelnik created the Evolution & Development article, then realized it already existed at "Evolution and Development" and copied his new text there. So it should not be too difficult to move the "and" article to the "&" one, I think. --Crusio (talk) 11:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I have moved it back. Pls put a note on the talk page.   DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Brain and cognition
Someone created a redirect of Brain and Cognition to Brain and cognition and I cannot move it back over the redirect, I think. Perhaps, yet again, you can help. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * done   DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
--Joe

Milivoje Kostic
Authors are selected to write encyclopedia articles and invited to write reviews as notable authorities in their specialties. Surely if this is good enough for an encyclopedia and for a professional journal to select this professor as notable, wikipedia's standards should not be so different. After all, we're not claiming to be experts, while the editors who select authorities to write encyclopedia articles and the editors of professional journals who invite experts to write reviews are experts in their fields. If experts decide he's notable, wikipedia's standards should not be so different that we decide against the experts. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Help POS Software
Dear DGG, would you please help me to verify if there is still any spammy part in the article. I have made several changes. But from our normal users' perspective, it would be so hard to see any spam that administrators can see. Thank you very much for your time! --- JohnWiҚi 2008 19:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to DGG so much! I have added more citations to support every sentence of the article. Is it ok now? I do need your further advices. Million thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwiki2008 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I made some additional comments there.   DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Auto-Archived
Hello. This was auto-archived over at ANI. There doesn't seem to be much happening at RfE either. The editor in question has continued to edit and looks like they've breached their topic ban again. Is there much likelihood that anything more will be done? G ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 16:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * what is the latest breach? The page move?  It seems to have been possibly right, but an exception to all the other pages in that group. It seems interesting that a good deal of it concerns the IRA etc. The instructions are to move the section back, and then add an a comment about this. You can do this by cut and paste., and explain what you have done,  the actual edit history remains where it always was, in the ANI page.  As an alternative, open a new discussion linking to the old one.     DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thats done now, thank you for the advice. This diff which another editor (and I after looking at it) believes to be in breach of the resolution of their first RfAR:-
 * ''Lapsed Pacifist banned from affected articles
 * 1) Lapsed Pacifist is banned indefinitely from articles which relate to the conflict in Northern Ireland.''


 * The article contains details of two IRA bombings. G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 22:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

<= Hi. That fell of again so I restored it. G ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 15:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment: Should DGG archive his talk page?
Bogus tag:

Several editors have asked DGG to archive his talk page, should he?
 * Support as proposer. Ikip (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I I will do it. but then remenber to check by topic archives.   DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thought this may get your attention :) Hope my joke got at least a smile :) Ikip (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong support. There are 255 threads on this page at last count, and it is 505 kbs long - res ipsa loquitur. Tim Song (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * support  NotedGrant   Talk  08:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. His talk page is over 500 kbs long. December21st2012Freak   Happy Thanksgiving! 20:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Support After all, Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB as WP:SIZE puts it! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ABSOLUTE TOTAL CAPS-LOCK-SCREAMING-LIKE-A-BANSHEE-WITH-WAY-TOO-MANY-EXCLAMATION-POINTS-AND-HYPHENS-SUPPORT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! David, I get carpal tunnel just trying to get to the bottom of your page; Think of the poor talk page stalkers! -- Avi (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Crashes my browser, so I was forced to simply type  at the end of your talk page's URL to edit this! – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If it should happen again, just edit the final sefction, or add a section with the + tab. There are ways to work around even people like me.   DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Louis Lesser
Was wondering if you might reconsider your delete at Articles for deletion/Louis Lesser, largely in the interest of welcoming a new editor. There have been bumps in the road, but the article author has been making a good faith effort to improve the article about a clearly notable subject, and the nom and others have started to change their minds at the debate and User talk:HkFnsNGA. Regards, John Z (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * yes, see my comment at the AfD.  Thanks for letting me know,  DGG ( talk ) 06:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

List of cities, towns, and villages in Hungary (A-M)
Hi there DGG,

Thanks for removing that PROD off the article. I could have done so myself but of course it is always best to have another pair of eyes.

I am not sure if I prodded N-Z also, if I did, the prod can be removed for the same reason.

I am slowly going trhough these and find that the numbers there do not accord with the Hungarian Central Statistical Office (KSH). With help from User:Rich Farmbrough we have templates now that give links to the data, and are slowly going through all the articles to add appropriate figures and expand them, the missus does the translation and I do the fixup and scaffolding. So we end up with better articles instead of just almost empty stubs. I am not saying the articles are brilliant cos often there is not much in HU:WP either, but they are better than they were.

So, my difficulty is that the figures on the list do not match the figures in the articles. Even if those figures themselves are incorrect a bit, I should hope the two would match. If they do not, the article seems worse than useless, or should we just delete the columns for area and population if they are generally erroneous?

BTW { converts the Hungarian rank (rang) to English equivalent. We were not entirely sure about how to translate as "town" or "city", considering that in Britain a City is a very large settlement but in the US is used for basically anything larger than a postage stamp. This usage I believe is also inconsistent in the lists.

I appreciate your help here and any views you have I should be glad to hear them. Just trying to make it better. Si Trew (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * what you need to do is to evaluate the data and do the best you can with it. It is routine for population data from different sources not to match exactly. Wikipedia has not fqced properly the need to revise it's data periodically, and it's going to affect every one of the articles on geography. I compared a few articles, and the figures in the list in the Hungarian Wikipedia do not match those in the articles either. But at least some of the Hungarian articles give data said to be from 2009: e.g.,   gives a population of 4657. The corresponding list there gives 4574; the english list copies the Hungarian list. the english article gives 4596, with a 2001 date. In a case like this, I would of course use the 2009 figure from the Hungarian article, which is sourced to -- which is apparently the source you refer to above. Fortunately for me, the headings for the columns there are in English, and I see that 4657 is the correct number. I would now update the figure in the list and the articles  giving the relevant date. The articles are in a sense more important, but it might be easier to update the list and use that to update the articles. If you can manage that with a direct link, all the better.


 * as for the administrative unit, use whatever is appropriate for Hungary. In the US, city means both a certain type of administration and usually a certain size; town can mean anything, and village means anything small. Every state in the US has a different system. I'll look more specifically tomorrow,.    DGG ( talk ) 07:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know, I have moved to, and SPEEDYed the former. I leave it here for the record but it should move, I expect, as an uncontroversial move (I was a bit fly with putting "name" at the end of all these.)


 * Well I checked Acsa and Abony and Ács and their populations are larger than the whole country, i.e. in the millions. This is not simply a formatting error under e.g. WP:MOSNUM, though they use spaces not commas, that is not my main bugbear, they are obviously just completely wrong. One does not have a small village with over fifteen million people in it. Something has really gone wrong here in generating this list, but I am not sure quite what. I am guessing that whoever generated has whacked in the postal code or something, but that doesn't fit either. I will get to the bottom of it, but it is not making any sense to me right now. Once I sort out what has gone wrong I will fix it, but it is a puzzle for me right now. N-Z no doubt the same but I'll stick at trying to puzzle this one out, I am sure N-Z will be the same.


 * And I am not sure why they are split what do you think? List articles are allowed to be long cos they are, er, lists, I think I will conjoin it. Si Trew (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't seem to see the same numbers you do: Let's take Abony: what the English list shows is 15,814; the articles shows 15,681 --  the Hungarian article shows 14,498 -- assuming Teljes népesség means overall population (which is the Google translation), so I don't see the millions?     DGG ( talk ) 16:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Editor assistance
Hi DGG, I was wondering if I can bother you for a moment: apparently the word "alert" is a POV term in Exnora International, according to one editor. It's probably not worth all the fuzz, but it's irritating me. Do you mind having a look? I'm getting exasperated. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * not POV, but not the ideal word--however, the articles was generally a little promotional, so I cleaned it a bit.    DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks DGG; I appreciate the help. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Better references definitely exist....
I have begun a re-write of Ashes to Ashes (2010 film). Covering over a decade of coverage, it is by no means finished, but please review it at Ashes to Ashes (Goldie Hawn film project). Your input would be most appreciated.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * good job. No one person can look behind the article on every nomination, so I am very glad you did it here.   DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)