User talk:DGG/Archive 51 Apr. 2011

Since you !voted in one Econ hist AfD...
I'm curious how far your inclusionism goes at Economic history of the Christians and Economic history of the Muslims. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

An Intimate Knowledge of the Night
Since you removed the prod on An Intimate Knowledge of the Night, I just wanted to inform you that I have opened a AfD for the article. Every search I could come up with found nothing to indicate notability; I don't believe that the author meets the special criteria carved out in WP:NBOOK #5: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." Qwyrxian (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Oy veh
/. Bearian (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, DGG. Please look into Bearian's recent revert edit summaries (see User_talk:Bearian) and tell me if they were called for or not. I trust your judgment. Bull dog123  06:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * replying on Bearian's talk p.   DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

.

Bulldog123
DGG, please see this thread that Bulldog left on my talk page. Please examine his edit history; I provided important links in my response. Bulldog123 is clearly a single-purpose account and is now a galactic disruption on the project because he simply insists upon an outcome (purging Wikipedia of articles that classify and segregate humans into categories) when there is clearly no community consensus for that. Greg L (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read the comment I left Greg L, it was only imploring him in a civil way to leave me alone (and in return, I would do the same) -- which any other editor would have agreed to... if Greg L's whole intent here wasn't shopping for a block. Bull dog123  20:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that when some editors have pointed out disruption by Bull, he has sought to bargain with them -- he won't interact with them if they desist in pointing out his disruption. Another approach he has used to intimidate an editor commenting at a discussion is to threaten the editor.  Neither of these approaches seem to be the ideal ones, IMHO.  There is more on this subject on Bearian's talkpage.  But -- in short -- there appears to be a clear history of disruption on the part of Bull, including hounding and mis-statements on his part and other disruptive editing.  This isn't in the interest of the project, as a number of sysops and editors have pointed out.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * there are a number of people around here whom it is not possible to intimidate. But I I learned very early on in my service as an admin never to block my opponents on an issue. That does not prevent me from giving an opinion if someone else wants to do it. I ethically certainly could take the matter to an/i, and ask someone else to, but I never even do that. If someone else should, they will, and I can and shall support them.    DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

MystiCon and trouble with interlopers
David, take a look at the bottom message on my talk page. This guy needs some supervision from an admin, if not an outright block, Check the associated AfD for the back story. Thanks. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to stay away from this issue for a while. I have explained this as best as I can to both of the other adverse parties, both of whom appear to have an emotional attachment to this article which would be worthy of a Saturday Night Live sketch. Time to let admins and others explain to them what I apparently can't. I'd go get a beer now, 'cept I don't drink. :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I recommend chocolate.   DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: feedback on Allan Wicker article
Many thanks for the thoughtful suggestions. I am revising an article incorporating them and will submit it shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profallan (talk • contribs) 17:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

John Donaldson
Hey David,

Saw your removal of the speedy deletion for John Donaldson, and thought we might talk about that. Other than having fathered a daughter who married well, Donaldson appears to be one of literally thousands of ordinary college professors. Even the Danish Wind position was one that he awarded himself. What might be your guidance on this? Thanks!
 * In this case I doubt the consensus will be to accept the notability as the father of Mary Elizabeth Donaldson, but whether he meets WP:PROF requires some more investigation    DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed RfC
A formal Request for Comment has now been started on this topic. Feel free to contribute; best, Ironholds (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Umm, you made a rather unfortunate typo in your endorsement of WereSpielChequers' comment. It's not very important, but I thought perhaps you may like to fix it. Danger (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks; I've done worse. Feel free to correct anything obvious of the sort you may see in any comment of mine.  DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

International Osteoporosis Foundation
Thank you for your recommendation that the International Osteoporosis Foundation page be returned to the main space. Deletion review/Log/2011 March 30

The consensus of the admins who responded to my request for a deletion review was that the page User_talk:Inyon011/International_Osteoporosis_Foundation was not spam and should be unprotected. But I’m not sure what happens now – how do I actually get the page back to the mainspace? I imagine this is something an admin has to do – are you able to do this? Thank you for you advice, which is really appreciated. Regards, Inyon011 —Preceding undated comment added 10:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC).
 * The discussion is not yet concluded. It has to be formally closed, normally after 7 days.   DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for getting back to me so quickly on this. Regards, Inyon011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.180.187.57 (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Darlie
Just FYI that DarlieB reverted to her preferred version at TMWWBQ today and left a long series of comments on the talk page. DanielKlotz has undone the edit, but I wanted to make sure you knew about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made a statement on the talk page there which explains why I do not think I should be involved further; my feelings about one of the participants is too intense.    DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to hear that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Timecamp
The original author contested your PROD, so I've listed the article at AfD. I figured I should let you know. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 16:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you review
Rabbi Pinto Information seems to be getting ignored. 2 major recent features are longest stories ever written on Rabbi Pinto.

Rabbi's right hand man who owns property with the rabbis wife and has power of attorney for Pinto - rabbi’s translator, gatekeeper and conduit to the outside world in America is a longtime pornographer. The Rabbi is revered in the United States and Israel for his financial advice, especially in real estate, Suky’s own real estate business has faced a string of lawsuits, foreclosures and legal judgments. And while Pinto is an ultra-Orthodox rabbi, his adviser’s involvement in the pornography industry would seem to run counter to the tenets of modesty espoused by traditional Judaism. http://forward.com/articles/136819/#ixzz1J47HjPxA

Additionally no mention of $60 Million organization and 3 employees. Is noteable. Pls assist, http://www.forward.com/articles/136250/ 65.112.21.194 (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.21.194 (talk)
 * I had seen the latest article, and meant to get there--I'll do it today. But information about his associates such as you mention is not necessarily relevant here, Please see WP:BLP--we have, as we ought, some rather strict requirements for biographies of living people.    DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No disrespect, DGG, but aren't all contributions of all banned users supposed to be deleted immediately? This user (Babasalachai) has a history of canvassing any person who gives xem the slightest hint of help (me, for instance) to push a very strong agenda, possibly on behalf of a NYC PR firm.  This user was community banned, and there assistance here is no longer wanted or allowed.  And just to clarify, I concur with Diannaa that this is the same user--there are some key behavioral issues, not to mention the specific information being discussed, that make it clear this is Babasalachai. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He's not contributing to an article, he's asking me to look at an article. I think it's fairly well known that when I look at something, I do what I think should be done, not necessarily what I'm asked to do. I will look at anything someone asks me on or off-wiki to look at, and I respond to OTRS requests rather similar to this.  People who approach me to canvass tend to get frequently surprised, and I do not regard anything here as canvassing.   What I care about is following our  BLP and NPOV policy, not who it is who asks me questions.  Are you trying to tell me I have so little judgement as to edit BLPs or anything else according to what a PR firm tells me to do? There are a number of PR firms who by now have found out quite otherwise. I subscribe to the Forward myself, I regard it as a RS, I have previously edited BLPs and other articles using it as a source. As I think I said above,    I did in fact see the first  Forward article before he came here, and I certainly intended and still intend to check out what the Wikipedia coverage was.  The best thing now is to give me a chance to examine it. . Of course, if it is already being handled adequately or someone else on OTRS is dealing with it, there will be no reason for me to step in also.     DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't mean to imply that you would not treat the article and sources properly per policy. In fact, your work on AfD's and articles in general has very significantly improved my perception of ARS, as your work is impeccable, reasonable, and also highly instructive.  I apologize if you thought I was implying that you would be an easy target.  My point in explaining Babasalachai's activities is that part of the reason xe was banned was because of behavior like this (i.e., socking to get around being blocked in order to push an agenda), since I don't recall you being a part of previous discussions about Babasalachai and his many socks.  So my feeling was that it's really important that Babasalachai get the message that the community is no longer willing to have them contribute to Wikipedia in any way, shape, or form, because that's what I thought that banning meant, although I could always be mistaken.  If Babasalachai were complaining about potentially defamatory information about a BLP, xe might possibly have a slight defense, although I think that OTRS would still be the proper path. But, in this case, xe seeks to add highly negative information about a living person, tarring that person with the negative behavior of people around him.  Again, I don't mean to suggest you'd be taken in by the banned editor; rather, I'm just trying to assert that there does not seem to be room for an exception here.  I don't know how banning can work if we say "You're banned from Wikipedia, but feel free to keep socking to canvas people whom you think might assist you".  Finally, just because I can't reiterate this enough, I hold your work in the highest regard, and have no doubts about your ability to edit properly, so full apologies if you felt I maligned you. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * always OK to disagree with me, and I never resent it. I apologize for sounding a little rhetorical above, but i did it for the record, not to express my doubts of your intentions. If you'll look at my response, even before I knew who it was, I said pretty clearly what sort of materials would not be included in the article, even if sourced. I do not agree that  the proper  interpretation of banning policy that we must remove even the good work from a banned editor--it rather says that we may. In this case, it was to a user talk p., not article space. and the person to decide in the person whose p. it is. . I recognize that it can serve as a reason  for them to keep socking, but  if someone is determined, they will continue even though it keeps getting discarded. My own view is that if anyone shows up with decent materials, we should use them. We might want to rewrite the article, to remove them from the contribution history, but the blanket removal of articles of good subjects is an error.  Anyone can edit if they can do so properly, and if they can show they're willing to do it properly, maybe we should unban them. And  if they do it well enough we will never catch them,in any case. Personally, I think we are much too easy to ban, and we do so because we are unwilling to apply smaller sanction evenly and fairly when they will do some good,, so things escalate. And then, having failed to do anything about it, we exact the supreme penalty.    DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC).


 * I have read through your rationale, and I disagree with you. The policy says that all edits, good and bad, should be reverted. Obviously helpful edits such as reverting vandalism or correcting typos need not be reverted. That is not what this user was doing; he was spamming talk pages and notice boards in an effort to persuade people to edit the Rabbi Pinto article. This is not congruent with the spirit of what the ban was attempting to achieve. -- Diannaa  (Talk) 18:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * final comment heret: "good or bad" as a dichotomy makes no sense, except as applied to articles. "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems, due to their participation, outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason. This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." -- anyone asking me to pay attention to a BLP is, in my opinion, being helpful--if their motive was bad, the results of the notice will nonetheless be beneficial to Wikipedia--as will be the case here, for I am now on watch about some inappropriate material.     DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (stalker comment) this scorched earth upon "un-users", is profoundly anti-intellectual. i salute your consistent, "do least harm". to the extent that they don't listen to you, they harm wikipedia. 98.169.249.2 (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you help
Basically, today, I looked at the recent changes section, saw an edit that was vandalism and went to revert it to find it had already been done. Then I checked the contributionss for that IP and looked at the other page on the contribs (there was only 2 contribs). I then checked the edit history for that page (Monroe High School (Monroe, Ohio)) and fount that it had a history of being vandalised by a user, TheJohnnyCash. I looked at their contributions, all of them are vandalism on that page and I considered a request for blocking but didn't for two reasons, one, there aren't enough recent edits to justify it, and two, all the edits are to one page, so I wondered if there is anything that can be done to restrict an individuals ability to edit specified pages, as opposed to blanket blocking.

So basically in short, is there anything that can be done to stop a vandal from editing specified pages rather than stopping them from editing all the pages on Wikipedia?

Thanks, User:ConconJondor talk contribs 17:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * this has been discussed from time to time--at present the software does not have this fine-grained functionality.  The feeling is the  trouble & overhead of developing and using software for screening each article in Wikipedia to see if that specific editor were blocked for it, would be excessive.  We do have a work-around in the form of edit filters, which detect certain types of changes from ips or new editors, but each of them causes  a very slight  delay in the processing of every edit to Wikipedia, and the time can add up to something noticeable, so only a very exceptional troll is worth targeting specifically.  The way to deal with a user such as the one mentioned is to give a higher-level warning, and I have done so. If there's a repeat, the previous warning will be seen,  and I, and most admins, would have no hesitation in blocking as a vandalism-only account.  There was a little associated vandalism that had not yet been spotted, and I have dealt with it in the usual way. The basic solution for vandalism is for the good people like you who are  watching, to greatly outnumber the people causing trouble. There is little wrong with Wikipedia that increased participation will not help solve.   DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Full protection?
There isn't an edit dispute, is there? Don't see need for full protection - semi will do just fine.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * some of the related vandalism is by an autoconfirmed user. Its only for a few hours to break the pattern.    DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please give me an example of that autoconfirmed user's vandalism on that page (I cannot discern who it is)?Jasper Deng (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you'd prefer I handled it differently, I'm not going to argue about something like this. changed to semi.   DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Appeal
Dear DGG, please, could you help me with article European Wildlife ? It is nominate for deleting, but I did everything, what editors told me last year. Thank you very much. Danny Worker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny Worker (talk • contribs) 08:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

AN/I
This is to inform you that there is an AN/I in which I have quoted you here.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

PolkaSpots Supafly Wi-Fi
Hi, just wondering why you've marked my article about PolkaSpots down as advertising? I'm conducting research for my course over here in the UK and discovered that PolkaSpots were missing from Wiki. BT Openzone, The Cloud and more exist so my entry seemed perfectly reasonable? There was no fake advertising, I'm a college student! Could you let me know how I go about writing about a company if I'm not allowed to put any mention of the company?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anguswright1981 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * reply on your user talk page.   DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(UTC)

Mentor
Hi, my name is Alexi (user: Delviniot). I'm a student at Indiana University, and I'm in a class on international development, which is participating in the public policy initiative. I am interested in working on an article on international aid or maybe the practice of monetizing food aid. Would you be interested in mentoring me as I write this article? Thank you! Delviniot (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * sure . Check your user talk page for some advice .   DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have begun my article. When you have a chance, could you give me some feedback? How does it work when articles go public? Thank you for your help.Delviniot (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the feedback. I made some changes to the article.  For the next part of the assignment, I am supposed to get feedback from the Wiki community.  How would I go about making the article public?Delviniot (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It just moved it to Monetization of U.S. in-kind food aid.   DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RHM22
Hi David. I understand you  comment, and it's much appreciated,  but  I  won't  be changing  my  !vote just  yet. In fact your comment  makes me wonder if the policy  should be more clear. For my part as a new admin, I  would never issue a punitive block, even broadly  construed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In general I think we block too much, for a properly worded personal warning will work 90% of the time. But when someone ignores it and insists on reinserting spam, I know myself well enough to admit that my annoyance at being ignored assists the  basically preventative intention to put an end to it.    DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Mariano Etkin
Please do not just use html comments to hide copyvio text as you did for this article - it should be removed entirely. It's still available in the article history if they need it on-wiki for some reason. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I sometimes do so when I intend to rewrite relatively soon, and I wish to make certain that anyone who might want to delete the article will be more likely to see there is substance. I have seen others do so also, others whose standards I know to be rigorous. I consider it a perfectly legitimate method of proceeding in appropriate instances, as is the similar method of moving it temporarily to the talk page. But your note has served the useful purpose of reminding me to look at the article.    DGG ( talk ) 20:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Your claim seems wholly without merit
Please explain your basis for this claim. If the only notability is already contained in the article and the person has since stopped his career, your claim seems wholly without merit. --Anthony Blunt (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What's to explain? It's quite clearly mentioned in Notability (sports). Eeekster (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, before suggesting that articles be deleted for lack of notability, it is a good idea to read the relevant guidelines.   DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You claim that the article needs expansion. I simply ask you to explain the reasoning behind your claim. --Anthony Blunt (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We are an encyclopedia. Though the bare statement and evidence for the key factor that makes for notability is enough, we also want some additional information about the important aspects of a person's career. Otherwise the article is only a stub, and, though that is sufficient as a minimum, we want more than that when we can get it. . Additionally, the reference apparently needs to be fixed. I think you are basically saying that you don't think we should cover him at all, because we can not write as complete an articles as we might desire. But the principle is that Wikipedia grows, and what the available people and resources here cannot do now, people will  be able to do in the future.    DGG ( talk ) 14:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously, having now read the notability guidelines, the subject is notable. I just think your statement is presumptuous if there is in fact nothing else of encyclopaedic interest or notability about the subject than was has already been written in the article. This is in fact the case since (based on news articles on the Internet) the subject has ended his career. --Anthony Blunt (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Tyrone Cummings
Hi, FYI, User:DGG/Tyrone Cummings is getting some edits from the original author recently. Cheers, Amalthea  08:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have deleted it. Cheers, Amalthea  13:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Devine band
Have an issue with a new user taking AFD tags off an article he created and I sent to AFD. I've reverted twice, and left messages, but I am not getting across to the guy. I don't think he means to cause problems, is just new, and my experience with you (from a couple years back) has shown you to be more persuasive in these situations than I am. Don't want to bump the issue up unnecessarily as it isn't malicious, just ignorance, that is at play. If you have the time, that would be swell. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do.   DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying, I see he just removed it again for the 4th time. I will leave in your capable hands.  Dennis Brown (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * didn't work. Sometimes there is no way to prevent someone from internally escalating. Though blocks are preventative, all they can prevent is a recurrence.   DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/RHM22
DGG, you've both supported and opposed here. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 19:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * interesting what can happen when you revisit a matter.   DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've had a few times where I've been thinking supportively in day two of an RfA, but then decided to oppose when day six or seven came around. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 19:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * and the other way also. But if I've opposed I always go back to check; I do not always go back when I've supported--probably I should, when it's much contested. More and more I think that how someone handles the questions at RfA is a good indicator.  DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Colin Hatch has been reopened as AFD on my initiative. If you feel like it join the discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like you to look something over...
There have been too many instances where the subsection WP:NFF of the guideline WP:NOTFILM has been treated as if it were an immutable and ironclad policy, rather than as a part of a guideline that like all others encourages treatment with common sense and allowances for occasional exceptions. In attempting to address these continued misconceptions, I have written the essay Future Films. I would like you to look in and advise if you wish. Thank you,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Edwin Howard Armstrong award
Hi DGG. I see you recently edited and removed a prod from Edwin Howard Armstrong award. The link you provided and the reason you removed the prod appear to relate to an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Communications Society award wheras the award that is the subject of this article is awarded by the Armstrong Memorial Research Foundation, making them seem like two different awards. Do you think I'm reading things right and this article should be deleted and maybe replaced with the IEEE award or I'm I missing something? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * there were a number of similar awards prodded. I meant to look at all, & had them all open in tabs, but I only got to one or two & the rest got deleted by whoever checked them *assuming they checked, and didn't delete just because nobody had removed the prod; some admins do that & I think it irresponsible.) It is thus quite possible I commented on the wrong one, I will re-examine the entire group--after all, I did say sat my RfA that I wanted the tools to look at deleted articles, though most of the time I seem to use them for deleting articles myself.   DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I didn't make myself clear but there appears to be more than one Edwin Howard Armstrong award, nothing to do with the other four Armstrong awards I prodded. (as an aside, I have no reason to beleive the deleting admin didn't check, my own check prior to prodding found nothing significant) duffbeerforme (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Free Mason Boys
Hi DGG--I hate slapping A7 on something so quickly, but I read it, and I browsed around for anything I could find (including the record company, Roc-Boy Records), and couldn't help the article at all. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * when the article actually says that they have not yet made any recordings, it's pretty clear.   DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know, and that's why the CSD was justified. Still, it doesn't feel so good. I am trying to be nice in general, and here I'm biting a new editor, even though that editor was trying to promote something not notable by any of our guidelines. Producing is always more fun than destroying! Which reminds me--you know books and databases and such; whatever you can add to Index of Middle English Verse would be appreciated. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a some standard advice for the situation, & I made some personal adaptations as I usually do, and put it on [User talk:Rocboyrecords the users talk page].    DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Al-Masudi
Thank you for your response. I also followed it up in RSN and got some response. It appears it is considered a primary source. However, it seems like I can still use him as a source conditioned that I mention his name in the beginning as the source who is saying the quote.Kazemita1 (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * exactly.   DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Theodore N. Kaufman
If you have access to more periodicals than I do can you help with the article on "Theodore N. Kaufman". He can use some help with quotes from articles behind paywalls. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * are there some sources in particular you'd want copies of?   DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Recrudescence from a speedy you declined back in 2009
See Talk:National Career Fairs. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Colin Hatch
Hi, I dont know about you, but I feel a bit uncomfortable with the result of the second Colin Hatch AFD. It was first of all closed by the same user that closed the first AFD wrong. Second of all I still find that the result isnt a certain Delete still rather No Consensus. I would have felt more comfortable had another user closed it, it becomes a matter of bias and inappropriate (in my opinion) when the user closing the first AFD proceeds to close the second AFD to. That user has to "win" the discussion and is bias and should have let another independet user close the AFD. Yet another wrong AFD move by the same user. I would like to put it up for deletion review again. But I dont think I should do it as it would be precieved as I just cant let it go, and it would harm the articles chances of a fair review. It is obvious from looking at the AFD discussion for the second AFD that a consensus for Delete hasnt been reached. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I got the advice to take it to the administrators noticeboard but I feel if I did that it would be yet again percieved as if I was wrong. It is just an obvious case of bias in the closing of this Afd. Also I checked a Google search for Colin Hatch and it came up with 4.5 million hits. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In the current mood at Wikipedia, about half  articles such as this get deleted. The basis is more random than rational, but, even if we did go by consistent precedent more than we currently do, it would be difficult to say what the true general consensus is. Myself, I think the consensus ought to be  both that a certain type of crime article should be considered more than temporary news, and that we should not restrict articles under NOT NEWS in general as often as we now do. But I can not say that the opinion on either point is clearly with me. Some one human has to close, after all, and must have a certain amount of flexibility if they are to do so. I am very reluctant to label all decisions with which I disagree as bias. In other words, we lost this one, and    I do not think there is any point in proceeding further. If in the future more is published on this case--if someone should, for example, write a book about it--that will be the time to reopen the discussion.    DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. I agree with you. And I have after all "won" most of my Afd concerning similar articles. And as you state it can be reopened in the future. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of GoogleTap for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GoogleTap is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/GoogleTap until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sadads (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 22 April 2011
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 22 April 2011
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ágnes Heller
David: There is a very controversial, current paragraph in the Ágnes Heller entry. The prior version was extremely biassed toward the right wing view, portraying Heller as being guilty of fraud. In reality, she is only being accused of fraud (by the right-wing government, of which she is a severe critic). According to the left-liberal and international press, Heller is the target of a systematic harassment campaign and is not guilty of anything. Please see the paragraphs in question (they are the latest ones with the do/undo changes. Many thanks, Stevan Stevan Harnad 13:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnad (talk • contribs)
 * yes,  the wording does not seem to reflect the  balance of sources. I've done a few copyedits and removed some irrelevant material.  I've asked for some references, and will do some editing accordingly, if references are not very promptly forthcoming. It would be very useful if you could guide me to some Hungarian publications in support of the view she is being persecuted. The international statements are enough of a source, but this would help for balance. But I strongly urge you not to   add  material which is apparently satirical--I at first took it for genuine unsourced negative comments. (In any case, I have removed it. Please, either let me handle it, or take it to the BLP noticeboard WP:BLPN if you decide you are not satisfied with what I shall be doing.     DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no worries at all about your handling it fairly and competently. I was just worried that it was not getting any editorial attention for weeks despite the obvious absurdities (such as implying that using grant funds to cover conference travel and lodging costs, or to do a new translation of Plato were some sort of evidence of misdeeds! (That's why I finally inserted the parenthetical mention of teleportation and YMCA: To make it make the absurdity of the original transparent. (For Hungarian publications in support of the view that Professor Heller is being persecuted, they are linked daily in the Facebook Forum I linked "End the smear campaign against the philosophers": It appears in the Hungarian left-liberal press. But because the left-liberal press has been weakened in Hungary (and will be weakened further by the new press laws and Constitution), there are far more articles smearing the philosophers (in the Government-supported right-wing press) that there are anti-smear articles in the left-wing press. But everything there (and abroad) is is noted in "End the smear campaign against the philosophers" The ones published in Hungary are in Hungarian, of course. If you think it would help, I could ask one of the people monitoring the press to say which are the most important few articles that have appeared recently criticizing the smear campaign against Agnes Heller and the other philosophers. Stevan Harnad 22:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnad (talk • contribs)


 * ''Although Harnad's remarks seem excessively satirical, trivializing, they quite correctly describe the general opinion strongly pushed by the Hungarian government, the right wing media (Magyar Nemzet, Magyar Hirlap, HirTV, etc) and miriads of anonymous commenters---that it is an abuse of the regulations to spend research grants on travel, hotel bills, book publications, hardware and software, essentially anything. As we all know, in times of hardship, it is useful to have an enemy, somebody that can be pointed to, as the guy who spends millions when our pension (say) is worth less and less. The whole affair is reminiscent of the Stalinist period of Hungary in that the accusations are not well stated, are unclear, and an air of intimidation is created so that everyone should see where does any criticism of the Orban government lead.Nedudgi (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

''
 * ''As you say, it was similar enough that it at first took me in also. I am not particularly familiar with the particular  situation in Hungary, but similar patterns are seen elsewhere, & the US is not immune. Some such attacks are for political purposes purely, show show a general populist distrust for intellectuals, seen across the political spectrum, and some simply show a misunderstanding of the academic world. The US style, I think,  relies less of vagueness but on overemphasis on specific but unrepresentative examples.Though apparently simple0minded, it is in fact extremely difficult to argue against, because people   will believe strongly in the first apparently understandable fact they are shown. The enWP is best written in very plain language, keeping in mind that a very large percentage of our users and contributors are not native speakers. Rhetorical device tend to work neither in articles nor in argument. We need to make a very strong effort to keep the use of representative examples balanced, which is why NPOV can be very difficult to achieve. It is very possible by small moves over time to affect the balance of an article, and very hard sometimes to argue against the relatively trivial elementary changes.
 * But as for Stephan's question to me about what would help. Since we cannot use Facebook as a source for, especially for the biographies of living people, even when what happens to be posted on Facebook for convenience is in fact a good summary, it would help to have a few additional newspaper or magazine sources in Hungarian--and in countries outside the US. It would also help to have articles on the other people being attacked, if enough material can be found to show their notability.   DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)''


 * David, please note that the Stevan Harnad page is being vandalized by "Tüzes fal" ("Firewall") under the pretext of removing "excessive amount of external links", but in reality "Tüzes fal" is simply trying to remove the link to the controversy. See his edit page: He is a one-issue editor, and what he does is remove passages that are unflattering to or refute Hungarian right-wing allegations. (My guess is also that "Tüzes fal" might be one   -- or all -- of the anonymous posters to the ScienceInsider Forum to which he removed the link. He removed the other links merely to camouflage his intervention. Stevan Harnad 22:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnad (talk • contribs)


 * Stevan, the external link section is not the place to list what you consider your significant postings. There were indeed excessive external links, and I had meant to remove them myself; I apologize for not having gotten to them, for it might have been better had I been the one to do it. I restored the other editor's edit, adding back one link which is appropriate but had not been described clearly. Regardless of his motivation,    he did not just remove the one link to your posting on Harel ((Hungary)); the edit was not vandalism.  I shall, of course, check what else he has been doing. Looking at the bio, there are additionally too many see also's--that's not the way to list the fields of scientific accomplishment--they should be described in the text with a reference to a key article and linked there.  I'll make the change tomorrow.    DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks David, I have full confidence in all your edits, and your general Wikipedia expertise and judgement. Wikipedia is very lucky to have you and your experience both as a librarian and biologist. Stevan Harnad 12:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Restoral request
I have a request from to fix up an article on Festivals in Nigeria which was deleted. The title seems like a reasonable one for an article, not obviously controversial, and my guess is the intentions are good. You can judge for yourself on history etc. Any chance you could restore it into my user space so I can take a look and maybe fix it up and put it in again? Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I just checked and saw it was deleted for copyright reasons, so should not be restored. I may start a new version though. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The November Criminals
I may well have been struck by temporary blindness. I hope it's over. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Article in The New Yorker
A while ago, you made this edit to the Kelly Wearstler article. Do you, by any chance, still have access to this New Yorker article? --Hegvald (talk) 05:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I added the link. I had, just as you thought, originally added the ref from my paper copy, but it was easy to find at the New Yorker site (or on google). There's a lot more, also, in G News archive, including several feature articles from the NYTimes & elswhere.    DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I'm afraid most of the article is inaccessible without subscription. I added a link to her bio at the NYT. Interior design, and contemporary design in general, is one of those under-represented subjects in Wikipedia; not interesting to most of the Wikipedia demographic, I assume. --Hegvald (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Glasgow University Conservative Association
FYI, Twinkle never created the nomination page. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * twikle seems to have become less reliable lately. I'll do it manually if it doesn't get fixed before I have a chance to get there.   DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that we can't guess your rationale for nomination; you're the only one who can properly complete this. --Lambiam 22:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the listing from the AfD page and the template from the article so you can try Twinkle again. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I was planning to do. thanks.   DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Talent Resource Development Wing
Thanks for evaluating and removing A7. As the creator and (till now) primary editor of this page, I was flustered at suddenly seeing this huge red notice. The first reaction was close to anger, "What does an American know about Cricket!?" but thankfully the cooler side prevailed. Tried to look at it with uncolored eyes and edited anew. The article improved as a result, which is what we all want, I guess. Good learning experience for self as an editor certainly. Wikipedia does not educate just its readers :) VishalB (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * the wording still needs some adjustment. I modified some negative assertions, to start with, and will take a look for general copy=editing.   DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Rosario Parrino, Peter Gruenwald
I'm not sure how to use AFD, can you submit Rosario Parrino, Peter Gruenwald articles for me. The PROD's for each have been removed, both are not notable enough. The references found about Gruenwald are about his involvement in the Lufthansa heist. There is enough information about Parrino on others articles he is not notable. --Vic49 (talk)  22:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Is Kirk Kirkpatrick still a good article??
Hello again, DGG …

I was reviewing Category:Flagged articles and came across, which you contested for a WP:PROD a while back … looks like a bunch of dead links and some very sloppy editing that was probably intended for the Talk page … I'm Too Tired to try to clean it up now, but since you thought that it was worth saving, I figured I'd ping you. :-)

Happy Editing! &mdash;  01:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * if you give it a check for replacement links, I'll try to do some rewriting. But, more exactly, I deprod because something might be worth trying to save, not necessarily that it can be saved. If something I deprod goes to AfD and gets deleted, that's fair enough, as long as it gets a good try at improvement first.  DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

J.G. Quintel's Shorts
Redundant to J.G. Quintel. No one will ever think to type in "J.G. Quintel's Shorts" so a merge is pointless. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The content is appropriate in the main article, and therefore the redirect will be needed to maintain the attribution.   DGG ( talk ) 15:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

2002 Interstate 43 pile-up
I'm curious why you say that the redirect is needed for attribution. No text was copied from that article to Interstate 43; none. The author of the "merged" article had added content to both articles, separately. I separately expanded the content in the main I-43 article without looking at the other one, because a direct copy/paste merge (which would require attribution) would be undue weight in the larger article. The other change I made was to pull the link that had been added to There are no lasting impacts, no stated changes to transportation policy or design, which is why a separate article was not maintained. The title itself is an unlikely search term. A Google search for the title and all of the redirects turn up only Wikipedia-generated results. In other words, this accident wasn't give a name in the press. In fact, the one redirect title pulls up a news story on a totally different car accident.

Anyways, if the redirect is an unlikely search term, and it's not required for attribution, it can be safely deleted without breaching any policies because the essential details were already in the article.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I judged by the apparent history of the article, but given the way the text was actually added as you say above, then there is indeed no need for the redirect & I have deleted it.    DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)