User talk:DGG/Archive 63 Apr. 2012

Hasty Speedy Deletions
Hi DGG. I recently ran across the user as they are consistently tagging articles for speedy deletion incorrectly or simply making up speedy deletion criteria. I attempted to talk to the user but they've removed my comments from the talk page. I noticed that you had warned them for the same issue. It appears that your message was also removed. I'm not sure the user cares at this point which is supported by their lengthy list of blocks and the number of times they've been reported at ANI. Do you have any suggestions on what I should do?  Ol Yeller21 Talktome  15:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll explain things to them.  DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

C)

Talkback
 Ol Yeller21 Talktome  15:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Doubt
Could you please tell me which noticeboard would be the best for reporting an experienced user for harassment behavior over a long period of time? Other than WP:ANI, I couldn't think of anything else. Thanks.  Secret of success  ( talk ) 16:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ido not immediately see what the quarrel is about.   DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a general question, not related to any specific user.  Secret of success  ( talk ) 11:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ANI is best keep for the most serious cases, and when you are certain it won't boomerang.   The first step is to ask someone else to look at the specific situation to confirm your judgment; the second can often be to take it to the applicable project page if there is one or WQA. But if the harassment is off wiki in response to something on-wiki, then AN/I may be appropriate. I asked because I saw nothing in your edit history or on your talk p. to indicate any particular problem.     If it's confidential, you can use WP  email to email me.  DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Volko Audio
After your review another admin who's name is RHaworth deleted the article. I have asked him why and he told me there should be reliable source. He wanted me to add some reliable source to page. I added some references and explanations in here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asaglam/sandbox and added an DRV  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_March_30. He also wanted me to notify you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asaglam (talk • contribs) 11:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I commented at the Deletion Review. The deleting admin seems to have ignored the fact that he cannot speedy delete an article which another editor not the original author has declined on the same grounds, because that decline, whether by an admin or any other editor, proves that the deletion is not uncontestable, because some uninvolved person has in good faith contested it. That doesn't mean that the article will necessarily be kept at the end, unless there are good sources that can be added.  DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I added some links and proof from a reliable source for digital music industri products on my sandbox. (Asaglam (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC))

Your expertise in WP:MOS is requested (MOSFAG)
Your assistance would be greatly appreciated if you have the time and inclination. Yes, MMA related, due to the excellent close idea you presented about merging into yearly articles. It is progressing fairly well, but it's been a bumpy road. The issue is whether or not national flags are appropriate or not in the table listings for each participant. ie: WP:MOSFLAG Seemingly minor, but these things can explode, as you know. I think a well reasoned, outside opinion would be helpful. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability/Archive 1 I've kind of adopted this project during the transition as an outside "helper" (I'm not into MMA), since many of the participants are new and not well versed in (or concerned about...) the guidelines here. I told them that I was going to get an outside opinion, but didn't mention you specifically, as I didn't want to put you on the spot, in the event you would rather not get involved. Poking your head in there every day or so might be very helpful as well. Calm voices of reason from multiple people who aren't MMA "experts" seem to help keep it at a low simmer. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * this will be a little odd here as my specialty, as I have never seen a match and only read enough of the articles to know what is being talked about. Anything I have said or will say is based on the general principles of writing articles for Wikipedia.   DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never seen a match either, which is why I got involved. Same with Anna, who is also involved and helping.  Mtking and TreyGeek are fans but agree with your close and started the new article structure, taking the lead, kept fairly cool heads, and have done good work.  My role has been offering moral support to their efforts more than anything.  The other editors involved are, well, fans, which colors their perspectives, and it is the non-fans that are helping to keep the arguing at a minimum because we don't have an opinion on the content and can focus on policy and offering objective observations, helping offer novel ideas, moderating the discussions, and gently reminding editors of guidelines when needed, etc.  Trust me, you can do some good there.  Dennis Brown (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is because you guys decided for everybody that you were completely changing how UFC information was presented on Wikipedia, which started as an inferior project. How did you think the fans of MMA who use Wikipedia were going to react? Of course they would be upset. You can keep a cool head because you were one of the people who changed it. Of course you were going to keep a cool head and try to act like the voice of reason. It is the nature of the positions we were in...and yours was to play damage control. So don't act like we are some buffoons who are mucking everything up and you are the courteous, polite, reasonable one. You guys brought it upon yourselves. Gamezero05 (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a fansite.   This is one of our basic principles. There are excellent places on the web for detailed accounts of matches of this or any sport--one good possibility is Wikia, which also has a free license, and material not appropriate here can be posted there. So we're not spoiling anything. Every last detail is usable--just not here. There are things I'm a fan of, about which i could write in extreme detail with good sources available. And probably some people would be interested in the details, but this is none the less not the place for them. There is available third party published material for every house on my block, since we're in a historic district. The district is notable & has an article; the houses, not being individually listed, are not, and I think people would laugh at me if I tried to write them here. Even though my neighbors might want to read about them, there are other and better places. Getting back to sports, there is published information from multiple reliable sources about every game my high school football team played. It is possible to write on subjects with which you have a connection: I have added some material to the article on the high school, and on my colleges. One of the Wikiprojects asked me to write an article on my advisor, since he was quite well known for some of his published books--I wrote a short one with the basics. I've even worked on an existing article on a second cousin. But to do this, you have to work within the limits that the overall project sets, whether or not you agree with them, and most of the people in the overall project will undoubtedly not particularly care very much about any one person's hobby. I think I can write about anything where I understand the basic vocabulary and that has sources in a language I can decipher, and I find it fascinating to expand my horizons. So I'm grateful to you guys who do care about this subject for giving me the opportunity to learn something about it.  DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To be clear, Gamezero, I don't think you are a buffoon in any way. You know 100x more about MMA than I will ever know.  This is why I have not made a single comment about the actual content of the articles, I've only offered ideas about formatting and tried to help people understand the various guidelines that apply here.  It is a support role.  While DGG, myself and others may know little about MMA, we're very familiar with interpreting guidelines.  I asked DGG to take a look because he knows much more about MOS issues than I do.  I've been wrong before and he lets me know when I am, so I trust him to be objective.  Even when I'm wrong, I always learn something new, which is a good thing when you are building an encyclopedia.  Since we are starting a new method of presenting MMA information, now is the exact right time to address these issues, to insure a lot of effort isn't wasted on creating a bunch of articles that will just have to be changed in a month or two.  Believe me, we want this new system to be informative, successful and better than the old system, but like all articles on Wikipedia, it has to be consistent with the guidelines. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

JurisPedia
An editor moved JurisPedia to JurisPedia (site), no consensus, no discussion, and I'm guessing we don't normally name articles that way anyway. I don't think I can undo a move as a lowly editor, so asking you to look at when convenient. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * seems to have been just a technical limitation on someone trying to do it right, so I fixed it. There may be some remaining double redirect, which you can fix yourself.  DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Think I have them fixed, only Jurispedia instead of JurisPedia, which needed fixing anyway. Thanks for the assist.  Dennis Brown (talk) 01:33, 2 April 2012 (UT

KSW XIX
Hello! Could you kindly undelete KSW XIX? As you can see from here, for example, it is now being covered in reliable independent sources due to being headlined by two highly notable fighters: Bob Sapp and Mariusz Pudzianowski. Thanks! --24.154.173.243 (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Since it was only deleted via Proposed deletion,it can be automatically restored; I have done so. But as this is a subject where I cannot really judge notability adequately, I have sent it to AfD for a community decision, at Articles for deletion/KSW XIX. You will want to comment there.  DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: S.Mahinda Thera(Tybet Jathika)
Re your message: I deleted it because the claims were rather vague. However, upon further looking around, the deletion was probably a mistake as the person was writing about S. Mahinda. But now it qualifies under CSD A10, but I don't know if you still think it should be restored. I think it would be an unlikely redirect. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * agreed, there's already sufficient redirects, and that very short article has nothing to add.  DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Riccardo Corradini
You declined the speedy deletion of this article with the summary:
 * As reviewing admin, I think this indicates at least some importance, so not appropriate for speedy deletion

I'm not sure what importance this article credibly asserts. The article is about a 16-yr old football player who has played for a number of teams that, at best, can be described as the local town club team. The article has been repeatedly deleted for lack of notability, and the author has repeatedly recreated the identical argument, despite clear instructions to review WP:NFOOTY first (which he clearly did not). WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 09:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right--I had not realized the natures of the teams. It's been deleted. If entered again, tell me and I will create-protect it.  DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hawkins
David, please note and the two diffs provided there. I know this BLP has been a problem to the subject for a very long time (around six years or more), and some of the history has reportedly been deleted or oversighted, which in itself should trigger a warning bell. At any rate, I very much suspect there is a good reason for the subject's feelings in the article's history, even if it is not apparent from the article's present content.  J N  466  13:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Prequel
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Prequel. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Synapse (magazine)
Another article including detailed tables with descriptions of content, but this time not a copyvio. Do you think this is admissible/encyclopedic? Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I replied on the talk p. there, giving the justification. I'd suggest adding a justification like that every time we do this. (incidentally, I moved the contents of our previous discussion to User talk:CyntWorkStuff when I deleted Talk:List of volumes and issues of Journal of Bisexuality  DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Subhasish Ghosh
Hey DGG,

I noticed that you the  I'd added to Subhasish Ghosh with an edit summary of "has a ref, needs better."

May I ask what reference were you referring to? The subject's own Web site, I believe, shouldn't count, and the only other URL on the page is UGC Sponsored National Seminar - Sammilani Mahavidyalaya. That link, firstly, only contains the subject's name as one in a list of 19 people, and secondly, contradicts the information in the article (degree & school affiliation). To me, that means that it's still a BLP with no reliable sources, and in particular, no sources that state why the guy is notable.

Personally, I think the some of the statements in the article (example: "eccentric and erratic life style") come near to making it an attack page, but I know that that can be in the eye of the beholder. But statements like that really ought to have some sourcing behind them, versus the none that's there now.

Any how, I'd appreciate it if you'd take another look at it, and thanks! Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Curiously, he does not appear to be listed at http://www.jaduniv.edu.in/. And the one "reference" lists a person with a different academic affiliation. I suspect total hoax and have tagged accordingly. Pam  D  07:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * yes, I intended to go back to it today, to check the ref further. There was indeed some things about the article which did not sound right. In my experience phrases like "eccentric and erratic life style" are almost never a true attack page, sometimes a joke, sometimes just a boastful autobio. I deleted as hoax; my thanks to both of you.  DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the re-check! (and the sanity check). Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Cirex
Regards: You was one of the Moderators who work on the deletion of "Cirex". I ask to be recreated and it was done, are more sources including links to the soundtrack of the film Taken, I know IMDB is not reliable but credits are there as in the final screen of the movie. Also two printed magazines, online version of them with two articles Regards. On the Cirex article I added two magazines, which i found the online versions (real ones are printed in the US) I hope that can help identifying him as a real person. My respect!Mroxidizer1 (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * the item in g4tink seems irrelevant to notability, and the other one I cannot find, but it does not seem likely to be a reliable source. I have no doubt he is a real person, but I see nothing to indicate a good faith claim to importance for an encyclopedia  DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Note
This is a note in case you did not see the post at WP:SOAPS about the following AfD: Articles for deletion/List of fictional supercouples. Your opinion is needed. I've alerted editors with respect to the WP:CANVASS guidelines. 176.227.199.34 (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Harold J. Morowitz
Per your excellent comments here you might be interested in the discussion here. Also, tangentially related (as being about professors), I don't know if you saw my reply to you here (see "what links here" to see my dilemma about his name). Valfontis (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Speedy Rationales
My mistake. Thanks for pointing that out about WPCSD#A7. West Eddy (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Peter de Rome
Thanks for helping salvage this article. I was conscious that I needed to do work on it but did not get the time. Will continue to make improvements. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Museo del Aire
Hi, I'm not sure if this is the correct action, but I hope you will advise anyway. On 21 March 2012, you helped me by moving Aeronautics and Astronautics Museum of Spain to Museo del Aire, after a period when I invited discussion on the talk page. I was always aware of the issue of two museums with similar names, having created Museo del Aire (Cuba) myself before the Spanish one, but knowing that the Spanish one is the more notable as that common name, and deserving to be called that. Also, the Cuban example closed in 2010, but I'm still awaiting news of the opening (if any) in its new location. Today, a user has made another move, to Museo del Aire (Madrid) on what I regard as false disambiguation grounds. The Spain article Museo del Aire had a disambiguation header in common with many WP articles. I believe the user today misunderstood this, so I recommend reverting today's move. MTIA, PeterWD (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1the usual places to discuss this are on the talk p. of the article, or on WP:RM, or a workgroup page.
 * 2My own opinion, however, is that the WP practice of always trying to find a major example for the unqualified name can be unnecessarily divisive. And my advice to you in this case is that it isn't worth discussion. There's enough to work on with article content. (This advice is based on having spent much of my first few months here in a fight about what should be the principal article for "open access")
 * 3 My personal view, in fact, is that our entire disambiguation practice is wrong conceptually from the ground upwards: everything that is remotely possible to have another useor is parallel to things whose names have other uses should be qualified in advance. All places should give their region and country in the title. all people should give their dates --not that dates are always more useful that professional or geographic descriptors, but they avoid disputes over them. All suborganizations should give their principle organization name, e.g. Ministry of X (Country). All institutions like museums, however well known, should give the city, and if necessary the country--for example, even the article on Musée du Louvre should be titled Musée du Louvre (Paris).  DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your carefully considered advice. I'll step away, and forget about improving the Spain article. PS. editing this feels like walking on treacle.PeterWD (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The advantage of working on a project founded on molasses is that you can try to move in any direction if you don't mind falling down once in while.  DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Journal of Insect Science
Hi, DGG. Please could you take a look at what happened when you moved Journals of Insect Science to Journal of Insect Science. The new page ended up as a redirect to itself, with two moves showing in the. I'm sure this wasn't your intention, but I'm also sure I don't know what to do about it. Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Michael Terman Page
David, would you please clarify whether the negative comments about this entry are warranted? They include a banner on the top of the article saying, "This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and third-party publications. Please add citations from reliable sources. (November 2011." And there is another comment about the page, saying, "Someone who understands all of this guy's work should probably rewrite this and cite every publication he's ever made. I added a link to one study [1] Dream Focus 00:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC" So one Wikipedia editor says there's a problem because there are too many peer-reviewed articles by Michael Terman, and the other claims, amonth later, there's a problem because there are too few, and he wants every Terman publication cited. Also, I would appreciate it if you could remove the banner if it is not appropriate. Thanks, Saenger (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has no firm rules for content of this sort, but I've specified on the talk page what I understand to be the convention: we generally list all the books,and the most important 4 or 5 published papers of the individual. generally as judged by citation counts for objectivity.  But when we discuss the most important ones in the text itself when discussing their research, there may be no need for a separate list. We rarely include book chapters, conference papers, etc., unless particularly important.  DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, David, that takes care of one problem. The other problem remains: Is the banner criticism legitimate? "This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and third-party publications. Please add citations from reliable sources. (November 2011." Thanks in advance for your clarification. Saenger (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi David. You are you usually so prompt about answering inquiries that I'm wondering whether you didn't see this "Part 2." Someone put an announcement at the top of the Terman article saying, "This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and third-party publications. Please add citations from reliable sources. (November 2011)." These sources are basically peer-reviewed journals. Would you please clarify whether these sources are adequate? Also, if they are, how can I avoid repetitions of the same complaint? It bothers me that the title page of an academic I know quotes his blog as if it were an objective source about him, and no one has eve complained, and yet the Michael Terman article is being criticized as not having reliable standards. Thanks, Saenger (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * as I've said at several places recently in another context, I think disputes about tagging not worth the bother. As far as I am concerned, anyone who wants to may remove or replace such tags, as they as they don't edit war over it. Feel free to remove it, and if anyone replaces, why worry about it? What matters is article content.  DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, David. I removed the tag. However, I think tags like that do influence the reader's perception of the validity of the content. There are many social psychology experiments demonstrating that far smaller things have a great impact on perception and evaluation, even though people usually appear not to realize it. Also, I think these tags make a page look like junk. So, as a social psychologist who specialized in the interpretation of drawing, I strongly disagree with you, and wish the system were designed to avoid these problems. Saenger (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * this is a long-standing concern about tags, & on your premises you may be right. I agree with you that they have a harmful effect on readability. Their justification is that their role of encourage readers to improve articles is worth it. Whether it's worth it is open to question, To some extent it's a question of values: myself, I think it is good to have Wikipedia conspicuously show it is prepared by amateurs, in order to reduce over dependence on it. I think we need a readable site, but not a professionally finished one: professional slickness implies editorial control.   Anyway,  I think we'll have the system for a long time, and need to concentrate on improving it--by finding a better balance of wording and size and degree of conspicuousness.
 * Probably you are right that the bias should be towards removal. But I'm too focused on the urgent need here to decrease the number of things we argue about, so as to have more effort available for writing about them.  DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool
Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Tony Rowan-Wicks
Hi DGG

I'm hoping to gain your advice on the article Tony Rowan-Wicks

18:54, 15 April 2012 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page Tony Rowan-Wicks (A7: Article about an eligible subject, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

I have read your many contributions and the WP guidelines which indicate that I might obtain the article back - to work on further - if I take your advice. I don't know if this is possible. This is my first article, so I am trying to put my brain around the many complications of WP, which are quite overwhelming to me. That is why I wrote my first article about a subject that I can research at home from my own records. You will gather that Tony Rowan-Wicks is me. I am a retired Headmaster and several people have asked me to add to WP - not least my own children - but also some past members of my staff and students.

If any of the above do not meet the guidelines etc. for the article to enter mainspace - I accept. I would just like to know if I have anything in the article which is worthy of inclusion, if its a matter of "doing better" within the guidelines, or if I should continue with my retirement and forget the article. Smile

Thank you for your consideration. Tony Rowan-Wicks Tony Rowan-Wicks 08:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)RobdnTony Rowan-Wicks 08:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robdn (talk • contribs)
 * Commented, in same time zone, at User talk:Robdn. Pam  D  08:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have now added some comments on the user;s talk p as well.  DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

DGG, thanks for your helpful comments and advice. I'm now adding details of the page to another site but finding WP useful as always. Will maintain my interest in WP and read more about edits. Tony Rowan-Wicks 08:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Koala Country BBS
Can you please undelete or userfy my page I created yesterday "Koala Country BBS"? I currently have this page on my personal website but I am migrating and updating it to wikipedia. The significance of my BBS page is that it demonstrates and explains how BBSs worked and were maintained in detail. I put a lot of time into it and I think it is very unfair for it to be speedily deleted without me having a chance to contest the deletion or even being given a chance to make a backup of the amended text. Kind Regards, Warrenlead (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * as I see no evidence at all that this BBS is of any significance that would make a Wikipedia article, I won't undelete it. It does indeed talk in an interesting way about the features of BBSs in general, and this material could possible be used in other Wikipedia articles. But we're not a site that contains "How to do it " articles, so it couldn't be transformed into that either: You might possibly find a home for such material at Wikibooks. If you do not have a copy, I've emailed the wikitext and rendered versions to you.  DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

RfA
I'm contemplating a run at RfA. You and I have crossed paths more than a few times, sometimes agreeing and sometimes disagreeing, but I've always respected your opinion and objectivity, so I would invite your input. If you don't feel comfortable with this or don't have the time, no offense will be taken. Dennis Brown   (talk)   (contrib)  17:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Cultural Studies = Critical Methodologies
Hi, I'm a bit at a loss of how the title for this journal should be displayed on WP. Any ideas? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * the Library rule is to replace ambiguous punctuation with a comma, and accordingly LC uses "Cultural studies, critical methodologies". I have moved the article accordingly, leaving the redirect.  DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: deletion
Re your message: Thank you for the notice. I found another "article" made by the students: Hugh Jass Hookah Matata. I have this feeling that the item in question is something like: "Make a Wikipedia article for your team". So there will probably be more articles popping up if they have not already. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

List of populated places in the municipality of Dragaš, Kosovo
Hello, DGG! Well, sincerely, i totally forgot that i edited this article before, as that was years ago. Also, i didn't remembered who was article creator, and even that i did, i never nominate articles per author, but per content. Further, user in question, Mdupont, complete ignored WP:LAY, all MOS's, uses sub pages as personal hosting serves, (example) unrelated to wikipedia work, (just check user subpages) and everything takes on personal. The thing is that i already stopped interaction with him, because i understood that he failed to apply anything of the numerous things users told him to do. Either can't, or doesn't want to. Not to mention that he is calling me constantly whitewater, why, i dont know... I nominated article as i saw the mess article is in, including Latin translation! That is nonsense, doesn't matter who wrote it! Latin translations of the super-minor villages with 100 people in Balkan! Also, majority of those names are wrong, or misspelt! This article is in mess, and should be completely rewritten. Also, user creates bad and erroneous templates and then send them all around. He creates forks of existing articles in user space, including categories inside, and backups of articles, so "THERE IS NO UNNEEDED DATA LOSS>" ? He is creating chaos! All of those are breach of wiki guidelines! I suppose that user Mdupont does not have bad faith, but he should then try to follow wikipedia guidelines, without personal attacks like this. I didn't even know who creator was, i used Twinkle! And if he really want to edit wikipedia, he should fix this article now, in the way other articles look like, and stop chasing everyone who point him the problems, and playing poor victim. WP:AGF cannot be extended up to eternity... Wikipedia is not personal encyclopedia, and we all must play by rules, and with others.

Anyway, if you can somehow help him, that would be great. I really cannot deal anymore with it, as this kind of behavior is absolutely unacceptable for me. Which means that i will not talk to him anymore, as i find that useless... If you can propose something, that would be nice. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 12:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I recognize the many problems, and from the long history of similar problems I somewhat share your doubts about how carefully he will be able to fix them; in any case, you are quite right to recognize that someone other than yourself should follow up on them.  DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, and what now? What about List of populated places in the municipality of Dragaš, Kosovo article? -- WhiteWriterspeaks 11:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/John Márquez (2nd nomination)
Hi DGG

Wondering if you had a moment to stop by the above AfD. The subject is a long-serving councilman from Richmond, CA. The AfD highlights the difficulty of application of BASIC. No idea on your views of this but imagine they're well thought-out.

Thank you, Bongo  matic  00:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 Gourami Watcher   (Gulp) 02:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Munich Re Foundation
An article that you have been involved in editing, Munich Re Foundation, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Ebendt (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Louis Raymond (garden & landscape designer & writer)
Pollard&coppice either didn't see or has ignored your comment on the article at User:Pollard&coppice/Louis Raymond. and moved the articleto the Wikipedia: namespace (user apparently thought this was where finished articles were added, judging by their edit summary for the move). I've moved it to the main namespace (and added a few cleanup templates) but the issues you mentioned still remain. I think a move back to the user's sandbox (perhaps with a change of name to your suggested Louis Raymond (horticulturalist)) would be appropriate. The removal of the redirect created by my move of the article is also needed. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * he seems to now have made sufficient of the changes I suggested that the article can stay in mainspace; I think the three of us had a rather complicated edit conflict.   There is still much he did not understand, so I will do some further editing   (mainly some cutting), and ask him to do the rest.  the subject does seem clearly notableß  DGG ( talk ) 15:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Page 'Jim DeBerry' deleted
(G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

Hello DGG,

I feel this page was wrongly deleted as, there are numerous places in the article where it was mentioned about the importance of this person and the significance of the subject itself. I mentioned about his music career, him publishing his own magazine. He is well known in the USA as he has also done shows with Robin Hood on the radio. Hope to get a response from you soon.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huzzy786 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It was deleted for two reasons, A7, lack of claimed importance, and promotionalism,-- criterion G11, Entirely promotional articles that can not be made encyclopedic without normal editing. It had previously been nominated only for A7, lack of importance. My primary reason for deletion was that it meets the rule for deletion as promotional, but I left the earlier reason in also. You are correct that I probably should not have done so.  I don't think my G11 deletion was eccentric, because two shorter versions of the same article under different forms of the name had already been deleted by two other administrators.


 * This is a long article composed mainly of long quotes for the subject about the details of how he ran his businesses, from his teenage job maintaining pools, to the present, and the detailed motivations for his very varied activities. This sort of article has only the purposes of letting him express his opinions about himself & promote his activities, and would require a complete rewriting from scratch to be encyclopedic. It had previously been proposed for deletion under the BLP Prod procedure, for lacking credible sources for verifying the material. The tag was removed without adding such sources, as it should not have been: the only source at the time was "DeBerry told me". Later you did add some sources: unfortunately they were entirely from myspace--plus an advertisement he wrote for his band when they were looking for a vocalist. The tag removal was apparently not noticed, or the article would have been deleted at that time.


 * I suggest you start over,concengtrating on his broadcasting career, which is the only part likely to provide notability. When you do, remember that a Wikipedia article needs to show notability with references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or facebook or youtube or the like, And not  press releases, or material derived from press releases.  An article  here also needs to be written like an encyclopedia article, not a press release. Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subject, or to prospective fans--that sort of content is considered promotional.  And remember not to  copy from a web site, even your own -- even if you   give us permission according to WP:DCM, the tone will not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable.


 * As a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without Conflict of Interest; it's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest or as a paid press agent, but it's relatively more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know. And keep in mind that the goal of an encyclopedia is to say things in a concise manner, which is not the style of  press releases or  web sites, which are usually more expansive.   DGG ( talk ) 14:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Referenced content deleted from the Woodleigh School article
DGG, I note that you closed with a request that referenced content not be deleted from the Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire. One anon editor seems to be deleting large sections right now. . This anon participated in the AFD discussion and is almost certainly aware of your advice regarding deletions. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Notice that the content was added after the AFD, by an editor who had previously claimed inspection evidence was not notable. Does he think this is notable or not? One moment he allows edits, the next he removes everything on sight?! Notice that the content is entirely negative, and not relevant since there is already a link to the Ofsted report in the info box. (Which is where it should be for a school article.) What is the motivation for this editor seeking to add such information, when previously he has reverted anything similar? Perhaps his edit history reveals the motivation? Notice that I have in fact tried to improve the article, and acquiesce to what are frankly orders and demands from this editor. As soon as I improve the article, as directed by this editor, he accuses me of vandalism and reverts every edit!

For the love of God - I want to improve this article! But I don't appreciate being treated like this. 213.246.90.36 (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on both your talk page and his talk page. I have no idea who is right or wrong about the content of the article, but that needs to be talked about *calmly* on the talk page of the article.  I still suggest everyone take the evening off.  As to the state of the article right now, don't worry so much.  It will still be there tomorrow.  I know it is frustrating, but if people keep reverting each other, they will get blocked.  That is the last thing I want to see.  Others are less forgiving when it comes to edit warring, so I strongly suggest you consider this advice.  Dennis Brown    2&cent;   &copy;  22:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The contents of an article need only be relevant, only the subject of an article need be notable. The inspections reports of a school are relevant content, though they are primary sources and have to be used carefully, since we cannot interpret them.  As such, they do not prove notability of the school. whether this particular school is notable is an interesting question about which, as I said in closing the AfD, I have no opinion at present. I may make a comment when the AfD2 opens, but to avoid my overinvolvement as an admin, I do not intend to give an actual !vote or close that AfD.
 * What I also said at the AfD and as others have said above and at an/i, is that we are interested in the article, not in the motivations. There have been enough warnings: anyone descending to personal attacks is liable to blocking. The correct way to reply to a personal attack is to ignore it.  DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 06:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Notable?
1970s in science and technology?? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * continuing pattern of disruption, as I see it. a topic ban from initiating deletion process is the appropriate remedy, but I'm not the ideal person to formally propose it.  DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

User:EEMIV
Special:Contributions/EEMIV. 500 edits
 * Redirects without discussion
 * Actions against consensus of discussion
 * Subversion of AfD process
 * Use of redirects to bypass the AfD process
 * EEMIV seems to think that mentioning proposals at the Star Trek project page gives rights superseding the AfD process. So I guess that makes the others at that project page complicit in this as well. I have seen this sort of behaviour before, but it has always been isolated incidents. This user does it habitually, and seems to have the backing of other editors as well. I think a message needs to be sent, that nowhere in WP:REDIRECT does it say that redirects are what you do with articles you do not like and cannot be bothered to nominate for deletion, or that you think might have a chance of being improved later (as many and various guidelines and essays indicate that stubs are for that purpose).

After the decision to Keep by closer, User:Ron Ritzman, at:
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambush (Star Wars: The Clone Wars)

Wholesale redirect of a series of Star Wars The Clone Wars episodes to a list of episodes, against consensus, and without further discussion
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hostage_Crisis&diff=362738005&oldid=362702487

Keeps no record of archives on talk page. He has his TALK PAGE locked so only Users can edit it.
 * Redirects

Plo Koon, redirected to List of Star Wars characters
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plo_Koon&diff=488578144&oldid=488576242
 * Talk page. Proves he is not doing redirects for the purposes of WP:REDIRECT #13 : "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article.)"
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APlo_Koon&diff=488578097&oldid=477058778

Redirect (two of many, of Star Trek spaceship articles
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Starfleet_ship_registry_and_classes_in_Star_Trek&diff=484220024&oldid=482393620
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Excelsior&diff=482409508&oldid=478713241


 * Stubifying, outside of the Star Trek genre

Tropes in Agatha Christie's novels. Made Stub of article.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tropes_in_Agatha_Christie%27s_novels&diff=483753776&oldid=478348348

I stopped after less than a week's worth of Edit History. There is no telling how much material this user has removed from mainspace
 * Copies of this message sent to editors who participated in the Ambush AfD: User:Ron Ritzman, User:DGG, User:Jclemens, User:Peregrine Fisher, User:Torritorri, and added to the Talk page of the Star Trek Project page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek
 * Anarchangel (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * try BRD, but be prepared to find sources. Preferably, find them first, before to the revert. I replied in more detail at EEMV's talk p, at .   DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Voice talent
You raised a good point in a recent deletion discussion, calling attention to the problematic nature of GNG and voice talent. About 2% of the big 2010/2011 unsourced BLP backlog push was voice talent, which was disproportionate, and those ended up disproportionately in a deletion process as well. If folks feel that there's inherent notability being missed with voice talent, it seems to me that trying to figure out how to craft a reasonable SNG might be a direction to pursue. If I might ask, do you feel a voice actor SNG might be warranted? --joe deckertalk to me 07:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There are two types of SNGs--those that provide an additional requirement to the GNG, and those that provide an alternative. ATHLETE is an supplementary guideline that must also be met, for these individuals get disproportionate press coverage even when not very important ;  WP:PROF, is an alternative one, to compensate for there being very little press coverage even when very important. At present, a few of the more extreme deletionists  object to the existence of alternative guidelines, and try to read everything as supplementary, or at best, as a shortcut for the ability to meet the GNG guideline; their expected opposition will make it very hard to get a formal guideline that will be of any use.
 * Typically, we treat things as alternative guidelines, or interpret the vague word "significant" and "reliable" in the GNG as non-restrictively as possible, when our own intuition is they are very important, and I doubt the majority of people here think that, any more than they do of businessmen or lawyers--two professions that have similar problems in showing notability. The best practical course is to try to find specialized sources that do cover them.  DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That had historically been my intuition too, just given the amount of pushback I received as voice actors ended up deleted last year, well I figured a thoughtful second opinion was might be in order. Thanks!   --joe deckertalk to me 17:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Privacy violation
First of all, I did not mean the question in the RfA to be linked to a gross privacy violation. I wasn't thinking about it much, besides, I was thinking about the names mentioned by the vandal himself, are one of those universal names (names with a lot of results on Facebook). Furthermore, several websites are not good at respecting people's privacy. While my high school classmate was vandalizing, he even mentioned his own name (and his brother's) too from what I recall. Thankfully edit history does not show up on Google results. Usually I am pretty cautious about privacy concerns, which is probably why I have a phobia of being asked for "driver's license" at a store (for something that has nothing to do with driving, such as returning an item or signing up for a membership of a certain store chain). While I removed the link to that person's vandalism (even if Calabe already withdrew from his RfA), he probably won't stop acting silly himself (he even claims that he eats 400 big macs and drinks 100 cans of Monster in a single sitting). NHRHS2010 the student pilot  ✈  12:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)