User talk:DGG/Archive 66 Jul. 2012

Time in Illinois
Would appreciate your restoring Time in Illinois — WP:CSD says "If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations", so G5 doesn't apply after it survived AFD a few days ago. Nyttend (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Being created by a banned sockpuppet is essentially in the same class of things that supersede earlier discussions. If you want to go further, I suggest an/i rather than dr, but it's your choice.  DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look at the DRV I raised and the discussion on the non-admin closer's talk page, he accepts that the AFD was closed incorrectly so I'd say that the AFD is irrelevant to this issue. Spartaz Humbug! 02:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

There's more to read on Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757 and the archived discussions that it points to. Uncle G (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * DGG, you asked for my thoughts on what we should do next. My personal view before the sockpuppeting came to light was that the article was insufficiently encyclopedic for a standalone article based on the subject, content and lack of sourcing. I'm not at all opposed to a merge of all of these interrelated pages up to the first level where there is enough sourcing and encyclopedia value to maintain articles. whether that be national time, regional, state, country, continental or whatever. With regard to the G5, the policy is clear. Its a valid deletion but there is nothing to stop someone recreating it to replace the deleted content. I'd say that any recreation would be without prejudice to a further listing at AFD or a wider subject area RFC. Spartaz Humbug! 08:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The sockpuppetting didn't really "come to light". It's been there all along.  Tobias Conradi hasn't actually stopped editing in all these years, and a small number of administrators have been blocking him every so often.  He's editing right now as .  The problem is, as alluded in the section heading of Administrators' noticeboard/Archive236, that the community has forgotten about this. Uncle G (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I simply dropped a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Time in the hopes that the people who profess to work in this area would do something about the articles. I gave some suggestions for renames and mergers at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive236.  Exactly one person, not even signed up to that WikiProject, volunteered to clean up, and xe then started hitting problems with, and had to waste a lot of time combatting, several administrators going on speedy deletion sprees.  This wasn't exactly a productive move on our parts. Remember: The problem with Tobias Conradi is not poor content, but is &mdash; as you can see by reading Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi &mdash; a complete inability to work collboratively, and indeed even interact reasonably with, other people.  So we show him out of the door mercilessly every time that that surfaces; but we don't necessarily obsess over his contributions. Uncle G (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Materialscientist
David, could you perhaps give your opinion on this issue? Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I moved this down, perhaps you didn't see it... :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have now commented.  DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks!! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Difference between Sam and Diane and Ashton Kutcher on Twitter?
What are differences between these two articles? Well, both were nominated as AFD, yet AFD nomination on Sam and Diane was withdrawn. What are values, including encyclopedic value, of both topics and their articles? --George Ho (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1The article on the characters has real content essential to the understanding of a creative work that would not adequately fit elsewhere. For a long running show, the material can be too complex for a single article. (I make no comment about the quality of the creative work, because I have never seen any of it. But from similar works I do know, I have observed that the understandable way of presenting the material is to discuss the characters, not just go scene by scene through each episode.)   2. In the past, information of characters has tended to be eliminated by slow attrition if not kept separately. If this were to change, I would not support most separate character articles, though I would support their content. One of the problems with Wikipedia is that we have no way of making a decisive ruling on content, only on article inclusion.  3. And if I had to choose between both articles or neither, I would accept both.    DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How about as "stand-alone articles"? --George Ho (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I consider that primarily a matter of clarity of presentation; how to divide up articles is as much a technical question of style as a question of notability.  DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Umm.... elaborate? Anyway, just in case: Articles for deletion/Sam and Diane. Only difference I see are fiction and fact. Article one fiction requires real-world commentary, while article on fact... what are requirements? --George Ho (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)C)
 * The fictional characters article you mentioned has substantial real world commentary. The requirement, in any case, applies to the overall coverage of the work of fiction within Wikipedia--how the overall coverage gets divided up is a matter not of principle, but convenience. As for the twitter article, there is no point discussing it here: that's what the AfD is for, and I think I've said as much there as would be useful. The decision to merge or separate is based not only on whether the topics can stand alone, but on whether that is the best way to deal with it at Wikipedia. There are no firm rules for that, and we consider each case individually. Even the formal WP:N guideline is quite specific that not everything that can technically justify a separate article should necessarily have one.
 * Personally, I have come to realize that WP:N is a guideline whose entire meaning depends on the way in which we choose to interpret it. In particular, the GNG was conceived in a simpler time when we thought there was a clear distinction between reliable and unreliable sources. Most actual contested AfD decisions depend not on the plain meaning of the guideline, but the interpretation of the various aspects of "reliable". How can it be otherwise? The world is not divided into notable and non notable, and there is only a clear boundary when we adopt some artificial fixed distinction that does not depend on the vagaries of available referencing. The entire meaning of notability is what 'we collectively want to put into Wikipedia.
 * I recognize the discontent when the initial views at an AfD lead in one's desired direction, and continued argument involving a wider range of Wikipedians changes the consensus. But it is just such extended discussions which bring forth a more general consensus that that of those who are particularly interested in a special subject. Without it, AfD would be overly susceptible to the influence of special interest groups.
 * You may think I am wrong in either my general approach to WP or to this specific matter. Both are possible. As for the general approach, I don't run the encyclopedia ; as for the specifics, I am far from infallible, and everyone has their own version of reasonable and what common sense requires.  DGG ( talk ) 08:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Lindsey Ferrante
WP:CSD says that [CSD A7] does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible, and as such, I've reverted your removal of my CSD tag. The claim of significance made was incredible, with Oracle Corporation making no mention of anyone with the name "Ferrante" and Google searches of "Lindsey Ferrante" returning irrelevant results. → Σ τ  c. 00:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Credible" in this context is usually interpreted to mean that a contributor might reasonably think what was claimed is suitably important to belong in an encyclopedia. If I understand you correctly, you are saying the material is unverifiable, and you therefore think it a hoax. If you think it and obvious hoax on its face G3 is suitable; otherwise, prod or afd.  Given the  material originally present in the article, I think it is rather obviously a hoax, and deleted it accordingly. Probably I should have done so initially. You were right that it needed to be removed from  Wikipedia  DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Q. E. the journal
Well here it is ]. Originally, I was intereted in the topic. Then I discovered that this journal is an English version of a Russian journal. I think journals like this are very intereting because there is a collaboration between publishers operating in different countries. In this case it is a collaboration between U.S., U.K., and Russian publishers. I'd say it is obviously an effort to disseminate the science available in a given country. In this case of course it is Russian science. But more than that it seems that maybe the science community in Russia is a close-knit community. For example, the editor in chief hails from the Lebedev Physics Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The Russian publisher is Turpion, a notable publisher in the science disciplines. In addition, this particular journal was founded by a Russian (Soviet) Nobel Prize laureate about 40 years ago. Also, two authors of the journal Physics Uspekhi (published by Turpion) are 2010 Nobel Prize winners (see web page] Steve Quinn (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it could really be considered the English edition of the Russian journal, but rather the English translation' of the Russian journal. The entire responsibility for scientific content is in the hands of the Russian editorial board.   Turpion is not a Russian company, but a UK company  formed in order to   provide translated versions of Russian journals, or, more exactly,continue the English translations of Russian journals earlier translated by a number of different enterprises, commercial and non-commercial. These translations mostly began at the end of the 1950s and the early 60s (after Sputnik), when it was realized that Russian-language science in many fields in the physical  sciences was fully competitive with science outside the USSR (and in  some   fields of applied mathematics arguably in advance),  and the Soviet government had a policy of requiring all or most publications to be in Russian.  They were of very great importance in the 60s, and published both by scientific societies, such as the AIP, and specialized branches of commercial publishers such as Consultants Bureau, I think independent at first but later an imprint of Plenum.  Their importance gradually declined, both because it became more acceptable to publish in English and because the collapse of the USSR greatly impaired the financial condition of Russian science , but many are still published and in some fields still quite important.
 * I think the entry must be the Russian title--as with Physics Uspeki which is actually and correctly a redirect to Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk, and the article should cover both the Russian original and the translation.  DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Sephardi Jews topics...
Hi DGG, could you please provide your expert opinion at Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 30. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've given my opinion, though I do not consider myself an expert in this.  DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Jamie Comstock
Hey DGG, how do you think this person ranks in terms of notability? If one leaves out the scandal, is there enough left? The subject is not happy with how the article looks--see User talk:Academicjc. I was alerted (or re-alerted) to the matter by JohnCD; I don't think she passes PROF and an argument can be made for BLP1E, where the 1E is negative. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * commented on User talk:AcademicjcUser talk:Academicjc
 * Thanks DGG. You have given me food for thought, and I may disagree with you less than you might think. Drmies (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Videography
Please see Articles for deletion/KevJumba videography, Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 05:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC) x== DGG how do i communicate with you ==


 * Note I moved this from DGG's user page where the editor below had mistakenly placed it Voceditenore (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

i keep getting database errors the article on john francis mitchell does not reflect my views; i have only used published documents from the wsj, chic tribune, etc john mitchell was one of the great geniuses of the 20th century and accomplished a great deal. there are many articles in wiki on communications technology that require more sourcing; and JFM is a lynchpin in the history of communications technology. he was a frugal man who never took credit for anything so i am at a loss as to how to remove my bias from the article thanks for your help, joe brophy joe (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)joe

DGG; thanx for your comments, it is helpful and a start. this will take me a while for rewrite. my grandson just arrived from grad school to stay with us for a month. he was the managing editor of his college newspaper, Colby Echo, for two years and he said he can help me.

i have 4 more people i want to write up who are world class people. so i will try to learn from the mistakes on john f mitchell, who also was a world class genius. i spent days interviewing him and his colleagues before he died a few years ago. joe (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)joe

DGG how do i communicate with you

 * Note I moved this from DGG's user page where the editor below had mistakenly placed it Voceditenore (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

i keep getting database errors the article on john francis mitchell does not reflect my views; i have only used published documents from the wsj, chic tribune, etc john mitchell was one of the great geniuses of the 20th century and accomplished a great deal. there are many articles in wiki on communications technology that require more sourcing; and JFM is a lynchpin in the history of communications technology. he was a frugal man who never took credit for anything so i am at a loss as to how to remove my bias from the article thanks for your help, joe brophy joe (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)joe

DGG; thanx for your comments, it is helpful and a start. this will take me a while for rewrite. my grandson just arrived from grad school to stay with us for a month. he was the managing editor of his college newspaper, Colby Echo, for two years and he said he can help me.

i have 4 more people i want to write up who are world class people. so i will try to learn from the mistakes on john f mitchell, who also was a world class genius. i spent days interviewing him and his colleagues before he died a few years ago. joe (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)joe

Talkback
Just letting you know that I replied earlier. Zhou Yu (talk) 04:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

COPYVIO vs close paraphrasing
Hi DGG. If you  get  a moment, I  wonder it you  could take a look  at  this and let  me have a second opinion. It was speedied as a COPYVIO, but  my  first examination found it to be a close paraphrasing -  an issue that could possibly have been addressed and the article saved. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Parsytec
Hi, DGG. We are currently working at the paraphrasing. Please, have a look at (User talk:Ironholds) or, even better, contribute to it. Regards, Akolyth (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I need to quit for today, but I will roll up sleeves again by tomorrow. Good night, Akolyth (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I left a fairly detailed comment at the article talk page about what I think needs to be done. And checking some of the other articles you have written, i see some similar problems.  DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Village stubs
You have been mentioned in user talk:RHaworth. This page is desperately overdue for archiving. Spare a thought for people with mobile devices - it crashes my tablet PC if I try to edit the whole page. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Junior Seau memorials, etc
Hi, Since you nominated the Junior Seau Beach Community Center and Bandshell article for deletion, I would appreciate any constructive criticism you may have as to how to resolve any issues that have been raised in the deletion discussion. If any of the issues regarding notability or other things can be addressed by finding additional sources or other information, please let me know. Not that I'm opposed to deletion/merging, or whatever the community's decision may be, but I figure any guidance that could be offered would be helpful in assisting with other contributions to Wikipedia that I may endeavor to make in the future.

Thanks!

Gwsuperfan (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The question is whether it is sufficiently significant to be included in an encyclopedia. I do not think it is, but my decision is not controlling. Whoever is interested will give their opinions, and some other admin will decide what the consensus is. We have no really clear criteria for local buildings of this sort, and decisions here have varied depending of whether the available references are considered to be significant non-trivial coverage, which is to a large extent a matter of judgment. The guideline at WP:LOCAL has proven not as helpful as might be desired, because it too depends on the significance of the references. (There's an exception: buildings listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places are always notable enough for an article.) I just commented at the AfD that if you would accept a merge to the article on Oceanside, this would solve the problem. It is in my opinion quite reasonable to have a sentence or two on it in the article for the city.
 * In general, the first step in making an article is to make sure there are really good references, that provide the basis for saying something substantial. I find it easier to go from a local history or AIA guidebook or something of the sort, rather than first select the topic and hope for references. Normally, the easiest thing to write about is people, because we have well-defined standards, which is some areas can be quite liberal. For example, not only is every representative ever elected to Congress notable, but so is everyone ever elected to the state legislature.
 * There is also a question of what constitutes encyclopedic content within an article. For the city, the individual holders of officers below the city manager are probable not appropriate content. For such national organizations as the Surfrider Foundation, the list of branches is normally considered appropriate for their web page, but not an encyclopedia article, and the list of awardees should normally be limited to those notable enough for a Wikipedia article, unless almost all of them are notable, in which case a complete list is possible and the award itself might be notable.  DGG ( talk ) 14:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

DGG, have you seen the rewrite I did of this article? I rewrote the lead, added sources and information about the history of the venue, and removed some clutter. Since your "merge" comment at the AfD was posted just a couple of minutes after my note about the rewrite, I thought you might not have seen it; if not I would request you to take a look. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * the content I objected to remains. Which members of the city council voted for or against the project is not encyclopedic content; which local public officials were at the dedication is not encyclopedic content. This sort of bureaucratic trivia and namedropping is common in articles about organizations where there is insufficient actual content. Even when the organization is unquestionably notable, as for example a university, this is pure PR content, amounting to puffery. I normally remove it, as I do all puffery and PR. The work of professionals in public relations (on & off Wikipedia) trying to create publicity when there is nothing substantial has affected even the manner in which volunteers work.
 * However, the information about the venue now seems comparable to other such venues. I have commented accordingly at the afd.   DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. 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) 09:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:


 * Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasit &#124; c 17:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Again
I was wondering why you deleted my Appitalism article. What exactly does "an eligible subject" mean? --Ne0 (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Few assessments justify status quo
Hi DGG. I have noticed that in that DRV there are really few manifestos and half of them were just remakes coming from the same users presented in the Afd arguing their d position. And finally when the article was restored to an appropriated assessment, afterwards no manifestos were done; yet the DRV was closed. So obviously most users didn’t inspect the article (& talk) itself and therefore I still realize that a non-consensus prevailed. So again we have an incorrect closing of both discussions. In fact under my view that article is well solved in all important aspects, thus don’t exist significant reason for its rewriting now or in the future. So regarding that, I ask you, can that closing be undone? Could you please help on that? And do you have some advice/guidance about that matter? Excalibursword (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It would take a really perverse close to justify doing that--it is very unusual at deletion Review. In my opinion, this one is not at that level. The usual procedure is to wait about 6 months and bring a second deletion review. I would advise not doing merely that, but writing in user space a really strong and differentiated article--not just improving it, but rewriting it entirely. Then ask for review of it.  DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * DGG, frankly I don’t usually waste my time with some kind of editors, but seem to me that you are not in this category, so you deserve it: Well, what did you mean? The whole article is correctly sourced. The article only says what those reliable sources say. Yet, in fact that article is uncommon considering that it is a collection of information regarding a subject defined according to common sense, but even this is perfectly OK per WP:BLUE. As matter of fact that article is not so different of many other articles such as "list articles", and as well some non-list articles. One more time: there is not OR or synth in that article, really! Even so, you are implying that we should not only improve it (things such as tone, etc), but mainly removing sections, sources, content, rearranging style, etc; basically I see per WP:I DON´T LIKE IT and WP:I DON´T WANT IT. That is, are you agreeing with that nonsense reasoning done by the deletion people?! Someone said: "but we also had WP:I LIKE IT"; and I reply: "So what? As much policies are kept, this is irrelevant, whatever." And speaking of perverse things, how can a lucid editor to regard that Afd a "debate"? How can a pondered editor regard that Afd a consensus? Please don’t take these words as an attack (they are not), or some kind of unethical statements, because these are not intended to be. So that clarified; how an editor (see talk page for understanding details of the history) who never presented any factual argument against content or sources (nothing), could to require that deletion? An editor (but also some others) whose presence in that "debate" was dedicated to fence aggressively all editors against his deletion stand, by means of his main arguments such as: "that is a steaming pile of OR and synth", and "WP:I DON´T WANT IT." I ask you: what kind of arguments were those? An editor whose presence in that "debate" made statements such as "I am glad I have convinced you to change your mind … See now, together, we both would be unstoppable!" And also other editor stating to that editor: "Oh sorry, I didn’t have realized that you are above me!"  For God sake, what a heck do that means? Whatever was that, since when that bizarreness is an argument to decide a manifesto? Yes, perverse indeed.


 * See, I will share something more personal. Since I first sought that article, my thought was: "well, I know a little on that matter and I am impressed (in a good way) finding something like that in Wikipedia," and from that moment my concepts on Wikipedia rated it better. However I know how people use to prejudice, thus I also made the decision of watching that article (unfortunately I was right on that) and do the best I could to protect it, but, of course, this in certain measure regarding that nobody should take Wikipedia excessively serious. And that is it, my final words to you and whoever can be interested on this matter are: sometimes in our life we have the opportunity of deciding: To leave our comfortable position, or fight for something just right (WP’s policies included in this particular case). I would say that most people choose the comfort. That is to say, let’s keep real for a moment, they choose what is according to their personal creed, what seems easier, and/or what is profitable to them; that’s is, they really sell their souls. Best, Excalibursword (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I can only accomplish anything if i do not fruitlessly oppose the consensus, and accept determinations of the consensus though I think them wrong. If I want everything to go what I think the right way, I must myself run the entire operation. People have tried encyclopedias on that basis, but they have never been able to get enough people to follow them. There's a legend. A holy man had such great spiritual gifts he could perceive that everyone in the congregation were hopeless sinners, so he prayed in his own room. But a divine voice told him, Pray with the community! So he did.  DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In his place I would be very suspicious about that "divine" voice. But thanks for the quotation, so I have another to you: Once a while, all that you can do is only to show a "better" way to the crowd, and this message is your fertile legacy. Just do it my brother; and farewell, Excalibursword (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not incompatible: you remain in the community, and show them how to live by living among them. There are certainly issues which justify leaving them or fighting them, but I do not see this as one of them. I did in fact leave another project to make an online encyclopedia, for one person was running it to suit his views, and I judged they would make the project unsustainable.
 * You will be welcome back should you want to return, and many who leave in similar situations do return.  DGG ( talk ) 15:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Controversy over Parsha articles
Hi DGG: Could you please take a look at Articles for deletion/Noach (parsha). Your expert input woul`d be greatly appreciated. Thanks a lot. IZAK (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * commented there.
 * Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Republicanism and Communism
Translated Angelillo from Spanish wikipedia which says of him being a strong advocate of the Republic. However, the source says he was communist. Does this make sense or seem contradictory to you?♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In the Spanish Civil War, the left wing parties, including the Communists, supported the Republic; the Fascists were the ones  trying to overthrow it.  DGG ( talk ) 13:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

George Goyon
Georges Goyon. Born 1905. Can't find a death date. Still living? He appears to have published works in the 1980s and 1990s, might be possible.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Trees of Eternity
I'm really not sure; I virtually never deal with music articles, and I don't think I've ever read WP:MUSIC. My decline was purely based on importance, and their connexion to Swallow the Sun (which, having being around for seven years with no deletion attempts, I will guess to be notable) made me quite unwilling to speedy the article. What about PROD? Nyttend (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Argentina
Hi DGG: Could you please help move History of the Jews of Argentina to History of the Jews in Argentina. All the "History of the Jews in ____" use "in" and not "of" -- it seems someone changed the wording not knowing that. Thanks a lot. IZAK (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Armenia
Hi again DGG: I am tidying up some of the "History of the Jews in ____" articles. Could you please move back Jews in Armenia to History of the Jews in Armenia. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Europe
Hi DGG: This is another loose end that was created but needs to be moved from Jews and Judaism in Europe (a format that is never used) to History of the Jews in Europe (the standard format for these types of "History of the Jews in ____" articles). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Kazakhstan
Hi DGG: And her is yet another I found that someone messed around with. Jews in Kazakhstan should be moved to History of the Jews in Kazakhstan. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Switzerland
Hi DGG: Here's another one that is out of whack: Jews and Judaism in Switzerland should be moved to History of the Jews in Switzerland to match the vast majority of "History of the Jews in ____" articles. See them all in Category:Jewish history by country and see the main article in each category, they should/are all be titled as "Jewish history in ____". Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi DGG: Just wanted to update you that User has helped out with the above, so no need for any further help from you at this time. Thanks as always. IZAK (talk) 03:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Parsytec
I have used Ironhold's talk page because the whole discussion has started there. Please have a look at the section "Parsytec". Regards, Akolyth (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

EMC effect redirect
Thanks for sorting out my Redirect For Discussion (EMC effect -> EMC Effect). Buster79 (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

DRV bot proposal
Can you take a look at WT:DRV? Thanks a lot. T. Canens (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I had edited the article by using over 200 references which consist verifiable documents.
Dear Sirs, You stated that: "The article had content that could not be verified". But, in fact, every word, every sentence and every paragraph of my editing is verifiable with secure documents which are shown in over 200 references. Please show me that which of them "could not be verified". Thank you from now. Yours sincerely. --Fightingagainstlies (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * see your talk p.for my response  DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Algerian genocide page restoring
Muminah (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)The article was a very rich and useful historical page. Besides, it did not meet any criteria to be deleted. It was absolutely incompetent to delete some Wikipedia article due to someone's personal political views and preferences. I request you to restore this article. Further, article can be researched better and developed properly. Thanks in advance.


 * This is a little complicated. There are several versions of the articles in question. The   first version was    Algerian genocide,as    this article, tagged as a hoax in Decemeber 2011, &  speedy deleted as such by User:Fastily, an admin who has --I hope temporarily-- retired from Wikipedia .  Despite my respect for him, I consider this deletion unwarranted. It may be a political exaggeration to call the French conflict in Algeria genocide, but the underlying conflict did certainly take place, so whatever ought to have been done with this article, I do not see it as a hoax. The article was then recreated in a different version a few days later with the same title, as this (admins only at this point). The article French Genocide was also recreated, discussing also the political massacres by the French in the Vendée in the 19th century--the original version was here (admin only link at this point), later edited to include Rwanda also. (In both cases, calling them genocide by the French is really stretching it)   The Algerian article was then redirected to the French on the grounds of it having duplicate coverage, and then this version (admins only at this point) was nominated for AfD. The consensus was that   the phrase did not really exist, and was a made up term, and I closed it as delete--agreeing that the term is non-standard.
 * I think I made an error by not looking far enough back int the history. Had I done so, I would have seen the previous errors: the first  was the speedy; the second was the redirect in the wrong direction--it would have been better to redirect the French Genocide article to the Algerian one, merging content as needed. Had it been nominated for AfD under that title, the debate would have been different, though I cannot tell what the conclusion would have been.
 * I could take the easy way, & send to to del rev to be settled. But now that  I have figured it out, I might as well go ahead boldly and facilitate improvement and discussion.  As Fastily is not available, I'm going to correct all the errors by going back to the root, by restoring the version of the article as he deleted it. This makes the later deletions moot. Some of those arguing for deletion at the prior AfD will undoubtedly want to delete it under this title also. It is an open question whether using this term is fair in the ordinary meaning of the word, or whether it represents a Turkish riposte to the French accepting officially the armenian Genocide.   What you should do as soon as possible before someone send it to AfD is improve it, by adhering closely to the principles of NPOV in the wording, and looking for more references.  DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania
So good to see you, as always. But particularly at Wikimania - I hope you had as much fun as I did. -- David  Shankbone  01:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't tell really how much fun you had, but I think I did also.  DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User retention
FYI. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * commented there as boldly as i was able.  DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Dongqiao, Tibet
Delete?♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * you seem to have done a masterly job of working out the problems--I could never have done the like.   DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou. Moto Martin is up for the chop, I think there's enough to pass notability requirement.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks for closing that one.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Another mission accomplished..♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No Rent Manifesto CSD
Before tagging for CSD, I did searched the copyright policies to find information about how long does a copyright hold and from which year copyrights are applicable, but couldn't find. Can you direct me to the policy/guideline page where these are documented. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 07:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Start with WP:FAQ/Copyright. For some details on this aspect see WP:Public Domain. If you are going to be tagging articles on WP for deletion, you must become familiar with the basic rules, such that everything published in the US before 1923 is in the public domain.  DGG ( talk ) 14:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

User: Plasmic Physics
Hello. You recently participated in a discussion at ANI about the edits of Plasmic Physics. A consensus had just about been reached about a topic ban, but then it got automatically archived and I'm not sure it was formally enacted. The reason I ask is that he's recently made some edits to carbene analog which would break the Plasmic Physics is strongly cautioned to avoid article edits that add any chemical name if that chemical name is not actually widely used in the literature bit. Could you look at it and properly notify him of the block? Thanks, Chris (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * User's behaviour continues: when somebody removes his additions of exotic names, they are reverted (although in this case, admittedly, the IP should have provided an edit summary). See also WP:Reference desk/Science, where PP states when I discuss molecular theory, I prefer "oxidane" [as a name for H2O] when I talk about applied chemistry, I use "water". This is exactly the kind of, well, systematic name that PP has been adding to I-don't-know-how-many articles. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

CSD mentoring
If you feel I'm ready, it has been 3 months and I would prefer two signatures to demonstrate a good faith effort to comply with the suggestions from the RfA. User talk:Dennis Brown/CSD Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   (WER) 10:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * you already had them before I saw this.  DGG ( talk ) 14:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Institute of Certified Public Accountants in Ireland
Hi, I was a little surprised that you deleted the page Institute of Certified Public Accountants in Ireland despite the note on the talk page. Moreover, the text on the copyrighted directory page was pretty trivial compared to the article.

Anyway, I have re-created a rewritten version of the article. Should one of us undelete the original page history, or should that remain deleted because of the apparent copyvio? – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of the remainder of the page was also copyvio, sourced from their website. I would have done better to indicate that in the deletion summary. This would have prevented further errors--I notice that some of this material remained. My fault there. I did a little further editing, and put some first-person material in quotation marks.  If you want to restore the earlier versions, just   follow up to make sure they do give a proper license via OTRS.   DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks – that makes more sense now. I have left a message on the article talk page. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you know the superracist "Sinanoglu Youth Movement" in Turkey? Do you know that some Wikipedia Users are doing valdalism by showing themselves as the advocates of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia ?
Sinanoglu is not only a chemist, the "moreover" and "the" more important, he is the icon of the "Turk Superracism". The person who is subject of that article (Oktay Sinanoglu) published autobiographical book in 2001 in Turkey by using the fake titles of the “World’s Youngest Professor”, “Lord of U.S.A”, “at the peak point of science in U.S.A”, “The Turkish Einsten” etc. so he gained a lot of prestige in Turkey and a few million Turkish student accepted him as their idol and having been believed the fake titles of Sinanoglu are exactly true they occured the “Sinanoglu Youth Movement”. The last ten year (2001 – 2011) Sinanoglu became the “Hero of People” by using these fake titles that he published them in his bestseller autobiographical book. Today, by contributing a few million college student, the “Sinanoglu Youth Movement” was like the superracist “Hitler Youth Movement” in Turkey and Sinanoglu became the icon of the "Turk Superracism" everywhere. By reading the autobiographical book of Sinanoglu, large amount of college students became “superracist Turks” under the influence of Sinanoglu’s megalomanic and fake titles. So, they are conducting the election campaign: “Sinanoglu must be the President of The Republic of Turkey!” Eight years ago, the first edition of this article was written by some members of “Sinanoglu Youth Movement” as the summary of Sinanoglu’s autobiographical book and this Wikipedia article was used by them in Turkey as the proof that the titles of Sinanoglu had been accepted as exactly true by whole world, so every Turk must believe that this titles of Sinanoglu was exactly true. That was the begining and the developing of the "Sinanoglu Youth Movement" in Turkey. Did you understand now why I was interested and why I am working to edit this article by using verifiable documents over 200 references? Please look at the edit history of the article. You will see a lot of vandal attacks to clean my editings. The last vandal attacks came from “Salvador21”-“Khazar2”-“Bobrayner” If you look at these users pages, you will see that these users are Turks and they are related with “Ottoman Empire” articles in wikipedia and they advocated “New-Ottomanist Imperialist Ideology” that Sinanoglu propagated this ideology in his autobiographic book. As a result, the some members of the superracist "Sinanoglu Youth Movement" cleaned the all words of the article which is writen by me and they provided to put blockage to my editings by showing themselves advocates of the Wikipedia Five Pillars. The “Sinanoglu Youth Movement” are in joy that Wikipedia blocked my editings. And now, they sing a song: “Long Live the Five Pillars of Wikipedia! We can do vandalism by showing ourselves as advocates of these Pillars" --Fightingagainstlies (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * if he is an extremist, a very calm presentation of the basic facts will show it, and that is what will be in the article by the end of the day. Devoting long sections to very minor discrepancies detracts from the basic picture  and reduces the effect of whatever may be truly important.
 * WP is not for the promotion of either a cause, or a person's ideas; neither is it for the opposition to them, and the rationality of the cause or person is irrelevant.  Most of what you call attacks on the article was the   proper removal of BLP violations.  Any that are vandalism can be and will be prevented, just as the promotion or denigration is.  Quite frankly, what you have written   shows you are too involved in the opposition to his ideas to edit the article. if this is true of other people, they will be dealt with similarly.  I am aware of the background.
 * We present the information. We give what is shown by reliable secondary sources; we do not reprint or base an article on primary documents, which we use for negative biographical information only to the extent they are cited in reliable secondary sources. This is our purpose. to the extent it is not yours, to the extent it affect your writing, you will not be permitted to write here. I suggest as alternative topics articles on genuinely important Turks in science and the academic world generally, regardless of political persuasion.  DGG ( talk ) 14:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Music journal AfD
You may or may not be interested in this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Volume! AfD discussion]. I think you were part of the discussions when this article was first created and vetted. Steve Quinn (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:CP question
Hi, I didn't get a chance to say hello at Wikimania, but I did attend your interesting talk.

However, I'm writing about a different issue; I'm trying to help clean up WP:CP. I see Richard F. Edlich is listed, as a result of an edit you made in May. However, you didn't identify the possible source. I ran it through User:CorenSearchBot/manual, which isn't definitive, but it passed. I agree with you that the article needs cleanup, but at the moment, I'm narrowly focused on copyvio issues, so wondering if you recall which section troubled you, so I could zero in on it.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well for starters, see . I suspect this is one of those annoying cases, where bits are lifted from a variety of sources. This may also be a likely candidate for other bits, but it's behind a pay wall. Voceditenore (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not yet seeing it. A Duplication Detector for the article, and the book turns up a couple four word phrases:
 * cornstarch on medical gloves
 * food and drug administration
 * but nothing longer. The word "potentiated " jumped out at me, but it isn't in the book. Maybe it is in the article behind the paywall. I'll see if I can get someone to check.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As the result of talks with a number of paid editors at Wikimania, and exchanges of views with others working on the problem of promotionalism, I am increasingly paying attention to promotional editing.  The entire article is written in the style of a press release, and  that sort of thing is almost always copied or closely paraphrased from previous press releases.  If not copyvio it needs almost as much rewriting  as if it were, but finding copyvio is the convenient shortcut to deal with articles like this. Checking carefully the site of the university & affiliated organizations is a the way I usually go about it: much is often in non-googleable internal pages.   But I think  he is certainly notable, so it's worth some effort. I probably should have done it myself, but there is so much that the work needs to be distributed,   What particularly struck me was such hyped phrases as "first physician to do gastroscopy at the University of Minnesota Hospitals." -- what would be notable, of course, would be "first physician to do gastroscopy" in the US. Or a instance  where he was not the writer of the petition, but one of the 12 to sign a joint petition.  The claims may be valid, or they may exaggerations. Such is the manner of  press releases for physicians.  The key reference, (1) refers to many of these as being collaborative efforts. I'll follow it up.
 * There's an interesting paradox. The easiest way for someone to get a good article is to have someone write a poor one, and have us fix it.  DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm officially discouraged; no substantial overlap in may of the sources, but a fair amount with the one Voceditenore identified. And I agree with your paradox, one of my pet peeves is an editor who starts a piece of crap, then expects others to clean it up.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  20:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What I am especially concerned by,  are the paid editors who start a piece of crap which is nonetheless presumably the best they can do for the money and with their usually very limited experience, and then we volunteers rescue it. Especially if we entirely rewrite, they have been paid for bad work , but have caused us to do good unpaid work, often on something that might be technically notable , but would not otherwise have been covered. The only reason I am willing to work extensively on this is that he is quite notable, & we ought to cover him.
 * What you have found demonstrates the limit of the comparison approach to copyvio. I may not search further either--it needs so much rewriting that any copyvio will be removed in the process. I may get to it in the coming week.  DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

An academic - Oktay Sinanoğlu
For you and your talk page watchers. Uncle G (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
 * I can & will deal with this in the usual way, by writing a straightforward bio. I  apologize for not getting to this earlier, but I still chasing all the threads here after being at Wikimania. Attendance there, as at any conference,   inhibits for a short while  the actual work at hand. It does, however, clarify many general matters.  DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Having more than one sentence would be good, and my offer on the noticeboard extends to your talk page stalkers too.  [...]  Uncle G (talk) 09:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify things, I intend to work on the article page, just as I  have already corrected an error there.  If you regard this as wrong, tell me, and I'll work on other topics. . I have never done article work on talk pages or told others to--I know it has become a frequent practice, but to me the spirit of Wikipedia is live editing. Those who can not be trusted to edit live should not be editing at all.     DGG ( talk ) 15:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm telling them that they aren't excluded if they want to help. Your talk page watchers cannot necessarily edit through full protection as you did.  &#9786;  Uncle G (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My misunderstanding. If nobody gets to it before me, I'll see what I can do. (Personally, some of the people you only warned I would have blocked, but it does no harm to wait until they continue. Another question: what's your opinion on revdel for many(most) of the existing edits?  DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are less problematic revisions in the history.  may possibly have factual errors, but it isn't an attack piece.  However,  is an editor in Istanbul reverting to a preferred version  including copyediting for correct English and insertion of source citations.  As bobrayner noted on the BLP noticeboard, some of the problems in this article go back all of the way to the first revision.  If you're willing to start from scratch, with none of the prior content used, as I suspect you are, I am happy to revision delete the whole history up to  under criterion #2 and exchange full protection for blocking of individuals.  Let me know if the Istanbul IP addresses or Fightingagainstlies start edit warring with bad biographical content again. Uncle G (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

A lot of Turkish University Students claimed that the most of autobiographical statements of Oktay Sinanoglu are lie.
Dear Sirs You said to me: "You are too involved in the opposition to his ideas to edit the article. if this is true of other people, they will be dealt with similarly." Please look at this site (about Oktay Sinanoglu) http://www.itusozluk.com/goster.php/oktay+sinano%F0lu/sayfa/2 The long name of this site is: "The Dictionary of the Technical University of Istanbul" The subject of linked pages: Debating on Oktay Sinanoglu. There are 8 pages about Sinanoglu (since 2005 until today). The most of students says about him: "He is too liar" and "The most titles of Sinanoglu are false, not true." For your information. Yours Sincerely. --Fightingagainstlies (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We do not reprint gossip, whether the underlying events are true or false. Those you mention commenting on him are commenting in a more proper place than WP.    DGG ( talk ) 21:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
I really appreciate your help and kind words about the edits going on at Bibi Aisha. I'd just gotten to that page on a Wikipedia ramble and knew it couldn't stand as it was. Anyway, it has been YEARS since I got involved in anything with Wikipedia in depth. You taking the time to give me an "atta girl/boy" has pushed me to get back at it under my actual username. Thanks so much. 98.94.58.75 (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

MagLev (software)
It is recommended that you only use a wp:proposed deletion only if you believe no one will contest it. Probably should have used a wp:speedy deletion instead. Then the page creator should not remove the template. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no way I could have used a speedy: software does not fit into a7, and the article was not highly promotional. Prod is often worth a try, for while it might be contested, it sometimes encourages people to improve the article and may make AfD unnecessary. The more things that can be kept out of AfD, the better.  DGG ( talk ) 07:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have come to the conclusion that if it has been edited in the last month, that a PROD is not a good idea. Wait until things quite down then sneak it in. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not happy with the concept of trying to wait until there is little activity from the original editor, and then trying to sneak it past Prod. This is unfair to the editors, & the article, for they may sometimes be able to meet the objections. About one-fourth of prodded articles get improved well enough to be kept.   The original contributor is the most likely person to do it, and the main problem is in catching him while he is still paying attention.  In this case, one of the most reliable editors in this subject worked on the article, and  if he did not think it worth deletion, I accept his view of it.   DGG ( talk ) 14:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Good article reassessment/Delaware Route 17/1‎
Would you mind taking a look at the above GAR? There have been concerns about sourcing for some of the U.S. road articles that are currently GAs. --Rschen7754 21:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Chembox issue
In this ANI archive you asked to be informed if further assistance was required (see your comment at "04:47, 23 July 2012"). I do not understand the issues, but it is obvious that disruption is occurring, so please consider a new report in this ANI section. Some background is available by searching for "31 July 2012" at WT:WikiProject Chemicals. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

El emigrante
More than one El emigrante... Between Aymatth and myself we've come up with Ella sigue de viaje... Quite enjoyable discovering the song. Had no idea my guitar hero covered that one..

Same, but different
Saw User:MrDDG come by the Teahouse today and my eyebrow raised for a second ;) SarahStierch (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Weekly Torah portion parsha discussions again
Hi DGG. Please see Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha) for new discussions about the content and sources of the 54 weekly Torah portion articles. Please keep track of that discussion as it unfolds. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)