User talk:DGG/Archive 69 Oct. 2012

Avrom Lasarow Article
Hello DGG. Thank you very much for your message and advice. I had read the sections on BLPs and Referencing, and was convinced that was the policy but upon reading them for a second time I was clearly wrong. The policy does only apply to material that is challenged or likely to be challenged and all quotations. I sincerely apologize for my error. Fortunately, I don't believe I have used that comment very often and lately I have mostly been welcoming new users, declining only very obviously self-promotional or nonsense submission, fixing small format errors, and helping to create new articles. I will try to find any articles where I have placed that comment, though, and revert the comment and review the articles again.

With respect to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Avrom Lasarow, I have tried to fix some format issues in the article. I changed the section "Personal Life" to "Personal Comments" because it appears to be just a series of quotes from Lasarow that have very little, if anything, to do with his personal life.

I also have some concerns about the lack of independence and promotional nature of quite a few of the references and want to seek your guidance. I would appreciate your consideration of the following issues:


 * 1. All of the PRNewswire references. PRNewswire is a self-promotional site, "Press Release"(PR).  Businesses or individuals pay the site to publish their article or press release and to post it on a whole bunch of free, questionable sites.  If you scroll down to the bottom of this one, for instance, you see that the source is the company itself: http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/avi-lasarow---founder-amp-managing-director-of-dna-bioscience-is-shortlisted-for-entrepreneur-of-the-future-award-154792255.html and also this one:http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/trimegas-new-substance-abuse-testing-laboratory-in-manchester-to-alleviate-impact-of-forensic-science-service-closure-156254205.html If you review the information at the Products & Services Tab http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/products-services/ you will get a better idea of what PRNewswire is all about.


 * 2. The only thing Rebecca Burn Calendar wrote at http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/features/1107499/week-avi-lasarow-trimega-laboratories is the byline: "The Trimega boss on being a drug testing pioneer, going global, and why running your own business is just like sport." The rest of it is written entirely by Avrom Lasarow.  I checked the fine print at the very bottom of the page about the publication and although it contains some news, it also contains management tips and advice, blogs and insight from managers.  That appears to be what this piece is - an article by the manager about the manager.  The title of the article is actually: My Week: Avi Lasarow of Trimega Laboratories


 * 3. The article atributed to "Africa, T.S." is actually a blog piece where Lasarow interviews himself, essentially. (I can only assume Africa, T.S. was thought to be a clever way of disguising that since the article appears in The South African.com.)The tipoff is the label "About the author" just to the left of his photograph.  The content is entirely his own words and is promotional as are most of the articles the user has referenced.


 * 4. The reference to the site about his having been named the Honourary Consul for South Africa in Birmingham is troubling as well. If you click on the "welcome" part of that site at http://www.honconsul.za.com/birmingham/, you find Lasarow's welcome. The site appears to be his own and the contents, therefore, written by him.  I checked around to see if there was an independent and verifiable source for this information and found that while the same article that appears on his bio page on that site appears all over the place, it all originated from PRNewswire (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/avi-lasarow-appointed-south-african-honorary-consul-of-the-midlands-133998843.html) which is the paid-for-self-promotional site I mentioned earlier.  According to the Republic of South Africa, International Relations & Cooperation page at http://www.dirco.gov.za/foreign/sa_abroad/sau.htm#uk he truly is the Honourary Consul for Birmingham but the rest of the information in the sources he cites comes from him.  Would it not be better and more neutral to simply refer to the Republic of South Africa page?


 * 5. There is a second reference to author "Africa, T.S." which is again an article actually written by Lasarow in The South African.com. It is the same self promotional piece about his being appointed as Honourary Consul for Birmingham.  This is a duplicate of the article discussed at the above paragraph.


 * 6. A number of the references are to Lasarow's company website. If one follows the reference to the awards page, you will see that in fact the company won only two "Start-up" business awards - all the rest it was either a representative or a finalist but did not win the awards.  The Awards and Honours section of the article reflects this for the most part, but also sites awards not listed on the company's website through PRNewswire and the Pitman article which I will address shortly. My two concerns are: a) is it noteworthy that the company didn't win several awards? and b)independence.


 * 7. The S. Bartlett and J. Pitman articles are better, but only slightly. Both begin by providing unsourced information about Lasarow and the company, but then devolve into interviews with him. In all the circumstances, I can't help but suspect that their information came from Lasarow.


 * 8. The reference to source "Unknown" at the Trimega Lab's website is entirely misleading. If one clicks on the link provided http://www.trimegalabs.co.uk/info/media-centre/downloads/110218-trimega-manchester-lab-launch-180211.pdf it takes you to a pdf's word document that is self-promotional.  The exact same press release, which clearly indicates it comes from the company itself, appears in an earlier PRNewswire citation included by the user:  http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/trimegas-new-substance-abuse-testing-laboratory-in-manchester-to-alleviate-impact-of-forensic-science-service-closure-156254205.html - it even bears the same date.


 * 9. The BBC news article cited http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-16743351 is really an article about Basil D'Oliveria (a cricketer) and the memorial service held for him.  It mentions that Lasarow, as Honourary Consul for Birmingham was there and paid his tributes.  I'm not sure that portion of the article adds anything of value about Lasarow, but at least the source is independent I guess.


 * 10. The News24 article is again an article about his company being a finalist for an award.


 * 11. The posted article at IVDTechnology.com is a direct, word for word, posting of press release put out by the company - it can be found at http://www.trimegalabs.co.uk/info/media-centre/downloads/110909-trimega-develops-worlde28099s-first-commercial-test-for-foetal-alcohol-syndrome-in-south-africa2.pdf which I retrieved from Trimega's press release page. The reference refers to Park, R. as though he were the author of the article when, in fact, he is merely the guy who posted it.


 * 12. The Progressive Business Forum article is about a two day conference that was held in London. The only mention of Lasarow is in this one line: The South African Deputy High Commissioner, Mr Bongani Qwabe, also attended as did South Africa’s Honorary Consul for the Midlands, Mr Avi Lasarow.


 * 13. External Links seem a bit excessive and self promotional to me.  There are also some external links listed that are not links at all that I think should be removed.

The surviving, seemingly independent sources are either about Trimega or about the failed company DNA Bioscience. Any guidance you may be able to provide would be helpful.

Thanks again for your time and assistance. Snowysusan (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * good analysis. Your comment are generally correct, and I will deal with the problems they present. Some of these non-independent references are good for some purposes, for the routine facts of his life. Some are just fluff. There is also a problem with some wording which can be seen as OR unless fully sourced. And I apologize for not making myself the format fixes that you made there.
 * What happened with this article is that on seeing that the reason for non-aproval did not apply, and recognizing that his positions were /n, and there were among all the references a few good ones that confirmed it, I hurriedly & a little carelessly approved it, without considering carefully enough the other problems. What I should have done is dealt with them, either myself before I moved it to mainspace, or right afterwards, or by at least telling the author to make the needed corrections.
 * The article was excessively promotional in general, but fixable. What I do with such articles depends of the importance of the subject & my own interests. If they are borderline important & uninteresting to me, I tend not to accept them. If they're clearly notable, I fix them to the minimum extent & hope for further improvements. If I am really interested & think it's really notable, I sometimes rewrite, especially if the original author appears unlikely to learn enough to do it themselves--but nobody reviewing an article is obliged to do that.
 * It is my own fault I did not follow up--I've done some of it now, and I will do the rest later in the week.  DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Review for Veterinary clinical pathology page.
Hello DGG,

Thank you very much for your more detailed comments about my new page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Veterinary Clinical Pathology and the American Society for Veterinary Clinical Pathology. I really appreciate more than just the canned auto comments that I had received from previous reviewers. As recommended I have shortened the title and completely reworked the article which is now listed as Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Veterinary Clinical Pathology. If you have a chance would you please take a second look and let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve its chances of being accepted. After acceptance I also plan to add a few photos. Thank you very much, Pennypatten (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I took a look at a fee of the existing articles, and things are a bit more complicated. See your talk p.  DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Go Phightins! (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Go Phightins! (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Martin A. Nisenholtz Article
Hello DGG. Thank you for moving my first ever Wikipedia entry into the article space today. It was a thrill. However, somewhere along the line the subject's name got a typo in both the headline and the url. The article is about Martin A. Nisenholtz, with an "h." The headline and the url have omitted the "h" and list the subject as Martin A. Nisenoltz. I cannot figure out how to correct this so I'm hoping you can help. Thanks very much. Mzimbalist (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is done by the move page function under the page menu, but there can be complication, so I did it, moving it to Martin Nisenholtz -- it's not our style to use the middle initial unless needed to disambiguate; I made the necessary cross reference. While I was at it, I did what I should have done earlier, copy-editing for conciseness and our house style, and to ensure it did not duplicate any of a previous article on him, deleted in 2010 as copyvio from the NYT company site--a page I can no longer reach to check. You'll notice we use a down style for capitalization, and avoid repeating names of people and companies when not necessary for clarity. I added a few links also--we normally add more than you conservatively did. The article needs a cite for one value judgement--I marked it. It could also use a reference to a published review of his book.  DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

British Mauritius
hi, i wanted to move the article Dominion of Mauritius to British Mauritius, i nominated the page 'British Mauritius' for deletion as it was only a redirect to a section of an article, but my edit was reverted, i don't understand what you mean by Just make an additional redirect for the name you want, i want to know what should i do?Kingroyos (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see now what you are trying to do: you are trying to write a separate article to expand the "British Period" section of the Mauritius article., and name in dominion of Mauritius. That sees a perfectly good idea, except that so fat you have not added any content to it beyond what was in the overall article. When you do, I can make the necesary connections. but on the other hand, if you are not going to develop the article further, I do not see the point of it being there at all.  DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

PROD / Speedy / AfD
I have seen your comments on the, all too common, WP:SPIP WP:NOTABILITY articles.

Opinions on this:

John Styn PeterWesco (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * He did win two webbys, so there is an argument he might be notable. I find it very hard to judge careers like his. Send it to AfD, and others will come to a conclusion.  DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Demons (novel)
Hello. Perhaps you can help me with a minor mystery. For some reason, the talk page for Demons (novel) redirects to Talk:The Possessed (novel). I can understand that there was a dispute about where the article should be, and it was moved more than once. But, why did the talk page not get moved at the same time as the article? I thought this happened automatically. At any rate, it's not where it should be, and ought to be fixed, yes? --- The Old Jacobite The '45  22:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it ought. ✅ by passing . Thanks for pointing it out. JohnCD (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I am just baffled by why it was not moved when the article was moved.  Such things never cease to amaze me.  Cheers! --- The Old Jacobite The '45  01:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * semi-automatically, not automatically; there's a box to move the talk p also, selected by default. Someone must have accidentally unselected it. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's more complicated than that, and easy to make a mistake. If the target page exists, the "move" page asks you to confirm that you intend to delete it; but if the target talk page exists, you are not asked about that, and that move does not happen. There is a warning:
 * "This page has a talk page, which will be automatically moved along with it unless:
 * You are moving the page across namespaces,
 * A non-empty talk page already exists under the new name, or
 * You uncheck the box below."
 * but it's easy to miss. What you have to do is, either delete the target talk page in advance, or make a separate move of the talk page afterwards. I suppose the point is to avoid casually overwriting a talk page history which ought to be preserved, but it is not an intuitive way for the system to behave. JohnCD (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. 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) 14:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Dillard
I still think he is notable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Eric Mika
Not a clear cut copyvio, but top right corner of this link. LegoKontribsTalkM 04:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also JamiQ, partial copyvio from linkedin. LegoKontribsTalkM 04:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Meriem Maza is a clear cut copy-vio, so I've tagged it for G12. LegoKontribsTalkM 04:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * yes. The common factor is the insufficiently suspicious person who accepted the AfCs. I''ve explained it to him, to supplement your explanation. The hypothesis was the AfC would ease the burden on NPP &CSD and all other deletion processes, but the way its being done, it's making the problem worse.   DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing so. What should I do with the first two articles? Let the PRODs expire or tag for G11? LegoKontribsTalkM 05:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Help with monitoring a potential revert war
Hi DGG! I needed your help, or at least for you to keep an eye on a situation occurring at Seraphina (book). I'm sort of in the middle of a reversion war with another user and while it's not at the 3R point, I feel that it's coming to that. The latest point of contention is that the other user keeps trying to add the sentence "Seraphina achieved the extremely rare feat of receiving starred reviews from all six publishing trade journals that award them." My rationale behind removing it is that it's somewhat promotional, not very neutral, is rather redundant with the overflow of comments in the reception section (I admit that it probably needs to be trimmed), and sort of smacks of original research. I know that not every book ever made gets starred reviews from every journal, but I also know that it isn't as overwhelmingly rare as this sentence makes it out to be. When paired with phrases such as "overwhelmingly positive" (which I added because that's what the reviews are), I just feel that the sentence is an unnecessary addition to an article that had already been suffering from several neutrality issues when I first stumbled upon it. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * multiple awards are not independent events: obviously a good book will be likely to get many. Because of the different standards used, starred books reviews are not necessarily significant, except to the publisher's advertising. However I do not know any relevant studies of this. More to the point is the use of derivative opinion like both the other editor's statement and your summary. If six reviews said it was excellent, cite all 6 and let it go at that.. There is no need to draw an overall conclusion. DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Bias in Mental Testing
Hello DGG, I remembered your comment here that Wikipedia might deserve an article on Arthur Jensen's book Bias in Mental Testing. I recently created this article and I'd like it if you could have a look at it. Specifically I'm wondering about the single-source and notability tags, which were added before I had finished writing the article. I think I've now added enough sources that the article no longer relies on a single source, and enough to show the book is notable. But I'm not sure if I've satisfied the requirement for removing the tags, and also whether it would be bad etiquette for me to remove tags from an article I wrote myself. Zeromus1 (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Current Contents' "citation classics" are undoubted notability in science & I will so indicate. What you can do meanwhile, is to rewrite the bullet points into paragraphs.  DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Current Contests has a citation classic article about another of Jensen's books, Educability and Group Differences. Do you think that means this book also is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article? Zeromus1 (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. But I strongly advise you not to do it, at least not for another 10 or 12 months. To make multiple articles against anticipatable opposition is asking for trouble, no matter how misguided the opposition may be. Work it up as a section of the article on the author -- see WP:Summary Style. What you should instead do is add a list of every book review of BMT. A librarian can help you find them. Try for as wide a range of coverage as possible, --there should have been international attention.  DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't currently have access to an English-language library, but I'll try to find other way to improve the coverage of these books. Thanks for the advice. Zeromus1 (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center Abilene Campus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page R.N. (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive766
As the closer of Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive766, would you add the restriction(s) imposed on to Editing restrictions? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi DGG. In regards to this, there has been another SPI on Metalvayne, here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Metalvayne - where he has both admitted that he has another sockpuppet, and he has used that sockpuppet to get around his topic ban. I was wondering if you could help with this. Thanks! Sergecross73   msg me   15:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi again, DGG. So, in regards to this, no one has opposed what you proposed at his SPI report, but still no action has been taken against him yet either. I don't mean to be impatient, it's just that he's still going about arguing with people and breaking his topic ban. Is there anything I, or you, can do to speed things up? Doesn't seem like SPI's verdict is necessarily needed if he's already admitted to being a dock. Anyways, let me know. Thanks! Sergecross73   msg me   22:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi DGG. A week ago,User:Metalvayne was blocked because he used a sockpuppet to get around his topic ban, where he's not allowed to edit anything related to genre or musical style on music pages. He was blocked him for a week, with his block ending on late October 16. By October 17, he had already right away broken his topic ban, with this edit. Now, the edit was non-controversial, but he's already been warned that he's not supposed to edit music genre at all, (See here, and he even acknowledged that he knows this here.) So, I wanted to point out that he knowingly broke his topic ban as soon as his his block expired. Sergecross73   msg me   11:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Regards, DGG. I just want to ask that is it wrong to revert an unnecessary, unconstructive edit by a WP:GWAR IP like this who doesn't even bother to read notification within the specific field? Metal Vayne   talk  16:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * DGG, I ended up taking this to ANI again, so I suppose you can comment there if you have any thoughts on it. Sorry for constantly bothering you about this... Sergecross73   msg me   23:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Metalvayne
Hello DGG. In August you imposed a one-year topic ban on Metalvayne. You've also commented in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Metalvayne. Per these comments by the closer of a recent discussion, Metalvayne/Bloomgloom is continuing to cause disruption on these articles. When you commented, it was not clear what you thought about the continued usage of the Bloomgloom account by editor formerly known as Metalvayne. The usual SPI process would indicate an indef block of Bloomgloom. (There is no evidence that Metalvayne's account is unable to function). Please come back to to the SPI to give your opinion on my recommendation for an indef block of Bloomgloom and extension of your topic ban. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Ariel Fernandez
I know you are busy, and there isn't a rush, but could you look at this article? While working Sockpuppet investigations/Arifer it appears that everyone involved in the article from start to finish was related to the person himself, likely meatpuppetry, via a variety of IPs and a couple of seldom used accounts. I've decided to forgo a bunch of blocks and drama (excepting one user name block) and instead indef semi-protect the page, instruct Ariel to not edit his own page and instead use the talk page, and have someone I trust to review the article to insure it qualifies under GNG and is at least mildly within our expected norms. As he is a professor with a respectable amount of claims, I figured you would be an excellent choice to give it a quick review and determine the general status. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 16:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I hesitate to get overly aggressive in an area where I am weak and the collateral damage can be high, but never hesitate to trust your judgement in these situations.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 20:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed they weren't blocked yet. Did you want all the named indef'ed as promotional?  I don't mind doing the clean up if it saves you time. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 21:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * yes, please do. I just finished the bio and and now working on the dehyron. Please consider semi-protecting that also.  DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just about to eat, will get it done directly afterwards. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Article for creation David Carruthers (New Zealand judge)
I have made changes to the article on New Zealand Judge David Carruthers if you would like to have another look. Hopefully it can now be "created". Offender9000 (sorry my tildes are not working)

Biographical question
Hi - I think I've seen you talk at a few wikipedia events and whatnot, and I know you're heavily involved in biographical entries. Given that, I seem to have gotten into some confusion about policy regarding primary sources. Can they be used to provide basic bibliographic information? Thanks! PermanentVacay (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * they can be used for routine uncontested facts not likely to be contested--a person place & date or birth, his education, his employment history. Even his awards, though they can usually be referenced to some 3rd party news source. His publications also, though these always can be sourced to a third party source like worldcat.
 * I chose these examples without knowing what you were editing, but now looking at the discussion at Talk:Larry Hama, I see the examples I picked are exactly the ones discussed by Nightscream, & I agree with his discussion.  DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Part of this is that I'm trying to understand what part of the policy suggests that this is to be the case. The other part of this is that I'm not sure why including primary sources in addition to other sources is a problem, and why the primary source would have to be removed just by virtue of being a primary source. Thanks for your impartial help - clearly I'm missing something and it's just a matter of explaining policy to me, not putting the references back in... but I'd like to understand the problem so I don't make similar mistakes in the future. PermanentVacay (talk) 05:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

M. G. Edwards
Hi David, This article was created recently by User:Edworlds (under the title "M. G. edwards" until I moved it), and I see from his talk page that you declined an AfC of his a couple of years ago on the basis that we didn't need an article about this self-published author. You might like to have a look at the current version. Pam D  07:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose there is an advantage in taking it to AfD now, even tho it will be  deleted at BLP prod because there not only are no references in the current version: we can then G4 any repeated attempts. I will do it.  DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Question Regarding Deletion of Page
I submitted a page for creation a couple of months ago, but it was deleted for copyright infringement. I am creating the page, Paul T. Entrekin, at his request. Can you provide me the full copy of the original page, which was deleted? It contained several sources that weren't properly cited, but I'd like to cite them properly and resubmit. User SwisterTwister suggested that I contact you for the full copy of the original submission. Thanks CleverOgre (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it is a copyright infringement, we can't provide you a copy of the text. That would be a violation of copyright law, which is why it was deleted.  I viewed the deleted article, and I would provide you a copy of the references, but it literally had none.  I have doubts about it meeting the requirements for notability, but then again, it had no references so it is difficult to tell from condition of that previous article.  You need to start from scratch and use original prose, like all other articles here.  I suggest starting in a sandbox or using WP:AFC.  I would imagine that DGG would tell you the same here.   Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 02:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * actually, down about 3/4 of the way in the massive CV was some potentially useful material about books making references to him, which I could send, and I already notified the ed. i would --as soon as he actually registered an email address.  DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I have added an email address to the account. I am creating this Wiki at his request, from copy he provided, which is why some of it seemed to violate copyright. I would like the portion regarding television, movie, and magazine appearances to be sent. I will then go to Mr. Entrekin to get sources for the other information he's asked to include. CleverOgre (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge
Could you have a look at the discussion here and tell me what you think the proper title should be? I was pretty much convinced that I was right, until this editor brought up the Microsoft argument. So now I don't know any more... Although, if it's a stone rule that we should put the company name in front of the product name, would that also mean that Nature would have to become Nature Publishing Group Nature? :-) Seriously, your informed opinion is welcome. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Academic Journals are sui generis . I think WP naming conventions tend to lack rationality. I rarely engage in these debates because I disagree with some of the fundamental rules, like never disambiguating names until there is a conflict.  DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Annoying user
Hi DGG.

In my user talk page there is a guy who is starting to annoy me by posting several stuff on it. I think the guy started doing that after my decline on an article of which he started to discuss on  my userpage.

Now, I think it is already out of the scope and is just posting stuff to bother me (e.g. User_talk:Jorgecarleitao. Unfortunately, I don't how to deal with this kind of situations, I never had to deal with something like this. Can you please help me?

Thanks, jorgecarleitao — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgecarleitao (talk • contribs) 08:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Inputs in my talk page
Thank you for your inputs in my talk page. They are really helpful for me to understand to what extent the article is good or not to be accepted. Somethings is hard to be objective on the notability issue, and your inputs help me to better understand it. I'm sorry for wrongly refusing some of them.Jorgecarleitao (talk) 09:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Green House Network
I have voted delete at this nomination but there haven't been any additional votes despite two relistings (the second relisting was today). Would you comment? I provided a lengthy and detailed delete comment which shows that there is little appropriate coverage of the group but I'm open to another user offering their view. Thanks! SwisterTwister  talk  20:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Sydney King
Abolutely stunned that you could delete my article!

I request that you please reinstate it so I can add some futher references

Thank you

Heidi Howell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heidelind howell (talk • contribs) 21:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * He didn't delete your article, Rjd0060 did. DGG just discovered the copyright infringement.  That means it will NOT be restored to your user page, as that is a violation of copyright law.  You can't steal text from other sites, you have to write your own prose, which means you need to start from scratch. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 02:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Gold Bar Reporter and Anne Block
This is what happens when I look at WP:AFD on my day off... Anyway, There seems to be a fair bit of coverage about Anne Block's various campaigns against Gold Bar and Aaron Reardon in particular. I have some inclination towards incorporating this into the various articles, but I thought I'd ask you as someone with more experience in this area. Mangoe (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * this sort of small town sort of thing is one area where I now make an exception to my usually narrow view of BLP. There is no encyclopedic importance, and the BLP problems are so many that it is better not to cover it. It however fits into no real category of BLP, except doing no harm to the mentally disturbed==even if they seek publicity, it is not in their interests. I took the opposite view when I was new here, see my 2007 argument at Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium (third_nomination).  DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Having thought this over I'm inclined to to take your advice on this. At any rate when the dust of history settles over the matter it can be added if anyone still cares at that point. Mangoe (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Improve
Hi DGG. As I said here 1 I am a new editor. I'm beginning to translate and need help. Please could you help me to improve this? You can edit/improve the article, too. The researches of this author and his books are notable. Please help me. Thank you for your attention.--USAnne (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * withdraw the present article and write a new one, focussed around his authorship, with exact citation of reviews and short translated excerpts from them, and third party magazine or newspaper articles recording the award of his prizes.  DGG ( talk ) 12:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * DGG: See how it is now. If you can, you help me to improve it more? --USAnne (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. His importance is as a writer; that's where he won the prizes. I remind you once more he is not a PhD visiting researcher because he does not have a PhD.   The coincidence of the language in all the Brazilian references and his websites indicates  the articles are based on his own PR about himself and are unreliable for what he has actually done. Harvard apparently was trusting enough to let him call himself what he wanted to on his web page there--this is only the second instance I have come across of a person's official university web page being unreliable. Could you please add a third party reference for each of the prizes, and references to the reviews of his books. They cannot be referenced only to his web site. I will add back the sentences on his education. I will then take care of improving the English. If the prizes can be supported by third party evidence I might change my opinion.If those evidences are in print & not on the web, give a quotation--an exact quotation including the page number and date of publication, and a rough translation.    DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! It is getting better! What can I do to help you? Do you still believe that it needs be deleted? There are people supporting your first commentary. --USAnne (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can find the reviews,and add them, right now, it will probably not be deleted.  DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I found one very good, from a newspaper, please, check it: 1 --USAnne (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Reviews about O Anjo Rebelde: in a large book store: 1 and and about other edition in a publisher: 2. This is Academia Riograndese de Letras: 3. It is not for students. Please, check.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by USAnne (talk • contribs) 02:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * as you do not yet realize, reviews like these are advertisements. I've tried what I can do, and there is not enough.  DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * DGG: We have a lot of reliable sources in large newspapers, researches, books, contributions to science, and an article that already exists in Wikipedia in another language. You mentioned the size and reviews of books. The sources that I quoted have the size and reviews. I also want to clarify that he is not only a graduate Harvard researcher. He is a "Fellow", ie, he has scholarship for his research. It is an honor and international recognition. Besides, his research is reference to the Ministry of Defence of Brazil. What could be more notorious for a researcher in the field of Defense?--USAnne (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Daniyal Mueenuddin
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Daniyal Mueenuddin. 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) 15:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Need the help of an admin...
I'm coming to you for help because I've asked for help on multiple forums and been relatively ignored. I'm in the middle of a reversion war with a user who seems to have a conflict of interest going on here. It concerns the article for Jobie Hughes. Not only does the article contain copyvio, but the user keeps saying "inaccuracies" without ever explaining why it's inaccurate or giving evidence to prove it. It's rather suspicious that it's always stuff that might not reflect beneficially on the author and I'm begining to think there's a COI going on here as well. So far this has gotten little to no attention from anyone and it's going into vandalism territory now. Can you help out?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've requested full page protection until the edit war is resolved, if you can help speed things along with that. I'm not saying necessarily that my version is the absolute correct one (although I did source mine and it doesn't contain copyvio), but this constant reverting is ridiculous. We've gone through five reversions in a 24-48 hour period with no true intervention. Sorry for sounding frustrated, but I'm just irritated at the general lack of response over this by the boards.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * protected for one week. As for the issue, I know you can deal with it. I'll give an opinion in a day or two if you ask me, but see where you can get first.  DGG ( talk ) 07:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! I was just getting so frustrated that it was going on for so long without any true discussion. I'm sorry it had to come to this, full protecting the article in order to force conversation on the talk page, but at least now it won't be warring over the main article. I made sure to specify on the talk page that the protection doesn't mean that my version will prevail, just that it needs to be discussed on the talk page. Although I do admit a preference to my version, which is ultimately the last version by Little green rosetta.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

List of Tarkhans (Sikh)
Replied to your question. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 05:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

AfD of interest : Line Löwenstein
Since you commented on prods or such of this article before, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Line Löwenstein.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 22:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Question
Hi there. If I have a question for the nominating editor concerning the nomination rationale in a RfA, where do I post it? In the "General comments" section? Amsaim (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If it relates to  the candidate's merits, as would seem to be likely both in the only current RfA and in almost any nomination,  the question would really pertain to the candidate and should be given as an support/oppose/neutral opinion. If it pertains to comments made not directly pertaining to the candidate, it might go better on the RfA talk page.  DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks very much for the info. Amsaim (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

An article you deleted
You deleted Mike Carvello on the grounds that there was no such person. The article appears to have been recreated as Mike carvelo. AutomaticStrikeout 23:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks; has been deleted.  DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Clustering of composers
Hi DGG. I'd be interested in your views on its AfD. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A very creative solution. I hadn't really thought outside the music box (so to speak). I wonder what the poor article's creator thinks. We need and allegedly encourage academics to share their knowledge and expertise. But often when they do, no one thinks of communicating with them first, instead their article is summarily taken to AfD within hours of its creation where they are branded as COI spammers. Sigh. (Signora) Voceditenore (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * what it takes, I think, is for the knowledgeable people to to take their fair share of the screening. instead of leaving it for uninformed beginners. I recognize the lack of satisfaction in having to deal with junk, but its the exchange for being able to rescue the one in a hundred who is really needed here but unappreciated.  DGG ( talk ) 07:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, but in this case the person who nominated it for deletion consulted a very experienced editor first who advised him to go ahead. . Lack of subject area knowledge is a big problem at AfC too. I just rescued Hellmut G. Haasis from its clutches. I'd do more work there, but I can't get the script to work and doing everything manually is a very time consuming. The exponentially increasing number of promotional articles on non-notable people, companies etc. has horribly poisoned the well here. People just start automatically assuming COI and spam intent in every article where the creator looks remotely related to the subject and don't even try to see past it. Voceditenore (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Everyone here is limited in our subject understanding. I recall not just some hideous mistakes I made in cricket until I resolved never to edit in that area again. I remember getting Philippine political geography totally wrong, until someone was friendly enough to explain to me their system. Unlike cricket, I thought it worth learning. Teaching people to recognize importance in inadequate articles in fields they don't know about is at its core the necessarily slow process of giving a good liberal education. As for AfC, at this point it is worse than NPP. What makes it really unfortunate is that the people are coming their for advice, knowing they need help with our standards and our system, and they are all too often given bad advice. The main thing I do now to is try to identify one or two inadequate patrollers a day, and teach them--people who don't, for example, know enough to say to a hopeless promotional writer about their small business--not only is the article promotional, but there is no chance at all that the business is notable by our criteria. There will never be an article here--why don't you write on some other topics? And people who don't know enough   DGG ( talk ) 15:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted page DGG
Hello DGG,

Could you explain to me why you deleted this page? related to J House Greenwich 00:02, 15 September 2012 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page J House Greenwich (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject.

I do not understand...

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wessers (talk • contribs) 15:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Carlos Becker Westphall
The article was just re-created after being deleted via AfD a few years ago. It is about a Brazilian scholar and you voted to delete. As you can see the deleted article and professors are your expertise, could you take a look at it to see if a CSD/AfD should be applied. Bgwhite (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been 5 years ago & there are a number of additional publications, so it really should go to AfD again. I'll send it.  DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

M. G. Edwards
This is up for AfD. I believe the nominator was unaware that you deleted it two and a half years ago and that it should be speedied as the recreation of a previously deleted article. What do you think? Qworty (talk) 02:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's fairer to let someone other than me judge it.  DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Marrakech
Hi. Some input is needed on the talk page as to what spelling to use.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Need help creating an article about a publishing house
The London based Temple Smith; it's a redirect to an unrelated topic right now. They have a long list of books here. I always have trouble finding material about publishers, but you seem an expert in this field. Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * They are also known as "Maurice Temple Smith Ltd." They have been defunct since 1993, -- see . I have not identified anything they ever published  that was not copublished by another company. I will do some further checking, but I don't see much possibility of writing an article on them.  DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hans Eysenck's highly controversial book Race intelligence and education (1971); . Unlike the US it was successful in the UK, with numerous reprints according to both WorldCat (at least 5 or so) and to Eysenck's 2010 biography (p. 286). All UK prints were by Temple Smith, as far as I can tell. (It was also published in the US by another publisher and the US title was different too "The IQ argument".) Tijfo098 (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Follow up RE: Deletion of Page
I have added an email address to the account. I am creating this Wiki at his request, from copy he provided, which is why some of it seemed to violate copyright. I would like the portion regarding television, movie, and magazine appearances to be sent. I will then go to Mr. Entrekin to get sources for the other information he's asked to include. CleverOgre (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Tomorrow's Company
FYI: WP:REFUND. JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Were you replying to me or someone else on An appropriate AfD non-admin closure? Tijfo098 (talk) 06:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I edited my comment to clarify both that it was directed towards your previous comment, and also to clarify what I was saying. I apologize for discussing the general issue of such notability there, but I usually say something when the issue is raised. If we just need further clarification, we could do it here.  DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The Flavor of corn article
Hi DGG,

As far as I am not registered user of Wiki yet I can't add pictures here. So please, can you add  film's poster to  it's article (I mean English version)? It's easy to find poster in russian version of article. Thanks in advance. 46.71.215.167 (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC) Peter

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Spb1p Methyltransferase
Hi there; I used a boilerplate reply when I reviewed the article, and wasn't aware that it also blanked and listed the article as a speedy. Guess I just forgot to reload the page to check that everything was okay, but thanks for spotting it :) Bjelleklang -  talk 20:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Reliably sources in general?
If I have questions about whats reliable in general, or specifically if certain resource is appropriate for certain category articles, where can I go to solicit the input of experienced editors? I asked on Reliable source noticeboard but I don't think I got an answer.` Thank you Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * relied there, about fixit. It took me a while to find it, so when asking for advice, could you please remember to include links.  DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It was something else, from a while ago. What I was asking is, where do i go and ask if I have general questions, such as about sources on Wikipedia?Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It depends just what the question is. WT:RS is one possible place, if it is truly general. But questions almost always arise in connection with a specific problem. Or just ask me here, of course.  DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis or OR?
The source reads an editor re-wrote that to read: " Consumer reports suggest that 30 to 40% of all iPhone 5 devices have scuff marks on the exterior of the phone" I don't think the source lends adequate credibility to support such a claim. It's based on the author's collection of anecdotal reports, and pretty much heresy. It would seem that one author's original research of one author is coming to conclusion that "30 to 40% of them come like that based on forum posts I read" Do you find whats written by editor to be adequately supported and credible? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * " If hundreds of consumer reports are to be believed, it seems that 30 to 40% of all iPhone 5s are arriving with scuff mark"
 * User is again making baseless assumptions, the consumer reports the author is referring to could be sourced from reliable consumer magazines such as "Consumer Reports", if that wasn't enough, the use of consumer reports was clearly stated in the article. Synthesis only applies on Wikipedia and confirmed reliable sources elsewhere are not subjected to WP:Sythesis or WP:OR, what do apply are WP:RS and WP:Verify YuMaNuMa Contrib 00:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * '"Consumer reports" is not Consumer reports which will report of such products defects, a month or two further on.  The question is whether the  extreme tech article is a RS--I consider them columnists reasonable reliable. But even so,  they are reporting rumors, not facts, and ay they are, and word everything as an "if..."  (in fact, that's the sort of careful journalism that make them reliable). I wouldn't use it. We do not report transient product rumors and complaints. If true, there will soon be something more definitive, & then it can go in.  We're not a technical news magazine. Cant. is quite correct--the very source says the reports are not reliable.  DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * After receiving 3rd party comments, I'm willing to remove that single claim - I guess I didn't take my own advice on reporting "grey" information. I still believe that some information on the widespread nature of the issue should be included, WP:IRS states that "Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim", the issue has been practically reported by every major news organisation in the Western World, can a source such as [phonereview.co.uk] be used to explicitly verify the widespread nature? The same source is used to reference numerous other claims in the article such as theories for the defects. Here's the quote from the article - "The phenomenon has also been reported on completely new devices, numerous media sources including ExtremeTech suggest that the damage on these unboxed device probably occurred during shipping or while they were manufactured. Numerous guesses on why the scuffing occurs so easily have been suggested; ExtremeTech conjectured that the exterior of the iPhone 5 lacks a layer of sealant or lacquer that normally protects anodized aluminum." Is any of this worth including now that the reliability of extremetech (in this situation) has been questioned? YuMaNuMa  Contrib 05:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Request - From what I can see, Cantaloupe obviously respects your opinion and you seem experienced and rational enough to make good judgement calls. If it isn't too much of a hassle, can you review the blabber me and Cantaloupe have been involved in and be the arbitrator and impose a decision on the issues that we disagree on - if Cantaloupe agrees with you arbitrating our discussions. This includes the WP:RSN thread. YuMaNuMa Contrib 05:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I comment on issues, and will do so at RSN this evening. I don't arbitrate interpersonal disputes--I just advise people not to engage in them.  DGG ( talk ) 15:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC).

Request for your Assistance
Hi DGG. I recently received the following request from a banned editor. I didn't know what to do about it or exactly how to respond but it didn't smell right so I am passing it on to you to deal with if that's alright.


 * Snowysusan-- I need some help, and you are someone that seems to be helpful.  I was accused of sock-puppetry and have been banned indefinitely; this accusation is not true, but explanations do not seem to matter.  While I can understand the group's intentions, I am attached to an action that is not true.  My question or request for help centers around an article that I created in my Sandbox.  I would like to finish off this project, which I think is adequately sourced.  Is there a way for me to post the information on John F. Kimmons in my current status?  Thanks for the help. Perkins FC2  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.217.190.161 (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and best regards, Snowysusan (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Richard Dever
Per comment you left here. I did check for sources. Perhaps you should check how experienced an editor is before rejecting speedy nominations. Bypassing prod and going straight to XFD. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The comment was my edit summary, & I make the same edit summary for the same problems. But I would have thought experienced people would have known that having a written a book, other than a self published book, is a claim to significance enough to pass speedy (he wrote 3, one translated into French) as is having been a professor at a university. As I said, for actual notability we need to see about reviews, etc.      DGG ( talk ) 15:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Usgrant7/RLPSandBox
I will gladly work with you on loss prevention and the related articles. I have taken some coursework in security management years ago (no longer have or even remember the titles of the texts) and have supervised security and loss prevention in food stores and hotels. The problem is that my on-wiki time is severely limited these days. I will let you drive so to speak, and feel free to task me some duties. I haven't written all that much, but I am sure I can handle it on a topic like this that I know. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There are two approaches, one is to take the material we have, and try to get a coherent article out of it. The other is to start over. Myself, I usually find it easiest to start with something in hand. As I understand the topic, it primarily refers to   prevention of thefts, rather than accidents or fire or the like, which is pat of the more general concept of  loss management,  Tho theft of material can occur in almost any setting,but I think the term is mainly used with a retail setting. As I understand it, it divides naturally into theft by employeees and theft by customers (allowing for the instances of collusion between them) DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

CSI Nikopol
As an administrator, would you delete this article without leaving a redirect to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CSI Nikopol? As you'll notice at the article, it has been nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/CSI Nikopol. I planned to move the article myself to AfC but subsequently noticed that a submission existed. Thanks! SwisterTwister  talk  01:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * done. I called it G6.  DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

edit summaries
Thank you for your kind words. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 08:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Kashmiri's Israelite connections
Hi DGG, What do you make of the discussion at Articles for deletion/Kashmiri descent from lost tribes of Israel? Your expertise would be appreciated. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Robert S. Coleman
DGG, when you have a moment, could you please have a look at this AfD? (Ahem, sir, it's, well, about time you archived your talk page: you're making my netbook crash! (almost)). Thanks! Drmies (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Afd sockpuppetry
Hi DGG. It has been confirmed at Sockpuppet investigations/MountWassen that some Afds you closed recently included one or more sockpuppets. Articles for deletion/Forefront Protection Server Management Console was relisted and received a !vote by MountWassen whose sockmaster Akolyth was however not involved there. Still, there was only one reliable comment in this discussion. MountWassen also chimed in at Articles for deletion/Forefront Protection for Exchange Server and Articles for deletion/Forefront Protection for SharePoint Server, both of which had only one other !vote. So while I don't challenge the outcome of these Afds they should perhaps be relisted/reviewed for lack of consensus. De728631 (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * the merge to Microsoft Forefront in all 3 was supported by a very reliable user and is the most reasonable close in any case, so reasonable that it could even have been done without coming to AfD. FPES, & FPSFS had zero 3rd party references. FFFSMC has one -- to a blog entry saying it was discontinued, on a blog run by a professional specializing in Microsoft Forefront that appears reliable & at least technically independent. All three were contributed by a spa contributing only these 3 articles  -- and some other articles on components of MS FF which I suspect might well be merged also. Had I not chosen to close, I would have added a !delete, & then there would have been 2 reliable deletes, and some other admin would have done the same as I did.  The  material can be moved back to a separate article if sufficient 3rd party references can be found, if someone should eventually want to take the trouble. I consider there is no need to ask the closing admin, if the material added clearly meets the objections.
 * However, if you yourself think the article should be kept, just revert the close and relist, saying you checked with me I said OK to do it. But if it is just for the technicality, I think IAR covers it.  DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem with me, let's just leave it as is. De728631 (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Robert Wood (psychologist and writer)
Just letting you know about the afd for the above article as you originally removed the prod. Rotten regard     Softnow  22:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

BWV 226
We wonder about your article name change of BWV 226 and Bach's handwriting, "unser" or "unsrer", that is the question, "unsrer" is correct, at least in today's German, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Pix typer Admin pixtyper admin panel captcha entry pixtyper, qlinkgroup, captcha typers admin
It's back. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * not for long. Protected against recreation, user indef blocked as advertising only account. But it just might reappear under a variant title. Please keep an eye out.  DGG ( talk ) 09:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Your input into the Wikipedian Category DRV
Regarding this comment, I assume you means to say "endorse" rather than "delete" ? A couple of smart alecks are jumping on you for seeming to "vote" keep/delete at a DRV. Tarc (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:XXXX by country
There currently seems to be an inconsistancy in the use of the 'XXXX by country'-categories. Year-based articles relating to some countries are placed directly in the categories while others are only found via the relevant country-based category - compare 1870 in Portugal which is found directly in |Category:1870 by country as opposed to 1870 in France which is only found via |Category:1870 in France or 2005 in South Africa which is found directly in Category:2005 by country as opposed to 2005 in the United States which is only found via Category:2005 in the United States. I have no opinion on the matter of which solution should be opted for but think consistancy would be desirable (it may be useful to have the pages directly in the XXXX by country category for early years, though, since it will make it easier to identify which countries have year-based articles, while it may be more practical to only list them in the country-category for recent years where the majority of countries have year-based articles). Do you know which solution is the correct one, or could you raise the issue somewhere if it needs to be discussed?Ramblersen (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The proper way is to always use the intermediate pages, and for the intermediate goes to go in the categories for the general pages, in a hierarchy going all the way up. Nothing should skip a level. Nothing should duplicate within the hierarchy. No page should be in both 2005 in Fooian sport and 2005 in Foo. The US p. needs to go in Category 2005 by Country; just put it there.   It's probably an error left over from when the 2005 in US was split into subcategories, which has not happened to South Africa except for Sport.    Errors of these sorts should be fixed as you go along. But don't remove things from existing categories -- you might destroy someone's intentional scheme.
 * Additionally, a page or subcategory can be in two or more category trees. Many categories are handled that way.
 * The 1870 in France is not quite what it seems think: it is also in the category "1870 in Franc"e which is itself in the category 1870 in Europe. I think this apparently counter-intuitive system wass set up to accommodate expansion.
 * I'm a librarian. I'm used to working with professional systems of subject analysis and classification. I took a look at our classification system when I was new here, but decided there was no point in local patches. An effort by some of the librarians here to replace it with either LC or Dewey (or an extended and internationalized Dewey   version called UDC) had very little  support. So I and the local specialists leave each other alone for the most part.  If they finally write the necessary extension to deal with the most basic of search functions, the "AND" operator, the sort of thing I learned to program as an undergraduate half a century ago, perhaps I will take another look.    DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So is the conclusion that pages such as '1870 in Denmark' and '1870 in Portugal' should be moved from 'Category:1870 by country' to '1870 by country' or that they should be listed in both categories? Sorry for being a little slow here.Ramblersen (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Myconclusion is not to remove any categories unless you want to start an arguement, but if you think any are needed, add them.  DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know...
Regarding this, when the tag was applied the page was pretty much a straight copy from the source, with a few phrases changed out, and had been pretty much for its entire history. User:Rjensen deserves a Barnstar (which I will give him presently) for completely rewriting the article, which is of course an even better solution than deletion. Since your edit comment implied that the tag was improperly placed, I just wanted to assure you that it wasn't at the time I placed it, its just that intervening work made it so. Again, you did the right thing in declining the deletion request at the time you did, and Rjensen did some awesome work here, I just wanted to make sure you didn't think that I was tagging articles for deletion without carefully checking them. I had, it is just that the state of the article changed drastically from when I tagged it. The ideal result, altogether, if you ask me. -- Jayron  32  13:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks for letting me know. My apologies. I've run into this before, and I should be more careful checking the history. But when the article is improved, the tag should really have been removed also. I think some people do not realize that anyone can remove a speedy except the guy who first submitted the article)--some people think it takes an admin. Quite the opposite--since anyone can do it, it makes excellent practice for people who wqnt to become admins to build up a record of good  decisions. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, this entire sequence got me thinking about some stuff, and I started a thread at WP:VPP that you may find interesting or have some insight on. Penny for your thoughts... -- Jayron  32  18:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Wayne State University Department of Physics and Astronomy
Regarding your comment about Wayne State University Department of Physics and Astronomy and suggestion for deletion (and your comment on the talk page).

Dear David,

I think your information about this department is quite outdated. I already provided a small list of notable faculty with national awards and methods bearing their names in standard textbooks. Here is a list of people that are defined as "good enough" for you with their h indices:


 * Giovanni Bonvicini (HEP experiment) h=78, 49 papers with over 100 citations
 * David Cinabro (HEP experiment) h=82, 62 papers with over 100 citations
 * Tom Cormier (nuclear experiment) h=70, 55 papers with over 100 citations
 * Sean Gavin (nuclear theory) h=26, 6 papers with over 100 citations (he is a PECASE winner (major national award))
 * Robert Harr (HEP experiment) h=76, 49 papers with over 100 citations
 * Paul Karchin (HEP experiment) h=79, 59 papers with over 100 citations (he is a DOE Outstanding Junior Investigator award winner)
 * Alexey Petrov (HEP theory) h=31, 13 papers with over 100 citations (he is an NSF CAREER award winner (national award))
 * Claude Pruneau (nuclear experiment) h=70, 55 papers with over 100 citations
 * Joern Putschke (nuclear experiment) h=64, 48 papers with over 100 citations
 * Sergei Voloshin (nuclear experiment) h=80, 68 papers with over 100 citations

Those are people from nuclear and particle physics only. For condensed matter and atomic physics:


 * Gavin Lawes 3 papers with over 100 citations (he is an NSF CAREER award winner (national award))
 * Boris Nadgorny papers with over 100 citations (he is an NSF CAREER award winner (national award))
 * Jogindra Wadehra 4 papers with over 100 citations

Is this not a place that has distinguished academics? BTW, according to this, Cormier is not at the top. This department built significant components of STAR detector at BNL. I can continue, but can you argue otherwise?

AlexDetroit (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)