User talk:DGG/Archive 73 Feb. 2013

RTI International
By chance we have both edited this article in the past. I actually live in the Triangle and they're a pretty big part of the local history. It's also right up your alley (I think) on the types of organizations you would tend to edit naturally.

I have offered a re-write on the Talk page and your comment is welcome if you choose to provide one. CorporateM (Talk) 20:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * looks very good--see my comment.  DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the lead will need some expansion before GA. Do you think I could bother you to give the article a class? Like B or C, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 16:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Asd I approved it, someone else should do that  DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Aw, np. I was surprised to see you do the article-space merge ;-) CorporateM (Talk)

CSD: Yang Yongliang
You recently declined a WP:CSD for Yang Yongliang due to: "based on G translate, the bio pt is a paraphrase and adaptation, not a direct copyvio"

Apologies for not being specific but both the edit summary and url box don't leave much space for multiple submissions. I'd like to point out the English link on the top right hand corner and:
 * http://www.yangyongliang.com/Bio.html
 * http://www.yangyongliang.com/Exhibitions.html

I believe that the article is a direct copypaste of the above two links, minus the awards. Unfortunately, the awards alone do not constitute as viable article material. Thanks Funny  Pika! 18:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC) As for the bio, as far as I can tell from the G translation it is not an exact reproduction -- in a language I can read, I judge for myself directly, but here it would need a specialist. As for the list of exhibitions, a straight list has no creative elements, and is therefore not copyright.I cannot tell from Google T. how closely this is a straight list. So the normal way of proceeding is to list it atWP:Copyright Problems, using the tag to blank the copied or presumably copied sections of the article. In this case, if the afd thinks the artist not notable, the article will be deleted long before the process there gets to it. If the article is kept, these sections can be easily rewritten. Other admins may do things differently.  DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Um, I did mention there is an English link. Funny Pika! 19:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you mean the limnartgallery page I consider that also paraphrase only. From what I can see, it seems he's notable, so why not just rewrite?  DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming the above two urls default to Chinese. There is an English hyperlink in the top right hand corner of each page, which provides an English description. Funny  Pika! 20:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No matter, I guess I'll leave it at that. I'm not doubting your assertion of notability, it's just that I'd prefer to copyedit other viable articles rather than work on promotional material pasted directly from official websites. Thanks for your time anyways. Funny Pika! 21:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

David Gow
I see that you have declined my nomination for CSD A7. Thanks for the heads up - too bad I have Google set to google.de - which is why I turned up very few, if any results. hmssolent\Let's convene 03:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

RfA: thank you for your support
DGG, just a quick note to thank you for your support during my RfA. Assuming I survive the final 24 hours of RfA !voting, I hope you won't mind if I stop by your talk page with a how-to question from time to time. I am determined to take it slowly, do it the right way, and not make any "unforced errors." Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, it did not end as hoped, but it was certainly a learning experience, and I was heartened by the support that I received from many editors. Hopefully, you and other supporters were not too disappointed in my performance as a candidate.  Thanks again.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

NYC panel
Hi there, DGG. I sent you an email about details for the upcoming panel discussion last week, and wanted to try you here since I hadn't heard back. I hope you can still make it, and if you have any other questions, just let me know. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 03:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Campus Ambassador
Just saying hi... I see you are the Brooklyn College campus ambassador, no? Am working on a Wikipedia project for Amy Hughes Theatre History Class.

--Eparness (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey DGG. I've just noticed that you've joined the Brooklyn College Theater History course as Campus Ambassador. Just wanted to say hello myself (I'm OA-ing the course), and add that I'm glad it's you - we've never crossed paths much that I can recollect, but I've seen you around at ANI and so forth, and you've always struck me as a pretty stand-up and level-headed guy. I look forward to working alongside on this project. Cheers, Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  22:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion
David, would you mind commenting at Articles for deletion/John A. McNeice Jr and Articles for deletion/Schmooze Com Inc to ensure a full consensus? Thanks, SwisterTwister   talk  01:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge
In case it's no longer on your watchlist, please revisit Talk:Formulaic communication. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

afc and deletion
Did you place a speedy tag on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Man's World By Rachel Crothers,? You correctly declined it for not being supported by sources, but that is not a reason for speedy deletion. Obviously, the point of articles being there is so they can get advice for what is needed. Or did the software for AfC possibly put it on automatically when you selected that reason? If so, we'll need to do something about it. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, this is actually a quirk in the AFCH script. If you accidentally select a deletion reason that defaults to a blank + delete tag (Copyright, BLP) and select another reason afterwards it will not uncheck the "AFC Cleared" checkbox. Nine out of ten times i remember it does that and correct it manually, but on occasion i forget to unset that box and thus it places a decline template alongside blanking / tagging the page. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 21:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That explains a lot. I've seen similar from time to time and not figured out what was happening. I suppose  whole  AfC process will get improved eventually.  DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * just happened again at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/International Center for Develpoment and Decent Work DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Some good news - This problem should be solved now (Both the article and the checkbox issue). Seems i was still running mabdul's debug version of the script which is rather handy for spotting errors before it is pushed as a release, but quite impractical if one starts reviewing a lot of article's since it can have some issues here and there.


 * If you happen to see anyone else having this problem have a look at their mono / vector.js and see if they are still using any script other then "MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper.js". If they do, they are likely running a debug or older version of the script and should update it to the aforementioned version (Or enable it via preferences). Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

WAPS Promotion Score Calculator
I've now nominated it at AFD. I had already searched and could find no coverage - Weighted Airman Promotion System appears to be notable, but the website (and others with identical or similar names) probably not. Peter&#160;James (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * i agree it would be a better idea to have the article primarily on the system, using this as the basis for a move.. Do you have sources to do that? DGG (at NYPL) 18:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)
 * It's already an article, and has more content than the "calculator" article, although it lacks independent sources and inline citations. Peter&#160;James (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Iseethat now, so just add a mention of this--which I thinkI said atthe AfD,  DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've replied on the AFD page. Peter&#160;James (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Karlology - merge target not supplied
Hi DGG, I see the prod has been declined on Karlology, more's the pity. I'll support a merge if that's what you prefer, but you seem to have set up the mergefrom and not the mergeto. In fact, take this statement as my support, on the grounds that the stand-alone article has insufficient evidence of notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * we seem to have articles on two other books, The World of Karl Pilkington and An Idiot Abroad: The Travel Diaries of Karl Pilkington; it looks to me that "The World" could equally well be merged; "The Diaries" seems to have been handled OK as is.    I have no knowledge of Pilkington's work, and I made the merge suggestion on the basis of the general rule that for a notable author, we redirect non-notable books to the author article, merging at least the essential data about the book.  DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think all of them are trivia but if they're well-sourced dross that's been reviewed in the media, so be it. My point was that the Karlology had a "merge from here" but when I followed the discuss link there was no discussion target on the talk page so there was nowhere to !vote. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

PROUT article - another imminent edit war
Hi, David... thanks for your helpful comments at Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory. While your remarks gave me hope for a way forward, unfortunately, no one else has commented since then. I still believe - and hope - that we may work constructively to build an even better article there, but clearly it will need more time than the four days remaining on the article's current protection status. Frankly, even if some of the editors from WP:FTN were to show an inclination for really moving toward consensus rather than just hijacking the article, it would be very hard for me to find the time to focus on the PROUT article right now, given the large number of AfDs filed by Garamond Lethe. On top of his previous six AfDs, he has piled on another five in the last week (including two on books that had survived an AfD barely one month ago). While I am not overly concerned about some of those nominations (none of which are on articles that I created), others are quite inappropriate in my opinion. For example, the AfD on Prabhat Samgiita became a 16-day marathon, and it's still not closed. So, could you please help me in getting an extension of the protection on the PROUT article for another month or two? If that does not happen before the current protection is automatically lifted, I think it is almost certain that another edit war will break out the moment that the protection is removed. --Abhidevananda (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is that you simply accept the brief version of the article. Alternatively, say that you will accept a merge of the various versions according to my (or someone else's) discretion and see if the other side agrees also. I can't put in my own idea of a consensus version during protection, and I do not see what point there is in extending it.  DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * David, by the "brief version of the article", do you mean the proposed version by Location? If so, then I am surprised that you would even suggest such a thing as that proposal contains absolutely no primary source material. You yourself stated to North800: "North, we do that for the details, but we include a basic account here of what he says about it himself, saying it is his view-- a single short paragraph is usual-- because what the creator choose to say about it is relevant, though it is not definitive about the actual meaning or implication of the theory--what relies on analysis by others." As to a merge of the various versions, I have already proposed that on numerous occasions. Of course, I have not proposed a merge according to someone else's specifications; because that would mean going to mediation, whereas I assumed we were still in the consensus-building phase. Regarding mediation, if that is required, I have no opposition. However, I would rather not go into that while being deluged with AfDs, a practice that you discouraged on WP:ANI. Anyway, thank you for your input. --Abhidevananda (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I prefer to not engage in mediation or negotiate content--I find this too slow and frustrating. I offer advice or when it seems useful write whether from scratch or available content what I personally consider to be a consensus article/ I can also act as an  admin, but   I can not both write content and act as an admin at the same article, and sometimes I can not both offer advice & act as an admin in certain ways, if the effect is to enforce my own view of the article.   I am offering to rewrite the article by using, adapting, & if necessary writing what content I see fit for maintain NPOV and sourcing requirements, Given there are two strong opposing views on the matter, I doubt either side will like it, but they will like it even less if the other side prevails. Once protection expires I could do this in any event; but I am not going to do this unless the various parties agree to accept what I do, for my work would be wasted. I think others will agree if you do, so I ask you first.  I see no purpose in extending protection--it has been discussed sufficiently. The only way we have for a binding decision on content is an RfC, and I will probably give my own opinion. As for my suggestion you can say yes, or you can say no. I shall then comment at the article page.  DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * David, I understand what you are saying and appreciate your point of view. However, I don't think this is the best way to go just now. Thank you for your time and your input. --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification of discussion
A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Schools
See my comment here. User unsuccessfully nominated a batch of around 100 schools for AfD a year ago and is well aware of AfD outcomes.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion
What was this speedy deletion thing for and why? And why isn't Robbie Bullough isn't that notable on Wikipedia and why did you delete that article? Ashbeckjonathan 21:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not delete the article. I nominated it for deletion. A discussion ensured at Articles for deletion/Robbie Bullough, whwere I expressed my views sufficiently. Another admin independently decided on what the consensus was, and deleted the article. I do not see how he could have reasonably decided differently,as nobody but you defended the article. If you disagree with his close, take it up with him at User talk:MBisanz. If you still disagree, you can take it to WP:Deletion Review, but first read the advice on the page there about how and when to do it, and examine a few discussions there to see the sort of arguments that are effective.  If you want my personal advice, wait until he has accomplished something further and there is good documentation for it. The deleted article ended "Bullough hopes to eventually move on from BYUtv and get hired at ESPN, CBS, FOX, or another major sports broadcasting group, but until another company takes interest in him, he is happy to call games for BYUtv and happy that his family back home in Indiana can see him".  That's perhaps an overpersonal  way to word it, but the message is the same as what I advise: when he reaches national prominence, write the article. It's up to CNN/FOX/etc., not you or me.   DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

IOP_Publishing
Ever since I accidentally got involved in an article being worked on by a WWBTOO employee (I did not realize the editor worked for him) I've been trying to avoid the Request Edit queue, but since nobody else is manning it, I'm going through it.

I came across this one that I thought might be up your alley on getting a second opinion on my merge suggestions: Talk:IOP_Publishing

I don't know enough about academic periodicals to know the best course of action. CorporateM (Talk) 17:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I responded.  DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Muchos grassius. I would prefer not to handle the Request Edit queue, but since nobody else is, I cleared up a good 15 requests that were mostly fairly obvious.
 * BTW - if you care to, I haven't gotten any feedback yet on Talk:YouSendIt. I'm pretty happy that they included content from an analyst report, because this is something volunteers will never have access to otherwise, but I feel we could use feedback on the BLP issues and any anti-promo tips. CorporateM (Talk) 21:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ryan said he would take a look after his Wikibreak, so I'll wait for him! CorporateM (Talk) 16:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Nova Publishers
Hi, if you have a moment could you please have a look at this edit of mine and the discussion on the article's talk page. I'd like to hear your opinion especially about this SENSE reference. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

AfD for Dean Graziosi
Hello, I have started an AfD for Dean Graziosi and would appreciate your input. This is the second time the article has been up for AfD, and on the first time, you voted !keep, but the discussion was closed as delete. A different person (User:BiH) has re-created an article, who you have previously warned about adding advertising material. I was wondering if you take a look as I respect your opinion as a long standing admin. I am aware of WP:CAN and will not be contacting anyone else over this.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In fact my view has changed, just as the problems confronting WP have changed. In general, the safest way is to ask me just to look at a particular AfD, giving a general reason, such as that I commented at the previous one (or that I am known to be particularly interested in the question at issue, etc.). I appreciate being told because, while I used to try to look at all AfDs, I can no longer manage to look at more than a sample. And if things were done the way I think we ought to, anyone who previously commented in good faith or made a major change in the article or on its talk page would be automatically notified. The general feeling, tho, has been that that would attract too many people whoa actually cared about the subject. DGG ( talk ) 15:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

People of Color Organize!
I've merged the article to Anarchist People of Color per your suggestion. If you can think of a better target for merging, please let me know. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
-- Patchy1   22:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Exonyms
Would appreciate your input on these. Me personally I agree that they're obscure but I do see it useful to have just lists for geographical purposes and for those landmarks which have dual names.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  11:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Finnish exonyms for places in Norway ‎
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnish exonyms for places in Norway: Finnmark ‎
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnish exonyms for places in Norway: Troms

I've added to Mumpsimus...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  11:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

what kind of crack are you smoking?
The title is a joke but seriously on Muhammad Sabir Shaikh how is this not promotional, all it does is link to two websites? CSD was teh appropriate way to go in this one. What are you seeing I'm not? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I found a couple of reliable-looking sources where he's quoted in his role as chairman of APMA, so have rejigged the article a bit and dePRODded it. Would be better if APMA itself had an article! Pam  D  19:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Pam. As for the original version, an article saying "Muhammad Sabir Shaikh is the chairman of Association of Pakistan Motorcycle Assemblers APMA. *www.motorcycleexport.com* He is also the CEO of SITARA AUTO IMPEX . *www,sitaraautoimpex.com* ." is merely giving his positions, and is not promotional. Changing the full caps is necessary, but a minor edit. from WP:CSD G11:  An article ... which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion."   If it had said "Muhammad Sabir Shaikh or Sabir Shaikh is the chairman and guiding spirit of the  Association of Pakistan Motorcycle Assemblers (APMA).[1][2] He is also the CEO of Sitara Auto Impex", a very important company which he personally developed. He is a leading figure in his community, and a splendid fellow." it might be promotional, but it would be fixable by normal editing, and would not "need to be fundamentally rewritten" to quote again from that guideline--its italics. I don't know how I would edit on crack, but since joining WP I've never used any substance strong enough that  would have induced me to  delete this by speedy. As for an article on the APMA, it tends to be rather difficult to show very specialized trade associations as notable. I'm therefore not sure he's notable; the way to determine it is at AfD.      DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks for the reply it appears it's been deleted since then anyways. Like I say the crack reference was a joke, I thought it was clearly promotional but that why I was asking what you saw that I didn't. Simply being a chairman for a company is like saying you have inherited notability, at best this would have required a redirect to those companies if they were indeed notable. Just my opinion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't mind jokes. But since you mention 2 impt things that are in fact unresolved, I want to comment. (1) When the only thing a person is notable for is his company, and his company is only mildly notable, then the question is which of the 2 should have an article. I am prepared to argue either way: the impt thing is to avoid two articles when the notability is just very borderline; if we write it under the person, he may well do other things also, and then we can cover it there; when we write it under the company, it's more impersonal, which can be good. But what I myself go around trying to remove or greatly shorten is where an article on a company tries to cover the bio of its executive(s) in extravagant terms.  (2) When a bio states something  basically factual about a barely notable person can it be deleted via speedy. In the past, the rule has been no--both A7 and G11 are viewed very narrowly, for the good reason that otherwise it's saying to admins: delete if you don't like it. But the increasing flood of promotionalism is making everyone look for better ways to remove that sort of thing. I prefer to do that at AfD, by consensus, where I will now say that If the article is both promotional and barely notable we should remove it, while if it were not promotional, we would keep it, and if really notable, rewrite it.
 * Another reason I'm going to the trouble of responding again about this intrinsically unimportant article answering you is that the deletion by another admin as A7 was just plain wrong, and I've asked them to revert; it would be a shame to go to the trouble of bringing something this minor to del rev, but I will, because the principle that A7 is narrow is important.   DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Mobile Suit Gundam ZZ mobile weapons for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Mobile Suit Gundam ZZ mobile weapons is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam ZZ mobile weapons until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Another AfD debate
Would you also comment at Articles for deletion/Lamont Digital Systems? It's been relisted twice with no additional comments and I'm not seeing any significant notability for the company so I still stand by my redirect vote. SwisterTwister  talk  01:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

New Article Feedback version available for testing
Hey all.

As promised, we've built a set of improvements to the Article Feedback Tool, which can be tested through the links here. Please do take the opportunity to play around with it, let me know of any bugs, and see what you think :).

A final reminder that the Request for Comment on whether AFT5 should be turned on on Wikipedia (and how) is soon to close; for those of you who have not submitted an opinion or !voted, it can be found here.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for a second opinion on a BLP issue
Hi, DGG. Long time, no see. I've been concentrating on grad school rather than Wikipedia for a while, and I'm not sure if the cultural consensus over BLP issues has shifted while I've been gone. I'm at an impasse with over the inclusion of some material in the Michael Ovitz article. I could be off base, but I think Jack is interpreting WP:BLP in an overly-literal way. I could use a second opinion, and I've always respected yours. The discussion is taking place here. Thanks. --Dynaflow  babble  19:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the Clarification
Hi! I am relatively new to wikipedia but I decided this year because I used it so much it was time to give back! Suffice to say in reading up on AFC I learned of the backlog, and have become familiar with many of the guidelines. I did read through the AFC rules, but I must have missed that point. I just wanted to thank you for letting me know so I dont make that mistake again. Im going to try to do my part over the next few days and do 5-10 AFC reviews a day with my morning coffee. I have a goal of 1500 edits this year. Monstermarch (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You presumably saw my rewriting of Aldemore, & my AfD of Dealerbid and Old Rajans Scout Association. The purpose of AfC is to get an article strong enough that nobody will be likely to try to delete it at AfD--anything less is an equal disservice to the submitting editor and the encyclopedia. Most of your acceptances and declines are in my opinion correct, but you would do well to offer more specific advice than just provided by the templates. At present, this unfortunately has to be done by giving a custom reason, or going back to the AfC and modifying or adding to what is said by the template, or giving a comment instead of a review, or going to the editor's talk page and explaining further. Myself, I always use a custom reason unless it is so hopelessly unsuitable that nothing more is appropriate.
 * I would never try to do  5-10 AfCs in a short space of time, except by picking the most obvious ones that can be quickly dealt with.    I may sometimes do as many as 5, but unless they're utterly trivial, I spread them out, because it takes me between 10 and 30 minutes to give an adequate explanation.  Sometimes I will even start one and continue the next day, to have time to think about it. Your goal should be do one at a time, and do it as thoroughly as possible.
 * I also find that because most AfCs are not acceptable, it is discouraging to work with too many at a time, and it distorts my sense of balance & likely to lead to either excessive impatience and harshness, or to just taking anything halfway decent. That's why I move around a lot. You've done other things well also, so I suggest you vary what you do.  DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ill take your advice. And yes I did... Oh Dealerbid... whatever was I thinking. In the time since I did that one I started working on bringing an article up to GA standards. Wow. Its still not there. But I have learned a lot about Wikipedia, style, writing, formatting, notability, citations, etc. I guess hind sight is always 20/20 even on Wikipedia.
 * I am absolutely also going to take your advice on writing a custom reason for declines. I think it just seems fair. From what I see anyway a lot (well not all) of the AFC submitters are at least well intentioned even if it doesnt belong, and do put the effort in so they deserve the effort on adjudication. I think Ill also have a personal policy of not adjudicating on things where I don't really know the media and other reliable regional sources. - IE Australian Subjects -
 * And I am going to take your advice on limiting the number I do. I see how they could become discouraging. Monstermarch (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

List of military commanders
Any opinion of Articles for deletion/List of military commanders (2nd nomination)?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  13:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Three copies of Public asset management deletion request
Hi DGG,

I noticed that on the Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 23 page your entry for Public asset management is listed three times, with two adjacent and one farther down the list (entries 17,18, and 27 at this point). Just FYI, --Mark viking (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * what seems to have happened is the relisting got transcluded onto the log 3 times: the time stamp on the three from the 16th is identical. I've fixed it. Now, if someone would only comment on it....  DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wasn't sure how to fix it. I've put in a comment at your AfD. So many AfD nominations, so little time... --Mark viking (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

School districts
I know you endorse creation of articles about schools, but see Articles for deletion/Hartselle City School District.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  09:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Indian Institute of Planning and Management
I'm struggling to reconcile your comment at Talk:Indian Institute of Planning and Management where you said: I am so sure it is unreasonable that I'm taking it to AfD.

with your summary at the AfD: where you said: This separate article is necessary in public face due to controversies around this institution.

Are you are for or against deletion?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  23:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks like an IP address inserted that comment. No idea if it's the same as DGG. It sure confused me, because no deletion rationale was provided with the nomination.


 * My own view is, the content should be kept and was originally in the IIPM article but split out due to its length compared to the rest of the IIPM article. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I restored what I actually wrote. What you read was vandalism by an ip account, and it will be a sad day when I write that sort of nonsense. If I take an article to AfD  to bring the question to discussion without necessarily myself wanting it deleted I say so (this is usually called a "technical nomination".  I consider it very poor practice  to make separate articles about controversies when they can be avoided. The advantage of isolating the problematic material is outweighed by the inevitable harm to NPOV. We should present things in context, but the place to discuss that is at the AfD.   DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It sure didn't sound like you, but I have seen editors bring something to AfD because they wanted a community consensus on record to keep, so that thought went through my head, (although it didn't sound like your style). I should have checked the history, which would have solved the mystery.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  02:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to ask: Since when do we indef-block dynamic IP addresses from a cable ISP, as you did at in response to the vandalism on the AFD? ~Amatulić (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * immediate self defense. If you want  to change it to a shorter period, do so.  DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That address has only 3 edits spread out over some years. Even confirmed open proxies get six months at a time. I no of no precedent for such a block except in the case of an ArbCom ruling. Someone else already reduced it to 2 weeks. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * no objection. That's long enough for the AfD to finish.  DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Visual Novel Database
Hi there DGG. I see that you objected to the speedy deletion of Visual Novel Database, saying "widely known site, frequently used in WP-- First look for sources". However, I have looked for sources and didn't see any that would prove notability. See my comments on Talk:Visual Novel Database. Being widely known or used as an external link does not automatically prove the site is notable. Keep in mind that "Notability requires the presence of in-depth and significant treatment of a subject in reliable independent sources, not just the mere presence of the searched-for term." Therefore I have proposed the article for deletion. However, if you know of some reliable sources that cover the site in depth and prove its notability, feel free to add them and then remove the prod.--Atlantima (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Ivy Sports Symposium
Hello there, I was taking a look through Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ivy Sports Symposium and think that it is sufficently well written and referenced to make it's debut in Article space. I observe that you are the an administor who previously deleted a version of this article. If you could take a look at the AfC submission and see if it meets your criteria, move it to article space, that would be great. Thank you for your time. Hasteur (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * there are enough sources, I managed to identify one that does indicate university sponsorship for one of the meetings--it should be possible to do that for the others also-- and that certainly helps. But the wording is very promotional, because  at least some of it is a fairly close paraphrase of promotional sources.   DGG ( talk ) 13:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion
I just wanted to let you know that I characterized a comment you made, in a merge discussion here. I'm just alerting you so you are aware, and to make sure it was in context, and so you can correct me if it was not (I know from the past that you sometimes comment, and then do not put put the page on your watch list).--Epeefleche (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. This is actually one of the clearest cases I've seen where geographic usage of a spelling in an article about that area over-rides the otherwise generally preferred spelling. Normally, I avoid such MOS-based discussions, but there's an important principle here, and it affects a great many  articles on the US theater.    DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)