User talk:DGG/Archive 74 Mar. 2013

Independent Publisher Book Award
Hi DGG, in correspondence with User:EdJohnston (in relation to the Independent Publisher Book Award article, its deletion and following almost immediate re-creation second AfD nomination (both noms by myself incidentally)), he suggested contacting you to see if you knew of the award and if so, if it has any influence with librarians when considering book acquisition? If it is a notable award, maybe you know of some more reliable independent sources for the article than it currently boasts. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I arrived at Independent Publisher Book Award on a chain via Lena Phoenix and starting at Steven Sashen, all of which seemed rather dubious articles to me. The latter article was deleted after being AfD-ed (I didn't participate but was inclined to deletion) but Phoenix's AfD is still outstanding. As her notability largely (or entirely) hinges on her book winning an IPB award, I thought you may have a view on the AfD. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention!
Hi, thank you for. To tell the truth, I have some additional comments apropos of those articles in the so-called notable Russian newspapers (they are nothing but an expression of censorship under the Putin era). Russian media (articles and documentaries) speaking of Yuri Nesterenko and his antisexual movement is meant for misinformation. The authors of these articles mislead the readers though the newspapers themselves are notable. Even clergymen lie there. But I haven’t time to write about it now. Perhaps I’ll add my remarks later on. Best regards, --SU ltd. (talk) 08:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * if you do not add them now, there may not be an article for later. And you should not reject known sourtces even theough you disagree with them, howevber right you may be about their bias. WP has a NPOV even with respect to bigots.  DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Requests_for_comment/Epeefleche
You may or may not be aware that the RFC/U on Epeefleche's approach to removing easily and obviously verifiable content has closed. Epeefleche essentially ignored you and I, and refused to respond to the main point of my criticism. The closing admin, also, has gone on to completely ignore your and my perspectives also in taking Epeefleche's side. Yes, there was a roughly two-thirds split against my position (keeping in mind that there was some circumstantial evidence of offwiki canvassing, including that Epeefleche has a background of doing exactly that), but that's not a unanimous enough reason to categorically ignore one side, and then to criticise me. This is an outright endorsement of the strategies and approaches used by Epeefleche's side, i.e., that wikidramamongering is an effective defence against any criticism and to silence opponents.

I no longer care. This is the final nail in the coffin as far as I'm concerned regarding the culture at wikipedia. I have retired, primarily due to the admin conduct around the wikidrama of this RFC/U, and do not intend to return. There are other communities around the web that I have found which are far less combative and far less tolerant of dramamongers, and perhaps I'll see you there. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 00:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I comment in RfC/U only when it is utterly unavoidable,  I have only once, very long ago, made the foolish error certifying one, and I have never initiated one. I have been asked for my opinion on and off wiki many times by those contemplating starting the process, and I have essentially always advised against it.
 * I have just reviewed this RfC.
 * I commented to try to moderate the impression that others were giving that the removal of unsourced uncontentious nonpromotional probable material without a reasonable effort to source it is not constructive, and especially to say that the length of time unsourced is irrelevant; only the extent of failed actual attempts is relevant. This was intended as a general statement. I do not support the addition of unsourceable material, and I agree with everyone else that in general the burden is upon people contributing material to source what they contribute. I think it a very poor practice to submit material and expect someone else to source it.  But just as adding material takes judgment, so does removing it. The priority is to remove copyvio that cannot be immediately corrected and  negative unsourced BLP and miscellaneous abuse and nonsense; after that the priority is to remove material that is unlikely or promotional. I do not take the time to source what I think promotional or unlikely or abusive or irrelevant, and see no reason why anyone else should either. Neutral likely material is another matter -- removing material takes judgment. This is what I said at the RfC, and I stand by it. My comment deliberately mentioned neither you nor him.
 * I consider Epee often showed poor judgment in what he removed, but I think you showed equally poor judgment in restoring much of what you restored. Much of this concerned schools: I think either Epee's generally deletionist or your generally inclusionist approach can be defended, but we have a stable compromise solution and I strongly oppose anyone trying to erode it from either direction, just as I would anyone trying to disrupt our other rare instances of such compromises. against the inclusion of such articles, and you an almost equal unreasonable attitude favoring it. Perhaps I should have said this at the RfC, but I think the less said at RfC/U the better. I did not want to argue the point of any specific edit there, and I do not want to do so here.
 * the RfC was in my opinion not well closed. The closer apparently went by the extent of text, and I can only suppose did  not notice it was merely the same few people endorsing each others statements.    Nonetheless, most of those opposing Eppe at AfD  chose not to comment there; I doubt they were unaware of the RfC, so I assume that they did not want to endorse your edits.  Nor do I, but I thought maintaining the general principle that WP:V  should be applied with care and discretion was worth a general statement.  DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I did make a couple of mistakes in restoring some content (i.e., where I restored some text without actually having added the ref, or added a ref which then turned out to be the basis for an argument that the article in question was pretty borderline copyvio), but (a) when I noticed these mistakes or they were pointed out to me, I fixed them quickly without fuss; and (b) I readily admitted mea culpa to them. The closer did go to the most heavily voted upon point, and reflected that in his/her close. Effectively a supervote. Whatever. I'm out anyway. Ever in town in Sydney, send me an e-mail . &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 01:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "the most heavily voted upon point" is "Effectively a supervote"? Really?  Your making a mockery of yourself now.  Either retire and go away or try and understand the "majority" point of view and adapt.--v/r - TP 14:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * DGG, it's not very AGF to assume that "closer apparently went by the extent of text" :(
 * I closed that RFCU on the basis of the overwhelming support given for various policy-based statements, not by the length or number of those statements.
 * I was a little surprised that there was not more attention paid to issues like the difference between removing unsourced material which had been inline-tagged as such vs. removing unsourced-but-untagged; but I could only close the RFC on the basis of what it contained. The role of the closer is to weigh consensus, not to exercise a supervote. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Assuming a decision I disagree with to be an error, is an assumption of good faith.   DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Assuming a decision you disagree with is inevitably wrong is also an assumption of infallibility on your part. Spartaz Humbug! 01:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If I didn't think it wrong, I wouldn't disagree with it. I reply to a question here, I give my opinion. Whether my opinion is wrong or right is not for me to judge.   DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Minorities in Greece(request for comments)
Hello. I made a Request for Comments in Minorities in Greece page and thought you may be interested. The issue is, I was trying to add information about problems of muslims living in Athens (some 300,000 people) since some time but my edits are being reverted by multiple users. The main argument against adding this information is that those people are not minorities but immigrants. Details of the discussion are here. If you would like to contribute with your comments, that would be very welcome. Filanca (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Richard Hefter for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richard Hefter 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/Richard Hefter 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.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 12:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Hire Association Europe
Would you mind commenting at this debate? I'm leaning towards delete because it seems they haven't received significant attention and although the highbeam results make me question their notability, it seems it would be local notability at best. Thanks! SwisterTwister  talk  21:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * commented.  DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Roots of Change
I had a quick look at this, and it's a bit unusual. The current revision certainly looks like a prime candidate for A7 and G11, but this revision had references to the San Francisco Gate and the New York Times, which I think mandates an AfD. I'm not sure which way to proceed with this, suffice to say it probably can't be speedied as there is a more acceptable earlier revision. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   09:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It turns out to be a copyvio of their "history" section of their web site and I listed it a G12. I should have remembered to check that first.  DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Er, do you mean every single revision of the article was a complete copyvio? I didn't think you could G12 stuff unless there was no possible revert that would have stopped violating copyright aside from blanking the entire page. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   12:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * To be frank, I did not really check this adequately yesterday, so I went back and looked at every significantly changed version from the very first. The first was copyvio, and the changes were mainly adding additional copyvio sections and phrases from various parts of their web site, tho not all from the "History" page. Every meaningful sentence was a copy.


 * Excellent stuff - a good call on G12 then. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   09:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * while we're discussing copyvio, you might want to compare  Denis Mickiewicz (the version you accepted from AfC was this one with  [http://www.yrcalums.org/DenisMickiewicz.html the page about him at the organization he founded, ref. 2 in the article. My experience is that any formally written page about a person or organization  submitted either directly or to AfC has about a 50% chance of being copyvio either from a source listed, or somewhere on their website. They can't always be found by google, as they are often internal non-indexed website pages.  I was suspicious of this one from phrases like "Mickiewicz marked out an original, culturally bold role for the Russian Chorus." "steadfastly retained his links with the Alumni " "his extraordinary service to Yale". ::I'm not in a position to blame you: I too have missed a number of them, and been called out for it, so I'm learning to really check.   It's not just the new articles: any formally written article that reads as if it might have been repurposed needs a check. 5 & 10 years ago, we were unbeleievably careless by current standards.


 * Of course, it's always an option to rewrite instead of deleting. The Roots of Change one looked tricky to rewrite & is not in my field of interest,, but I might try to at least stubbify the Mickiewicz; it is in one of my fields, and he's very notable.    DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I remember reviewing Mickiewicz, and thought "this looks far too good to be an AfC submission", so I did a quick search for him and his works, and concluded he was notable, so I had no reason not to pass it - though I think I tagged it for sourcing issues or something similar. Yes, trim out the copyvio stuff if you can - one of the tricks with this sort of thing is knowing exactly where to look and what key phrases to use to make the copying stand out. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   09:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * AfC these days is being extensively used by paid editors. In fact, one of the methods recommended by the current advice at Plain and simple conflict of interest guide (which I think has wide consensus) is for them to use this route. I'm preparing a list of words and phrases that either represent COI editing or people who know no other style than that of Public relations and advertising. Academic bios are special--this is one written by PR staff; academics by themselves ofter write CVs that include everything however minor, which is a good signal.  DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Biblical apocrypha
Hi DGG, in December you tagged this article as out-of-date. Since most of the content is dealing with theological debates from the Middle Ages and Renaissance it's not obvious to me what you were referring to. Can you elaborate? Thanks. Pburka (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * the underlying source for most of the material is out of date: it's essential the now public domain works of the late 19th/early 20th century as was used in the early days of WP . This can be seen by the curious fact that the texts, commentaries, and supplemental reading section all contain only 19th century works and editions. This seems to have been done from several sources, because the manner of citation of the exact same old works is different in different sections s, and the different ections of the article contain overlapping material.    More modern material has been added in bits and pieces; mostly about new editions, or Greek Orthodox practices, with a very few references to more modern works about them.


 * It is a common misunderstanding that nothing has changed in our understanding of the Bible in the last century. There has been an intensive publication of books and there are many journals. Even the original source material is different! Additional versions of books and a  additional books have come to light since 1900 through the more intensive work on the Coptic and other traditions, and the new material  from archeological sources and especially the  Cairo geniza; and most dramatically the manuscripts from Dead Sea Scrolls, which has revealed eleven totally new  books, and material relevant to the existence of multiple versions of the Hebrew canon. Any discussion of Judaism or the intertestamentary period that does not take these into account is essentially obsolete as a general treatment except as the expression of older views (though some portions may still be of value). Additionally, every one of these sources is contaminated by a strong bias towards a particular religious view; modern sources tend to have some of this also, but not as blatantly.


 * Why is there this interest? Initially, the adoption or rejection of these books was important in the different uses made of the OT in various Christian traditions, which remains a controversy of great importance to millions of people and hundreds of scholars, With the development of critical studies on the origins& precursors of Christianity, a taboo topic until the late 19th century, the study of the different late Jewish traditions became central, both for material different but parallel to the apocalyptic and mystical literature of the NT, and especially the continuing search for material that would be contemporary primary sources for the period of Jesus' life on earth. (for convenience I use traditional Christian terminology; that does not imply anything about my own religious views.)


 * there is other better material in WP on this subject, though none of it gives a complete account of all aspects: Biblical canon has a wonderfully useful & I think accurate table, Apocrypha is another treatment based only on older sources, shorter but better written Old Testament Canon is a better treatment of the adoption of these books in different Christian sects with as some modern secondary sources; Development of the Hebrew Bible canon}] and the complementary & non-duplicative [[:Development of the Old Testament canon and Development of the Christian biblical canon  covers   some of this material quite  well; Protocanonical books and Deuterocanonical books provide yet another coverage of much of this topic, and there are yet other independent treatments in Jewish apocrypha and Apocrypha.  Comparison of these will give some idea of what modern sources exist.

The reason I did not work on this further is that what is really necessary is not just adding newer material, which is easy enough, and ascribing the copied older material to its origin to remove the plagiarism, but even more to organize and systematize this material, which is would require more time than I presently have available--especially because a proper revision really requires a rather extensive review of the literature. Additionally, there are people here with better qualification than mine, and I do not want to have to deal with the inevitable disputes between them. It might however e possible to do some merges without much controversy, and if nobody else does it, I may try at least some of it. More generally, what we really need in WP is a treatment of the historiography of various historical subjects, to show explicitly the development of ideas. R.Jensen has the main article & Historiography of the British Empire in hand, but we need more  DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the in-depth explanation. I have only limited knowledge of the subject-area, and I didn't appreciate this aspect of the article. Pburka (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Need some advice about my advice
Hi DGG. I gave some advice here to an academic about his multiply-rejected AfC draft. If you have the time, could you take a look to see if I was completely off-base? The draft article itself is at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Teacher quality. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a rather favorable initial opinion of the article, and commented at the AfC help p. I'd appreciate any further comments before I decide to accept the article. All your suggestions were good, but they suggest far more than is needed to produce an adequate starting article.  DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. But now there's an RfC on that section (here). Seems like a bit of overkill, but there you have it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Absurd thing to do, I agree. fortunately there is no rule for how long an rfc must run. (See WP Wikipedia:Requests for comment )I've made some specific and some general comments DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright wilbur cooper article
When I first joined wikipedia, I used to gather information from various sources and add a lot of baseball biography articles, with information taken directly from other websites and re-worded. That article was written a long time ago when I first joined and I was likely careless about changing the way it was written. I was unaware of the copyright rules of wikipedia back then also and definitely wrote a few article that could be considered "stolen" but I seem to remember always at least changing the wording of the information, if not the actual information. That was when I first joined and there was not many guidelines about copying from other sites either, so I didn't know the rules back then at all. Once I began to see articles tagged with copyright infringement messages, I learned. But yeah, I guess I stole some info from them, however I never thought I was careless enough to ever actually copy anything directly. TrafficBenBoy
 * Yes, in earlier years we were remarkably sloppy by current standards, and consequently there's an immense amount of necessary cleanup. In addition to direct copying, a very common problem is the prevalence of WP of Close paraphrase Such material needs to be rewritten from scratch, changing not just the words, but the arrangement into sentences and the sequence of ideas.  Of course there's a fine balance between Close paraphrase and original research, and for some type of article the content  (such as athletic records) is so straightforward that there can be difficult to find other ways of expressing it,   DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Doncram arbcom case
Hi DGG. The workshop closed some time ago (15 February). You might therefore want to remove your post there. Participants are now placing comments about the PD on its talk page. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * oops. I removed them & commented on the correct p.  DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Spelling: Theatre District, New York
The move discussion was closed without alerting editors at the relevant Wikiprojects to join in. It has long been the consensus at WP:THEATRE and WP:MUSICALS to spell the word "theatre", in part because theatre professionals prefer this spelling throughout the English-speaking world, and because this spelling it is not wrong anywhere, while "theater" is wrong in many places,such as the UK. BTW, I am an American from New York City. Note that nearly all of the Broadway theatres are called "X Theatre". I have re-opened the discussion on the talk page to see if we can get a wider consensus on this issue. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * for names, each case is different & general rules do not apply. This is a name. I always regret it when I get involved in MOS issues--those are the times when I wish we had a conventional editor in chief who would simply decide. Thanks for letting me know.  DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/L. V. Vaidyanathan
Sir,

This has ref. to your recommendation about retaining L V Vaidyanathan's wiki ( 02:25, 5 March 2013).

One colleague of Dr L V Vaidyanathan sends this article "Cut Cost to Profit" which appeared on some British Magazine where some tribute is being paid to Dr L V Vaidyanathan. May be, it can add to his credentials. But Unable to get the name of the magazine. Please visit link : http://myfacebookpages.blogspot.in/2013/03/cut-cost-to-profit.html --Cvrsekharan (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * this will be a little tricky. Perhaps you can ask the guy who sent it to you. It doesn't say all that much, and it's unsigned, ; it wouldn't be a RS for notability, but I think we can use it as additional. .  DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Old PROD declined
Hi, please see Articles for deletion/Waqar A Malik as you previously declined a PROD (see Talk:Waqar A Malik). – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * somewhat to my surprise I quickly found 2 good RSs.  DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion
Hi. Can you offer your opinion on the matter discussed at the bottom of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * is this sort of amateur jury a rational way to decide on which portrait to use for an article?  DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy notice
Hello DGG! FYI, someone mentioned you by name here while discussing an article you "edit/passed". As I was reading it, it seemed to me that I would appreciate a notice in this situation if I was being discussed, so here ya go. Also, your talk page takes too long to load! Rgrds. --64.85.215.188 (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks; I will repay your courtesy by doing a long overdue archiving in the next few days. DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

tags on Jeff Iorg
Greetings. I have come to trust your opinion when it comes to reliable sourcing on Wikipedia's bio pages for academics. Would you be willing to take a second look at this page that you de-prodded and tagged last month to see if it is up to snuff? Thanks! Ἀλήθεια 17:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * He is president of Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, an important institution of higher education, which qualifies him under WP:PROF. He would otherwise not be notable as an academic or as an author.  DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

COI questions
Hey DGG, I'm wondering if you think this draft request for comment would prove fair and useful? User:Ocaasi/coiquestions. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 18:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there is consensus already that Plain and simple conflict of interest guide is the practical rule, and the present wording of the WP:NOPR section on the WP:COI page is compatible with it. ; perhaps the question should be whether to adopt it as a guideline, supplemental to WP:NOPR.  DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Visual Novel Database for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Visual Novel Database 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/Visual Novel Database 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 notice from the top of the article.

Edit warring over sources and books
Hi DGG: Your expertise with books as well as with admin issues, as well as special insights that you are able to divine, would be appreciated if you could unofficially "mediate" and stop the in-fighting at Talk:Elazar Shach where there is a constant battle over what are and are not acceptable sources from a Judaic POV that would be allowable on WP. This has gone on for a long time and in the past has required the article to be locked due to the warring and infighting basically between pro-Shach versus pro-Chabad editors who fight over every crumb. See for yourself. Thanks for helping out! IZAK (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I will give it a try if what you have written does not succeed.  DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

DGG (NYPL) signature
Hello, It seems like the signature for User:DGG (NYPL) does not follow the guideline at WP:SIGLINK for including "at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page." I noticed this when trying to contribute to an AfD that you posted. I think it's a fine idea to have a separate WP account for using at a public library but I hope you decide to update the signature for that account. On the other hand, I know you're an extremely experienced editor and perhaps you have a reason for not following the guideline at WP:SIGLINK -- it might be helpful to know why. Similarly, if you find my signature particularly annoying, please let me know -- I've been wondering lately if I should tone it down. Thanks! -   &#x0288;  u coxn \ talk 05:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It does link: it links to DGG (NYPL) which has the link to my main user page. just takes someone another click. I think the rule was intended for other circumstances, such as using a signature which has no link at all.  And if someone accidentally contacts me there, I've activated email for changes to my user talk page there, which I certainly don't do for my talk p. here.  But if it actually did confuse someone, then it did confuse them and all my arguments are inadequate. I still don't see how to do it concisely, without it not making a link to my actual DGG (NYPL) talk page. And I need to admit that I thought what I did there would be only concerned with my internship at NYPL,  DGG ( talk ) 07:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Please take a look at the signature for User:DGG (NYPL) at your AfD for Euntaek Kim. Maybe my browser is processing the code incorrectly&mdash;let me know. If you're interested, I would propose the following, clean looking signature: " DGG (at NYPL)" (or  DGG (at NYPL) ) which directs to your main user and talk pages, even though the talk page link won't work here, on your own talk page. -   &#x0288;  u coxn \ talk 14:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oops, I had the "Use as wikitext" box checked. I've fixed it--it now goes to the DGG (NYPL) talk p. at least. I think I want it to continue going there, not my main talk p. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs) 17:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI
Hi DGG. You were mentioned at the ANI thread Ongoing battle over Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar-related articles. Correct Knowledge «৳alk»  08:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion AfC
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Global Knowledge Partnership Thank you for your note, I will keep it in mind when marking deletions. This one should probably have been marked as a test page. Kanuk (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Request to recreate deleted article
Dear Admin, I just saw that my created article "Aakash Educational Services Limited" has been deleted. I was out of city and was not able to track activities on daily basis. I request you to please recreate the article and any issues like advertising or promotional material of the article can be deleted under your supervision. I don't want to say that the article was fully perfect but we can make it as per Wikipedia standard as you will suggest to do so. I think, the article was notable, reliable and verifiable and that is why I created. Definitely, there was a possibility of improvement in that article. So, please recreate the article and I will try to improve that article as per your instructions. Waiting for your positive action. Thanks and Regard Satya563 (talk) 11:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have restored it, and sent it to WP:AFD to get the community opinion. See the AfD listing for an indication of what I think are the most promotional elements. Good luck with improving it, and remember that we expect references to be independent, and not just repeat the firm's public relations.  DGG ( talk ) 15:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks admin (DGG) for restoring my article. I have deleted those section of centres list which seemed promotional and posted there 4-5 line content with proper references after deep search on Web. Please review it and advice me if I can do it much better as per Wikipedia standard. Satya563 (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Facilities Management
You put in a couple of comment: (Added and  tags to article (WP:TW)) in Facilities Management in Feb and someone a couple of days ago took you at your word and removed huge sections all cross referenced to external links. No alternative was put in its place so it was just destruction. I am not saying the article cannot be improved but it is a huge subject. I have undone the edits and for the time being taken out your comment to reduce the risk of this happening again. Perhaps I am wrong and the person that edited the work is correct. However, I have been a Facilities Manager for 40 years (retired) and I do have an MSc in the subject.

I would appreciate any guidance.

Sidpickle (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm writing a comment on the talk page there andI will keep track of the discussion.  DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Facility Management
Dear DGG

I've had a little go at what you suggest reference editing Facility Management and now want some feedback just in case this is not the way forward. Some items are still UK only but these can be tweaked if you think we are going in the right direction.

Sidpickle (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a start. I did some editing to give a further indication. Be careful to avoid fluff. Saying something has an increasing role... or is becoming central... is not actually an informative statement, but promotion of the importance of the subject. The material cited by ref 1 should be specifically indicated with quotation marks Use their words os it doesn't sound like puffery. Good luck with it.  DGG ( talk ) 15:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

OK Thanks-agree with "increasing role" and "becoming central"; they are not from me.

Most of the reference manuals to cite are in the $40 range and not something I want to purchase. These are listed on Amazon so can we just refer to these as Further Reading? (but they will be UK specific) Not sure if I can get to US Amazon site but will try.

Sidpickle (talk) 09:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * you then need to try a library (or a bookstore). Even in further reading, this is supposed to be works that are particularly useful ,so how can one tell if one hasn't actually seen them. There has to be more referencing than at present, because as it stands, you are basiclaly writing out of your own j=knowledge00which we do not do here. If I come across something, I'll add it.  DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I knew the answer but it was worth asking! I've got Frank Booty's "Facilities Management" so can quote this and will look up library databases for others that I can get my hands on. Thanks.

Sidpickle (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

CRL
It has been suggested you might be interested in the discussion at User_talk:Phoebe. LeadSongDog come howl!  21:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

ICD
DGG, this Institute for Cultural Diplomacy is nothing but hot air, namedropping of former soandsos and spin. This Verein (german association, can be created by anyone for free) which claims to be headquartered in Berlin was deleted twice from german WP. It was founded by a 21 year old and to quote from old AfD ''One-man operation. ICD Director: Mark Donfried, Internet editorial staff: Mark Donfried [9], "ICD Academic Board" with Mark Donfried, father Karl P. Donfried and a few former xyz [10] Interview with Dr. Karen Donfried ICD [11] etc. The newspaper Die Welt writes.. "in a single-room-office in Prenzlauer Berg sitting Marc Donfried, founder of the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy and its unpaid supporters, 30 square meters, five desks, all gifts of nice people (...) there is no money."'' And regarding the ICD "offers various educational programs and postgraduate degrees in partnership with ..." that seems to be a lot of puffery, they can't offer german degrees. ICD also claimed to be a think tank, a human rights organisation, a lobby, a cultural institute, yadayada. If you honestly believe that "The article ... indicates at least some importance" then please waste your time trying to find reliable sources for notability, before you overturn earlier deletions and remove requests for redeletion. Look at the concerted ICD-spamming of different WP. I'm done. --Atlasowa (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * you are very possibly right. So just nominate it again for AfD. Anyone can remove a speedy except the author of the article. This is not an admin decision necessarily,  DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No, you removed the speedy deletion of an article that was deleted before, now you nominate and discuss at nauseam as you like. Do you see the 11 interwikilinks? I gave deletion notice to all, because they otherwise have no chance to get information. I certainly won't discuss deletion in 11 languages. These ICD articles came last year same time (interns..?), different WP language versions. What a colossal waste of time. Well, yours now. --Atlasowa (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * all you have to do is copy what you said to the AfD. To place an AfD easily, use Twinkle--just enable it in your preferences.  DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Feel free to copy what I said to your AfD. Go ahead. Just do it. --Atlasowa (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I was involved in the discussion when this article was up for deletion for the first time (this is the third time). The main problems were (1) that the authors of the article were very biased (2) copyright conflicts with the organization's website (3) that it was not possible to find reliable sources to establish any notability. Atlasowa, I share your annoyance with this institution, but let's stick to polite etiquette. I have now asked for its deletion, again.


 * Skara B  14:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

afc for deletion kanuk
When I chose the BLP template I did not notice or realize that doing so automatically checked the speedy removal boxes. It was not my intention to delete or mark them for speedy deletion. I have been looking for articles that are clearly inadequate. I will do my best to remember to uncheck those boxes when using the blp template. Kanuk (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Institute for Cultural Diplomacy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Institute for Cultural Diplomacy 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/Institute for Cultural Diplomacy ....

review requested
Would you mind checking over what I did to Crowds on Demand? Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Adam_Swart is pertinent to this article. Thanks for any feedback. — rybec   00:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What you did was fine. My view is that in situations of very moderate notability like this is that one article is enough, but only one. I'm going to do a little further editing for the article on the company to remove some redundancies and reorganize a little, and I made a redirect for Swart.  DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I hadn't thought of the redirect. — rybec   07:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Lord John and the Succubus
Hello again, would you mind commenting at this nomination? Thanks! SwisterTwister  talk  03:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Article is gone
Hello DGG, my friends and I were so shocked that you deleted our the page "QNAPNAS/Qnap" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:QNAPNAS/Qnap), without further notice and reasons. Could you tell me why? Our data is all lost... Please advise your reason doing so. And could you retrieve our article, please? Thank you. Elsachangtw (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC) −
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Qnap was deleted, since it was a blatant advertisement, just like all the prior versions. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  02:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Mike, of course, but checking back, their  products, especially their NAS,  are listed as the leading product in their class in some excellent sources. And what I find is the best way to convince people that promotionalism is promotionalism is to go detail by detail.


 * The substantial page I actually deleted was "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Qnap -- the page you mention was just incidentally deleted as a redirect to it. I do not think my view is peculiar: it is certainly not unique, because the article has been previous declined by many other editors, including another administrator. But reviewing it, since some of the awards are indeed major and well documented, an article could be written. Let me explain how to do it:


 * The key problem is that you mix the encyclopedic information with promotionalism


 * 1) you say everything three times over. First you list the awards, second a timeline, third a list of products. The actual content is mostly the same. You should pick one: either give a timeline of products, or organize by product group.
 * 2) there's unnecessary background--people reading this article will already know what a NAS and a NVR do.
 * 3) There's unnecessary non - encyclopedic formatting. encyclopedias are written in paragraphs, not lists: bullet points are for powerpoint sales demos.
 * 4) .The key capabilities of the product are what should be described: the speed, and the high performance for the price, as the reviewers mention it. Not the mobile apps--essentially every product of this nature now has mobile apps for management or is about to have them.
 * 5) There is encyclopedic information missing that ought to be there. Who founded the company? What is its sales? Is it privately owned or a public company? What is the capitalization? What are the actual positions of the two people mentioned in the infobox?
 * 6) There's missing key technical information: I assume the company does not make the disk or SSD drives, but assembles them into the product, and provides software for managing them.
 * 7) Is there any indication the digital signage products are unique, or the leaders in their field, as there is for the NAS devices? If not, just mention them.
 * 8) Emphasize the major best known awards and reviews, and distinguish between true reviews, and product announcements. ome of the awards and reviews are major and from immediately recognizable sources, and show notability.  When the award is one of several awarded, you need to say so (as with http://www.asmag.com/showpost/12974.aspx, where there were 5 awards from 16 entries in the relevant section. ); When we do not have an article on the show or publication, and when the show makes multiple awards in the product category,  we may not take the awards very seriously (as for  http://www.asmag.com/showpost/12974.aspx.
 * 9) Do not refer to multiple press releases or pages on your own site. We know the difference between a press release and a third party source. The place to give all this, and all the minor product details, is on your web site.
 * 10) If you make specific claims, such as "the first NAS with SATA interface in the world" you to to prove it with a specific reference to a reliable third party source.
 * 11) Compatibility with major systems is important to the purchaser, not usually to the general reader.   Do not include material that would be of interest only to   prospective purchasers --that sort of content is considered promotional.
 * 12) Don't use adjectives of praise--indeed, try for as few adjectives as possible. Don't use buzzwords, like "solution" "leverages technology", "wide range", "global market" and the like.
 * 13) Refer to your web site only, not twitter etc. Every firm has these, and people know where to find them.
 * 14) And make absolutely certain none of this is copied  from a web site, even your own -- first it's a copyright violation, but, even if you own the copyright and are willing to give us permission according to WP:DCM (permission that irrevocably gives everyone in the world the right to copy, reuse, and modify the material), the tone will not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable. (Thus, there is generally no purpose in giving permission; it is better to rewrite.)
 * I would have assumed you have a local copy of the material. if you do not, and you are willing to seriously work at rewriting it properly, let me know, and I will restore it so you can use the parts that are usable.  DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Ask the rabbi PROD
I did look for better sources, and didn't see any of any use. Luke no 94 (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've put on an "underconstruction" tag while I work on it a little.  I would appreciate your holding off on AfD while i do so week or so. To help me, what did you find that you didn't think was of use, and did you only search for English? I can add other examples in English, but I unfortunately lack the language skill to deal with much of the expected  primary & secondary literature. I've asked for help, but if not forthcoming in a few days & I don't find anything quickly, I'm going to merge it into Advice column, an article which deserves and needs further work and referencing. There's actually a fairly large academic and popular literature on the genre, which WP, as is typical, ignores. I can & will do some of it.  There is also much secondary literature of the closely related responsa, an article also in need of expansion and much better sourcing. Again, I lack the language skill to do it properly, but I can do it better than the current article.  DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I did only search in English, as I know precisely no Hebrew whatsoever, and wouldn't trust Google Translate with characters I can't understand. I literally didn't see anything other than websites advertising themselves as "Ask the rabbi", or Facebook pages and the like. I've left off AfDing the article as I can see an Israeli National News source in there, and the others may or may not be any good. I followed WP:BEFORE as much as I could, and besides, referencing was only one of my concerns (notability, promotional language and OR) Luke no 94  (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Luke, I did not mean to imply any criticism of you. I have exactly the same knowledge of Hebrew as you, which is why I said I would need help with this. I asked about the scope of your search not to say you should have searched further, but to ask where you have searched so others know where to start. You've given precisely the information needed. I do not think you did wrong to prod; it's a procedure intended to see if others have opinions on the matter.  (Unfortunately it's not as well watched as AfD, so I sometimes will deprod simply because I think something needs wider attention or further investigation, not because I want to keep the article.) DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's OK, I was just ensuring my position was clear :) I fully agree with dePRODing things to get a better rationale, or a consensus, that makes sense to me. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Money Masters AfD
A question, as I might have missed something. We had a number of IPs and low-edit voters come in saying they felt it should be kept, and yet no one could demonstrate its notability using any sources. How did you come to your conclusion on this one? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I share Thargor Orlando's feelings; both the makeup of the keep !voters and their rationales concerned me. I sincerely doubt the reliability of any of the sources listed in the article.  Further, I am not convinced by any of the keep rationales, which fail to assume good faith on the part of anyone who proposed deletion and which do not adequately address concerns about content and sourcing.   dci  &#124;  TALK   17:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As is my usual course for a good faith challenge, rather than argue the matter, I've relisted. You may well be correct.  DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you taking another look at it. Thanks for understanding the concern! Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Junior high school redirection
Thanks for the heads-up. smileguy91talk 21:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Organization Workshop
RE: 09 March (DGG) “include within the article any published negative criticism of the project” Dear DGG, I have now dealt with all the observations on “The Organization Workshop” made on 09 March and am almost ready to re-submit the redraft. Except one (re: above). I have consulted with a number of people knowledgeable about the OW, including OW ‘veterans’ of more than 30 years of field/academic knowledge and practice. While there have been, of course, criticisms and queries about the OW, most of these have been person to person, or have been made in the course of conference discussions and have remained mostly unrecorded. Whatever published ‘negative criticism’ there is, those texts we managed to find are either tangential to core issues and in almost all cases vague and/or politically motivated (eg the 1980’s Sandinista government suspended the ongoing Organization Workshops in their country and set up, under Education Minister Ernesto Cardinal, a (rival) Freirean ‘conscientizing education/literacy’ program). Wikipedia is, methinks, not the appropriate place to start a political argument about this (none of which exists in published form anyhow). Suffice it to say that, while Freire is about ‘critical’ consciousness/tizion (ie about the ‘root’ causes), de Morais’ OW includes critical consciousness, yes, but goes beyond critical consciousness re: Organizational consciousness, which deals with the HOW? (to go about it for the large numbers of the unemployed/excluded. How? Eg to go about creating enterprises, jobs and a livelihood. The consensus among OW practitioners is that, in Sandinista eyes the OW was in danger of making ordinary citizens ‘too’ independent/autonomous, with ‘The Party’ fearing losing their grip on them. But again, very little if anything exists in published form about these and other issues. I did search the web, too, for sure, but, honestly, all of this is, in my opinions, too ephemeral to devote a special ‘Controversies’ section to it in the article. Thank you (Rafaelcarmen 17:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaelcarmen (talk • contribs)


 * While I'm no expert on the subject matter, I'd expect a government shutting down an NGO or suppressing a major social movement should have made the news, and Sandinista opposition to the OW would make an interesting addition to the draft. That entire government programs didn't find their way into any reliable sources whatsoever seems unlikely. Huon (talk) 11:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk Page
Hey DGG. :) Since you were the administrator that deleted the article Rapaport International Diamond Conference under CSD A7, I'm just letting you know you forgot to delete it's talk page Talk:Rapaport International Diamond Conference which I tagged for deletion just now under CSD G8. :) XapApp (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

RSN
As a regular contributor to RSN, whose opinions I respect, but don't always agree with, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. At this point, one uninvolved person has commented, but I prefer to have more than one uninvolved person comment under the circumstances, so as to get a clear consensus one way or the other. Thanks. Fladrif (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of well-referenced, important artworks
DGG, I appreciate your efforts in WP, but I think your idea to try and delete a number of important artworks is counterproductive and misguided. These are all well-referenced and important articles that you seem to be deleting because you don't find them important enough. This is a troublesome argument to make and one that is highly unproductive. Please help to make the articles better, not simply making a lot of work for others to argue about them. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 11:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The ones I have listed are not important individually artworks, but copies or items without important individual attributes. I've given my explanations at the earlier AfD, Articles for deletion/Antique Wellhead for my choices: I am being extremely selective about my nominations. If you want to make the articles better, start by removing the copy-specific information for the exact location in the museum, who gave it to the museum, and the routine conservation measures. Have you thought about the implications of what you are doing? It's as if NYPL were to make an entry of every one of its copies of the 50,000 or so rare books it holds  , and so would all other libraries.
 * I am a Wikipedian in Residence at the New York Public Library of the Performing Arts (as a volunteer). and I am planning to enter only articles about a few particularly important individual  unique manuscripts, and manuscript collections. In principle, I could probably make a reasonably-sounding attempt to justify the inclusion of all manuscripts, even down to individual letters of famous composers, but I'm not going to do this because of perceived conflict of interest, and because I do not want to impose on the patience of other WPedians. The policy is that we are a general encyclopedia, and NOT INDISCRIMINATE.    I am concerned about maintaining the principle that important individual works of art are worth individual articles. Your attempt at adding this material is putting this at hazard, for it risks a reaction by those  much less aware of the importance of the fine arts than myself. I've worked since I  came here of trying to justify serious academic content in WP, and the way to do this is to go c=slowly and carefully.
 * I have, reluctantly, made some additional comments about conflict of interest at the AfD I mention. I urge you to seriously consider what I have said before you go further. I want to be able to make a case for the detailed description of important paintings and as many other art works as can reasonably be accepted here. I am trying to consider whether it is possible to make a case for individual copies of very important sculptures reproduced by the artist in multiple. I am not sure it will be possible to do this in separate articles, except in very rare cases; more often,   probably in combination articles.  DGG ( talk ) 15:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Please point to the notability standards for individual artworks or books; they exist in no substantial or individualized category. Your efforts are at best misguided and rely on your own to personal taste, which is absurd.  As is your decision to personally decide what is routine or not routine about artworks and their physical existence (location, condition, etc).  All of these were written as part of WikiProject Public Art.  Further, your argument about the NYPL is equally specious; there are more than 65,000 artworks in the collection at the IMA, a fraction of which are in Wikipedia.  You appear to be bent on doing damage within Wikipedia rather than helping to improve the existence of high-quality knowledge.  --RichardMcCoy (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * We have a well established notability standard for books, NBOOK. It's a rather weak standard, that essentially requires only two substantial review articles in a reliable non-indiscriminate source, or that it be a work of a writer so famous that any of his books will be presumed notable. This applies only to books--it does not apply to minor works such as poems, or short stories, unless they have received significant 3rd party discussion. There are other factors: for a poem or short story, it generally needs to be included in a collection. Other factors for any literary work include being on a major best seller list, or having won major national level awards, or being a subject of academic study in schools, or the basis of a notable film or play. Auxiliary factors that help are wide inclusion in libraries.
 * For art works, we should develop something similar. I gave in the first AfD what I think would be the guidelines, and we can discuss them. But the basic GNG will always work for anything: references providing substantial coverage from  3rd party independent published reliable sources--subject to the limitation that relatively minor topics should be combined in more substantial articles.
 * As important as whether we should have an article, is that it should be written t oin a reasonable way. A reasonable way for a general encyclopedia is not the same as for a museum database. The rule is what the reader will want to know, not what you will want to tell them. How much detail to give depends both on the importance of the object, and how much there is of itnerest that is worth saying. Generally, what is being depicted (if relevant), what are the formal and artistic characteristics, the place of the work in the artists oeuvre or in the genre, anything particularly interesting about the acquisition of conservation, but not the repetition of routine details--I think this is a problem in some of the articles. I don't think that for standard religious or mythological subject that the article should contain a full description of the context--for the visitor to an exhibition, it can be appropriate, for the visitor has nothing in front of him for references, but in the encyclopedia, there are links for the purpose.
 * The importance of an article is not decided by a project, or an individual, but by the community .I've given my ideas, and they will undoubtedly need to be discussed. I consider what the public art/indy project is doing disproportionate, and we will see if the community agrees with me. I also question your definition that an object in the outside grounds of an art center or museum is public art in the usual sense.(or indeed, in the sen of the article here on public art--I've asked a question about that on that article's talk page.) It is not the same thing as outdoor art, but art for the public in the ordinary course of their life. I'm of course no expert, and you are. Experts sometimes want to claim a larger domain for themselves than makes any sense to anyone else. I suppose they may do so within their own world, but WP is not divided into private worlds.
 * But, as an expert, how did you choose these particular objects to write about? Why do you think they're suitable for stand-alone articles?  DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not about expertise. It's about it being the artwork being part of the fabric of a National Historic Landmark.  If you can't find a way to see that NHL's meet the notability guidelines, then there's not much else to do here.  It's really a shame how counterproductive your efforts are. The guidelines for public art article have been established for YEARS, and widely vetted.  Just because you think they look like a museum database today doesn't make them any less correct. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's fairly well established that national historic landmarks are notable, but not their component parts individually, and certainly not every object in them. The important object and parts can of course be mentioned in the articles on the landmarks. I think you do realize this, so I ask you once more: on what basis did you decide that these particular objects in the landmarks should have full articles? I think my efforts are very important in trying to make a rational basis for the inclusion of hundreds of thousands of articles on actually notable artworks. Including the non-notable detracts from it in several ways. First, it gives the appearance of being indiscriminate. It discourages people from writing selectively about what is actually notable, because they see that we include material that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.  And most important, it tempts people who do not understand the importance of notable art to try to delete the articles on them also. That an article is written like a museum database does make it improper, just as an article written like a makes it improper; that an article is about a subject of only local interest to a museum makes the entire article improper. This is an encyclopedia, not a comprehensive database of anything (there is an exception for geographic objects--because there's a specific provision we include elements of a gazetteer.)   DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Cwerch COI
Howdy DGG, I just reverted this series of edits which is obviously a conflict of interest. Based on Google's catch it looks like Cwerch was re-creating basically the same material on the article you deleted earlier today. I was going to give them a COI tag, until I read what you had already placed on their page. Since it appears that they were already briefed on what to do (I don't have access to the talk page of their deleted article so I am unsure what they have been told already) I thought I would inquire how would you like me to move forward on this. Please advise.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * good catch. I blocked.  DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Notability of small town mayors
Would you, and any of your talk page stalkers, like to comment at WT:Notability (people)? JohnCD (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Aakash Educational Services Limited
Hi. Changes have been made to Aakash Educational Services Limited since you nominated it for deletion. I would be interested in hearing if you believe the edits have addressed your concerns. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 19:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Wandering library
Hi David, in this edit you seem to misplace the library - or am I missing something? Mentioning it in case there was a batch of similar glitches. It was certainly in West Yorks while I worked there! Best wishes, Pam  D  20:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll check back. thanks. DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Salted page Patricia Caicedo
Hi DGG, I discovered the recently created Patricia Caicedo (Singer). I went to move it to Patricia Caicedo and found the title was salted. It may be a better version than the one deleted at Articles for deletion/Patricia Caicedo. You were the last one to delete it. Is this any better? If so, it it ought to be moved to the correct title. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, very much better I moved it, and I changed the full protection to semi-protection for a few months. Please continue to watch it for re-addition of spam.  DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I've gone through the refs now . Virtually all are primary sources + minor concert announcements at a couple of US colleges. I completely removed all the "references" which were essentially spam links to sites selling her MP3s. I also had to remove several more which were links to her own websites which install malware (I left a note re this on the talk page). Voceditenore (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * even given all this it's better than the previous versions. But the reliance on concert press releases for her bio, even those posted on university sites, is a little troublesome. This needs checking at NYPL-PA, and I will do it when I next go there on Friday or Monday.  DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've now given it a thorough copy-editing to prune the repetition and tendency to peacockery. I also found several reliable source references for quite a bit of the stuff and added them. I really have grit my teeth when I'm polishing up someone's (repeated) attempts at self -advertising. I mainly did it to save you from trekking to the library over this. There's a bit more out there as well. But I'm not going to bother now. There's enough that it would probably survive an AfD. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm Wikipedian in Residence at the New York Public Library of the Performing Arts this year, and I'm there at least one day a week, and one of the things I do when I have the time is look for support for such articles. If there's anything I can do thereto help you, let me know. I know what you mean about fixing up promotional articles. I tend to do it a few times a week, either where I think the person is really important, or sometimes, as a challenge.  I'm much more likely to do it for academics and academic institutions. But you've done enough on this one, and there are so many others... .  DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for unblanking that article about Paul
It was about Paul the Afc BLP (I forgot his last name), not the other Paul, Fisher of Men. I didn't realize that declining an Afc, for not complying with BLP standards, would result in automatic blanking, not until after the fact. There was nothing libelous or copyvio-ish there, merely insufficient, as in "needs more work". I didn't know what to do, if I could reverse it without causing yet more problems. I appreciate that you caught that and unblanked.

I have a few other items, while I am here. I can help you with certain aspects of your work here, not as sycophant-as-a-service, merely because I have a similar skill set as yours, in one tiny area of your field of expertise. On second thought, I think I'll just leave this on my own talk page, for your perusal, should you have time and inclination, rather than littering here. Again, thank you for your help yesterday. --FeralOink (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

AFD - Legal abuse
Thanks for your comment at RSN related to the sole source for this article. I've gone ahead and filed Articles_for_deletion/Legal_abuse. Fladrif (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:LSR
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:LSR. 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) 16:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Not really talkBACK, but could you have a look at the Hampshire County Council bit on my talk page? Thanks. Peridon (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

COI template
I have initiated a discussion at Village Pump Proposals regarding applying Template:COI editnotice more broadly, in order to provide advice from WP:COI directly onto the article Talk page. Your comment, support or opposition is invited. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 19:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi DGG. The proposal seems to show strong consensus at least for a test implementation. Do you mind helping me get a bot to apply the tags? I'm not sure how I'm suppose to go about it. CorporateM (Talk) 15:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never done a bot. See Bot requests or ask someone active there.  DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion Spam
Can you look at this [] and give a comment?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Constitution of Hungary Deletion Dispute
Hi David, I've submitted an item for dispute resolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Constitution_of_Hungary I'd be grateful if you could come and mediate. --Stevan Harnad 04:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC) User:Harnad (talk

You should be ashamed
As someone who apparently cares for cultural heritage enough to volunteer to work at the NYPL, you have succesfully deleted one article and no doubt will have three others deleted that all are part of the cultural fabric of Oldfields, a National Historic Landmark. Considering the lack of information about the arts in Wikipedia and how hard it is to get people to write articles about it, and improve the coverage, yours is a particularly shameful and ill-considered effort. You have claimed that these don't meet notability guidelines, yet there are no guidelines that relate specifically to artworks. By your logic, all articles about artworks should be deleted. Way to go. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd calm down Richard. You know that notability issues for articles like these have been raised periodically ever since your programmes started. I've stopped raising such issues myself, partly because there is a certain encyclopedic utility in having a sample of individual late copies of sculpture covered very fully, even if they all happen to be in Indianapolis, and because, predictably, there are relatively few such articles in WP as outside a class assignment few people are likely to start them. But I don't kid myself that the case for their individual notability under the usual rules isn't pretty shaky. I should say I missed Articles for deletion/Antique Wellhead, and haven't seen the article, but guessing at what it was like from the debate I probably would have voted to keep that, as apparently an original artifact from an older period, no doubt with more sources available.  Articles like the ones here, and the Urns, would be more encyclopedic if they adressed the wider issues of copying statues in recent periods, taste in garden decoration etc. I take the view, here & elsewhere that "sample" articles are useful, even for common types of artifact.  Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Richard, I doubt that DGG enjoys seeing this material deleted. However, while on this site his primary goals have to be Wikipedia and Wikipedia policies.  His volunteer work is set aside.  That doesn't mean he doesn't care about the subject.  Let me suggest a way forward: Begin by writing a Wikipedia essay on the subject of these cultural articles.  Explain their significance, academic or medias bias against writing about 'boring cultural topics', and why they should be important to Wikipedia.  Once you have a strong essay that argues your point, try to use it in AFDs to get others to see your point of view.  If you can get folks on board with your ideas, draft alternative notability guidelines and try those out in a few AFDs.  You'll get no where hammering at the wall that is Wikipedia notability.  It's much easier to slowly bore a hole although it takes much longer.  Consider the advice.  I am sure DGG might even have some input on such an essay.--v/r - TP 13:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

@John. Keeping full articles on individual examples could best be justified if it can be shown that the item in question is the most important example of its sort, one used in the discussion of the object by third party sources. Alternatively, a certain about of description of the object can be included in the general article. It would otherwise be difficult to say why this wellhead, and not all wellheads in museums anywhere. @TP, the point of what I am doing is to try to obviate possible objection to the coverage of individual items that are actually notable, like the individual paintings of major artists. I want as much coverage as is reasonable of the arts, but I don't want to try the patience of the community. This applies to many things I personally think important, but that the community is unlikely to support. I deal with it by urging broader standards, but not trying the impossible. I might for example make a speculative argument that associate professors are as a matter of course notable, but I'm not going to try assistant professors; I think the losing major party candidates for national posts should be included and will sometime say so, but I'm not going to even suggest the candidates for state legislatures. In the opposite direction, for those areas where the community thinks things important I consider ridiculously inappropriate in an encyclopedia, I let it rest, though i sometimes urge tighter standards.
 * We need much better coverage of the fine arts--we should do it by writing articles on those tens or hundreds of thousands of actually major artworks we do not include, and improving the usually quite weak articles on artists and museums.  DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with this - the really big weakness of our coverage of artworks is actually the Art history 101-style over-emphasis on "major" "masterpiece" objects, and poor coverage of typical objects, and types of objects, above all in the decorative arts. This reflects the popular presentation of art history in tv, press, etc, especially in the US, but we should recognise it as a weakness, that distinguishes most of our coverage from that of academic & museum discourse. The BBC/British Museum A History of the World in 100 Objects exemplifies a better approach. Of course Victorian garden statues are not the strongest platform to make this argument from, but there we are. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * that's part of our undercoverage of industrial products, whether in the class of decorative arts or not. But the situation will not be well addressed by concentrating on individual articles for individual items, but by finding good references and examples for  not just the general articles, but articles on specific types of objects.  I do not like the approach of picking out one of a class of anything and writing extensively on it: it gives a distorted perspective of the scope. The solution, here as in many many similar situations, is combination articles with sections or lists  DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * DGG: You feel that deleting some articles will reduce the deletion of other articles?  Richard seems open to direct suggestion, and you can see how much time he is dedicating to making those articles good ones.  There may be more friendly ways to attain your desired outcomes than simply nominating them for deletion.  –  SJ  +  07:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Were I doing it again, I would do it slightly differently. But perhaps the willingness to combine etc. would not have been forthcoming without the expression of the community consensus.   DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am afraid that the poor state of our overview articles for certain art-related subjects is a more glaring weakness. Take for example the article on the decorative arts. Two references for a rather extensive subject, four images, and some rather vague prose. For example, the last paragraph extensively mentions the "Copyright Act 1911", without linking to such a law or mentioning whether this law was British, American, Canadian, etc. If the overview articles fail to adequately cover the scope of the subject, I would not really expect to see much attention for individual examples of said subject. Dimadick (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Speaking just for myself, I see that most of our editors find it much more difficult to write overview articles. Articles on specific objects or institutions or whatever where there are already a number of similar article are rather formulaic. At least a stub is extremely easy in almost any area, and then expanding to at least C-class on the basis of a few RSs quite straightforward. Expanding to FA of course takes work, and experience, and usually some considerable subject knowledge. But for a general article there is the question of finding good general sources, which are usually printed books, organizing the material, finding specific references for a variety of specific points, and writing it all clearly. I think the ability is similar to that of a teacher being a really good lecturer to an introductory class. Improving such articles with links and references as you find them is of course considerably simpler. I don't know why we do not do this more consistently--perhaps because the people who are likely to do that would rather write something new. Personally I find myself much more likely to work on what I immediately see as a problem rather than go systematically,and personally I normally work with the bottom stratum. (I expected to do quite the opposite when I joined.)
 * I would certainly encourage anyone who thinks they can, to work on the major articles--most major articles anywhere in the traditional humanities are either very weak, or developed in a very unbalanced fashion.  DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Loyola University Chicago Expansion Plan
I see you added the "merge" tag to Loyola University Chicago Expansion Plan. Honestly, though, that article is about eight (!) years out of date, doesn't contain many specifics, and was never sourced to begin with. I see little value in keeping it around; anything about this topic would require new research. (FWIW, I'm a Loyola alum myself.) Zagal e jo^^^ 06:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed it was out of date; I'll take another look.  DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.
I will make sure to add a reason from now on. --☥NEO (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I am not a bot
Per the WP:RFC and WP:FRS guidelines, I respectfully request your feedback regarding a question of law. Should the Ugg boots trademark disputes article include example cases of counterfeit consumer goods? Is the counterfeiting of brand name goods a "trademark dispute" when the counterfeiters are taken to court? One editor has raised a WP:NPOV concern, since the only case (out of many under discussion involving Australian companies) that has been lost by the Australian company is being excluded; he feels that excluding it leaves the impression that Australian companies "are as pure as the driven snow, and can do no wrong." Also, another editor has claimed that the introduction of example cases of counterfeiting "dilute" the discussion about whether the word "UGG" is a generic term, and therefore ineligible for trademark protection.

Please respond to the survey here with "Support" if you believe counterfeiting is a trademark dispute when taken to court, or "Oppose" if you believe the reverse is true. Thank you. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * When asking my opinion on a specific ongoing content question, I prefer if you just alert me to the problem. I will make my own analysis based on what I see for myself. What you should be asking people for is any contribution they can make to the discussion, or even their personal  opinion, but not a vote--one way or another. I have learned by now how to not read on after the first sentence, so I am going there without knowledge of what you may have said here.  DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I request permission to transclude (copy) a portion of your post from the "Threaded discussion" section to the "Survey" section.I don't want anyone denying that we have consensus at some future date because your opinion is being ignored. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the survey is too narrow a question and I   explicitly do not want to participate in it. There's no need to duplicate  comments on the same talk page.   DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In what way (or ways) would you like to see the survey broadened so that you would want to participate? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Douglas W. Owsley bibliography
Hi, could you have a look at this article? I'm not really sure what to think of it. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it.  DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of tag at The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Hi. Can you please delete The Chinese University of Hong Kong? The page was created by User:Theowoo, as the result of a manual page move using copy and paste. This move destroyed the continuity of the page history of the original article and was not agreed on through consensus. The majority of the page history is located at Chinese University of Hong Kong, a page which I have restored to the version before Theowoo's manual move. Thanks. --Wylve (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a discussion on the talk p. before I do anything. The presumption is that we do not use "The" in front of an organization name unless it is unambiguous. But you are right that even were this the right name, the copy and paste move has to be fixed. I'll look at the talk p tonight or tomorrow and deal with it, if nobody else has.  DGG ( talk ) 15:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! --Wylve (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Status and Advice on my new article
Hi, David. I have just put up my rewritten article about E.A.S. (Emanuel Scheek). I've tried to make sure that it is not excessively commercial anymore and I would like to know if there are still points I can improve on. Thank you in advance! Nemaja (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (deleted at afd)

Impersonation
It appears that you have an impersonator. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * remarkably foolish--a more effective way to discredit his own opinion is hard to imagine. Thanks for letting me know.  DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Your warning
You might want to redirect that warning to the person who created the page and added the content ;) --nonsense ferret  22:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * you beat me to it! me too slooow :) --nonsense ferret  22:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The AfC bot got it wrong, and I blindly went to the same place--I do not immediately see why it made the error, but I'm going to check a few other notices.  DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Gold   Standard  23:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Deleted page
Hello,

I am wrinting to you because I would like to know why the International Humanity Foundation (IHF) page had been deleted on the 27 of March 2013. I saw the message in red but didn't really understand the reason:

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 04:07, 27 March 2013 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page International Humanity Foundation (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: Expired PROD, concern was: A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This ...)

Thank you for the coming explanations.

Julia Dauphin