User talk:DGG/Archive 75 Apr. 2013

Interesting AFD
I am sure you'd see it soon by yourself, but just in case: Articles for deletion/Copyright policies of academic publishers. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi DGG: in your reply to that AfD, is "The purpose of an ./e is to provide information." a typo you could fix, or jargon I don't recognise? Either way it doesn't convey any meaning to me, and I may not be alone! Pam  D  14:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've fixed it. It's my TextExpander keyboard macro for "encyclopedia" It must have not expanded this time. A very useful program normally,   DGG ( talk ) 16:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * no consensus


 * There's another AFD I would appreciate your thought on (feel free to just comment on my talk page rather than posting there if you think there may be any canvassing involved): Articles for deletion/Advice Polack. There's also a serious discussion on article's talk at Talk:Advice Polack about reliability of sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * deleted at afd

Evelyn Nordhoff Bindery
Hello DGG: Evelyn Nordhoff Bindery is a new book-related article that you may find of interest. I just accepted it from AfC. Check it out and feel free to improve it, if you're interested, have the time, etc. Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 19:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * notable, yes in at least a technical sense, but without more information I would merge it.  I left a note on the eds. talk p. suggesting what should be added to really justify it.  DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking it out. Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 16:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

fyi
FYI -- I've made note of comments by you here.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Inherent Notability
Hi DGG,

I'm just curious, is UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property inherently notable? If not, how do its references, which are almost all non-independent, establish notability? Thanks, Gold   Standard  01:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * it's a major international convention, and I consider all such notable. I consider the references sufficient, in this particular case, even tho not independent. There are undoubtedly additional references to be found, and they need to be looked for--it may be tricky because of possible alternate names. Agreed, I should probably have done it before accepting it from AfC, but why not give it a try yourself.  DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems a little hasty to assume there are undoubtedly additional references. Also, is it consensus that international conventions are inherently notable?  I'm also not sure why you told me to try to find references.  I mean, I'd be happy to, it just seemed a little condescending to say, "give it a try yourself", as if I started editing yesterday and have never found references for an article. Thanks,  Gold   Standard  02:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * as I implied, I think you could do it just as well as I can, and I just don't see how that can be seen as condescending. btw, I said "major" international conventions. That UNESCO held a symposium on it 30 yrs later = major.   DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I took it as "giving a task to the newer guy". I see now what you meant, so my apologies on reading that wrong.  Does Wikipedia have a policy defining what is a major vs non-major international convention?  The reason I am so curious is that I have been in an AfD discussion on an international convention and it would be helpful to know where to find objective policy on the matter for future occurrences. Thanks for your help,  Gold   Standard  02:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, we have no such formal policy. We don't even have a policy that WP:N is a matter of common sense, though that certainly affects the results of many--but not all--afd discussions. I would absolutely love to codify common sense into fixed criteria, but for almost all topics the consensus here remains to go primarily by the GNG. I was looking at the French WP,and they seem to decide at least sometimes by a numerical score of factors that make up notability, a level of rationality which (in accord with the conventional understanding of national characteristics) seems much more typical of France than of any English speaking country.   DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But I need to get back to work: I'm trying to see how many promotional AfCs I can get rid of in 24 hours.  DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Good work! And thanks for the info.  Gold   Standard  03:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Teacher quality (again)
Hi DGG, remember the discussion and RfC about the Teacher Quality article last week? Well, the whole thing was simply archived by a bot with no resolution at all. I've left a message at the current help desk page here. I think it is terribly unfair to leave that new editor hanging. Great way to encourage academics to participate in Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Having expressed a strong opinion, I myself cannot do the move. This is one of the inevitable dilemmas of being an admin. Some admins, of course, don't worry about things like this, but I do.  DGG ( talk ) 15:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi DGG, I'm the author of the Teacher Quality article that Voceditnore mentioned above. This article--though short--is the product of 2 years and 20 people's work, and represents an effort on my part to connect what we do in academia with the work of Wikipedia. It is very frustrating to have this article simply put on the shelf by a bot. Is is just rejected? Can I just resubmit it with Voceditnore's edits? Right now I'm not even sure where the page exists other than here. The archived discussion is here. Any help, suggestions, or resolution to this you can offer would be welcomed. Douglarkin (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)douglarkin
 * As I said at the AfC, I think the article should be accepted and moved to Teacher quality assessment, but I would prefer someone else to do Voceditenore, why not simply do it yourself. If anyone object to the article, they can take it to AfD. Doug, in expanding the article, please keep in mind the comments at the AfC, Sometimes those at a greater distance can see problems the immediate experts might miss.  DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done! See Teacher quality assessment. I've also left a note at Doug's talk page. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 05:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Slight complication. I've discovered that Doug also had created another draft at Articles for creation/Teacher quality (via a cut and paste, I think). I'm not sure what should be done with it. History merge or just delete per housekeeping? Neither of which I can do since I'm not an admin. The draft I moved was Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Teacher quality which has the history of all the previous collaborators in Doug's group, as well as my "refocusing" edits. Voceditenore (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Something must be done, as it is in the wrong namespace. I will ask Doug if he has any further use for it.It was clearly a working copy to try out various wording. Strictly speaking, it should be a history merge, but I doubt it's necessary, as he has responsibility for all the edits that incorporated it.  DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

A.J.B. Johnston, stub or not??
Thanks for letting me pestering you! :-) The creator of the page asserts this to be a stub article, rather than what I myself think of it, as a Start article. Before I change that, what do you, as the approving editor, think of this issue?Arildnordby (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * it makes no difference whatsoever in any real sense, except that since it is clearly more than a stub, it might indicate a desire to add additional possibly inappropriate material, and needs watching. .  DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Duly noted. However, I have reason to believe creator added stub quality out of modesty, rather than out of sneaky desires. That is why I asked you, as a more experienced editor, if the article as it stands should be upgraded to "Start" status, rather than "stub". Personally, I think it is "Start", on basis of my limited experience, but would like an experienced view on this before changing it.Arildnordby (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, You remived the tag I placed on this page, but have not provided any reference to support the claim the 'Cross necklace' is a recognised term. Speedy deletion tags must not be removed in such a way. If you could provide a reliable/credible reference that would be most helpful and would, of course, be grounds for removing the tag. Obscurasky (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Anyone but the originator of the article may remove a speedy tag. I removed the tag because speedy deletion is strictly and narrowly limited to those instances enumerated at WP:CSD, and whether an article might not be on a recognized term is not among them. The only possibly relevant tags would be no show of importance, which only applies to apply to articles about people, organizations, individual animals,and planned events-- this article is not in any of these classes. The other would be G11 promotionalism, and that does not seem to apply either, as no specific thing or company is being promoted. If you still want the article deleted, you should use either WP:PROD or WP:AFD-- WP:PROD is only useful if you think there will be no objections to the removal ,because anyone, even the creator, can remove a prod tag. I cannot judge whether or not the community will decide the article should be deleted, and it is not up to me.
 * I see you replaced the tag I removed, and this is not permitted. See WP:CSD and WP:Deletion policy. I do not think any administrator would delete the article on the basis of the criterion you used.  DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Myadvice is to let him have whatever class he wants--one step up or down makes no difference.  DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
BO &#124; Talk 02:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Library theft
Hello DGG: Library theft is a new article that you may find of interest to check out, improve, etc. Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 22:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Indexal problems with A.J.B. Johnston's article!
Hi, DGG!

Appreciate that you have approved Andrew John Baylay Johnston as a sufficiently notable Wikipedia article. However, on the indexing issue, there is the folllowing problem:

On the categories (like Canadian historians) included on the page, A.J.B.J. is listed under letter "A", rather than under letter "J".

Surely, this must be a fault relative to the actual creation of the page, rather than a fault in the content of the page? I'll leave it to you to sort out this glitch.Arildnordby (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * DEFAULTSORT now added to the Andrew John Bayly Johnston article, so he will file under J. (Actually I added, which also adds a couple of categories and would have included birthdate, if known, between the first two " | " symbols.) But a couple of points:
 * How does he spell that name: Baylay or Bayly? You seem to disagree with yourself!
 * Is he really best known by the full 4 names? Or should the article title be A.J.B. Johnston and the text start with the spelled-out version?
 * It's always helpful if when you talk about an article on a talk page you make a link to it (makes it easier for the addressee, or any talk-page-stalkers, to go and see what you're talking about). Pam  D  15:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * LC authority file lists him as using both, but AJB most often.  I suppose by our usual practices it will be A.J.B. a/c LC,it's  spelled  Bayly. I'll make the moves and redirects.  DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be "Bayly", not "Baylay"; I'll fix my own mistakes on that.Arildnordby (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Full protection when article is vandalized by one unregistered editor?
DGG, why did you protect this article when one unregistered editor was vandalizing it? That seems like quite a bit of overkill when the easier thing would be to block the offending editor or semi-protect the article since he or she is unregistered. The full protection is preventing me from making uncontroversial edits to the article. ElKevbo (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * the protection expires on the 5th. There was a reason for it--please email me.  DGG ( talk ) 15:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not urgent or important enough to take to e-mail. I saw that the editor claimed to be affiliated with SACS but I hope everyone knew to immediately discount that as false.  But I trust if you say there are other issues at play that they're important and are being handled. ElKevbo (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Interlibertarians
Hi again DGG,

I don't know if you remember this AfD discussion, but looking back I must say I probably would have voted delete, against myself. The article I was presenting was a press release. Now though, the 2012 Interlibertarians conference occurred, and I was wondering if you could take a look at some actual news coverage of the event and let me know if you think it contributes to the subject's notability.

Italian: 

English translation: 

Let me know what you think!

Gold   Standard  23:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * At the head of the article "Il noto libertario ticinese-senese Rivo Cortonesi presenta l’evento internazionale ai lettori di Ticinolive" = "The well-known libertarian Ticino-Siena Rivo Cortonesi presents the international event to the readers of Ticinolive"

In other words, they published his press release. The entire contents is what he said, with a few one-line framing questions by the interviewer. WE have normally considered such interviews as press releases. I could conceivably make a case that it does show the paper thought them of sufficient interest to publish their statement, but the consensus on using such material has consistently been that its not independent reporting, and is not a true secondary source & therefore does not show notability.  DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC) "
 * Dang, I'm assuming this one is no good either then? English: Italian:


 * What about this one, though? This I think might work cause it's not a press release and it explains what Interlibertarians believe and what their influences are: Italian: English:


 * Thanks, Gold   Standard  04:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The second is just a reprint of part of the first. The third is not about the conference or the group, but more generally about the Austrian School of economics. (incidentally, it's unsigned, & the style seemed a little like that of WP,--and in fact the first paragraph is an unattributed reprint of the first paragraph of the article on the Austrian School  in the Italian WP.  DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, you are right! Thanks for your input; I'll let you know if any potential sources turn up after Interlibertarians 2013. :)   Gold   Standard  05:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Library of Congress subject headings
Commenting on Talk:Fouta Djallon, I came across  I have seen this before. I would have no problem if this were used as an authority for article headings, at least where UK English is not the standard. Thoughts? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * LC subject headings are only one step up in terms of systematic consistency as our categories. They are not based on what information science now calls an "ontology"--meaning that they are not derived from any logical or scientific analysis of the sphere of knowledge represented. Rather,  they are added to and updated in an ad-hoc manner as new books arrive.
 * Anyway, this is not 1996, but 17 years later. The up-to-date practice is most easily seen by looking at the subject headings used for new books on a subject in WorldCat, keeping in mind that the headings for new books are assigned by individual catalogers, who are not supposed to actually read the book, so even books on the identical subject may have different subject headings.
 * LC headings are useful; once you have found a book, it tells you how some similar books are likely to have been cataloged, so you can search under that term. Providing a practical thesaurus to assist this is the entire intent and purpose of the LCSH book.
 * As an example of its inconsistency, LCSH uses Futa Jalion for the name of the place, but Fouta Djallon Range for the nearby mountains. And checking worldcat, LC practice must have changed, for I see only the form Fouta Djallon.  DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was hoping LC was a bit more scientific and authoritative, and did not realize Worldcat had a similar list of topics. Maybe the Wikipedia approach of evolving to an accepted name for each topic through discussion is as scientific as any. Redirects are a great help. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kurban Said
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kurban Said. 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) 18:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Forrest Breyfogle
So this "desperately trying to drum up some business for my marginal consulting company" d00d still merits an article? Is that based on the bestowal of the Crosby Medal (for writing an unspecified book)? The fact that that medal hasn't been awarded since 2010 makes me wonder if all of the "winners" are self-nominees in a "competition" of one. BTW, that medal seems to have been awarded to at least one other relentless self-promoter with a consulting business and books to sell. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My own personal opinion of this sort of guru is not to the point. What I try to do is to make sure that even when they're notable the article isn't overly promotional, as I did. You would have had good reason to complain if I had removed the prod tag and left the article as it was,  I do not understand your point about the Crosby medal--if it is awarded only rarely, that make the award all the more impt--the sort of award that I try to remove are the ones awarded to dozens or hundreds of people a year. As I see it, he is a notable author on the basis of his earlier books. First look for reviews, & if not found, then nominate for deletion.   I am very willing to delete, and I delete about 10 times as many as I rescue.  DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. You wrote: "First look for reviews, & if not found, then nominate for deletion".  Are you sharing a description of your general approach or is it an invitation for me to WP:AfD after consulting ?  -- DanielPenfield (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not yet looked for reviews. It is not necessarily easy to locate them for works in this field, unlike for fiction. The standard prebuilt search may well not find them. As a minimum, a database needs to be searched that indexes business periodicals. My own practice is based on the realization that I am not personally capable of doing all the work myself for sourcing everything in WP that is probably notable, but needs sourcing. I try to get an impression, based on what I can immediately find, in this case the translations--and I will quickly add library holdings. After that, I look further only if challenged and if nobody gets there before me. (with the exception of a few topics that particularly interest me, and this subject isn't one of them. DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand now: You were offering something that could be interpreted either way; that is as a vaguely reassuring and believable description of the general process you follow, or as an invitation for me to "do the right thing as I see fit".  Either should have served to mollify me and conclude a discussion that you don't want to have.  Got it.  -- DanielPenfield (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I want to explain, what I do. A fair question like yours' deserves a detailed answer, and I always try to give one. Had I wanted to put you off, I'd have been much briefer. Rather, I explained what I will do, and made a suggestion for how to do it if you want to yourself. There are many ways to proceed, and I took your question not as rhetorical, but as wanting the information. The only thing I'm putting off is doing the actual searching immediately, because I can not get to the resources I need from here. I may have time tomorrow.  DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Chengdu Medical College
Thank you for rescuing Chengdu Medical College from 11 months in AFC purgatory. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  00:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * anyone may always accept an article if they think it will stand, even if someone else declines it. Even the creator can do so. Of course, there's no point of doing it if it's going to get deleted. There is not even an actual rule against doing a simple move, but it's a bad idea, because it leaves too many things to clean up if the procedure isn't followed.
 * Similarly, but in the opposite direction, if it meets the General speedy conditions at WP:CSD, anyone may--and if they notice it usually should-- nominate it for speedy deletion. Certainly for copyvio, or attack pages, optionally for promotion that doesn't look fixable. We're discussing other possibilities for rapidly removing old or bad AfCs at WT:CSD, but in the meantime MfD is also available.   DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

AfC article
Thank you for pointing this out, DGG. I did in fact answer the query (after looking at my archives), although I should've been clearer about COI. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I rewrote my note to clarify further. It is entirely my fault for getting you confused about it--I was dealing with too many afc's at a time. But for someone with COI, AfC is the recommended safe route to follow, and it's good to see someone frank about it. --the actual problem is that he forgot to transfer the refs from the frWP.  DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand. It happens when one reviews so many submissions. I'm revamping my focus at the moment, making sure I'm as clear as I can about my editing. Please feel free to give me further advice and comments about my edits, especially wit AfC. Oh, and I'm curious as to what your PhD thesis was on. Kind regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Biosynthesis of ribosomal proteins in E.coli." Berkeley, 69.  DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion on notability
My friend is doing PR work for the Fuel Freedom Foundation and wants to create an article on either the organization or one or both of its founders. I think the org and one of its founders are not notable, but Yossie seems borderline.

For example, The New York Sun called him a "one of Israel's top high-tech pioneers" and "a major philanthropist involved in public policy issues." I also have some offline sources, where The Jerusalem Post calls him "one of Israel's top hi-tech pioneer entrepreneurs." WSJ covered his $5 million donation to a university's tech program and there's some coverage of his funding a program to identify the names of holocaust survivors.

Practically speaking, there's not enough source material in English (there might be more in Israel sources I can't read) to create more than a stub, but the sources themselves suggest he's important. Being a speaker at TedEx suggests his importance. Thoughts? CorporateM (Talk) 01:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Everything I can find for the foundation is a press release. I would find it difficult to write a NPOV article on the group without knowing their actual sponsorship. funding, and purposes. That they promote alternatives to oil, without being in favor of any particular one, strikes me as a little unusual--most such group have an actual agenda; most group seeking to decrease the role of oil also want to decrease the role of other non-renewable energy sources.  Reading the rhetoric on  about us, I just don't believe them. When they talk about "promoting competition" they presumably mean for the benefit of some particular segment of the industry. When they talk about electricity as an alternative fuel, they're talking nonsense: electricity has to be generated from something. The way electricity is an alternative to, is as an alternative method of delivering energy, with substantial advantages over bulk liquids. They have a very impressive board of advisors. I wonder why. What I do see on the web from them is a truly remarkable number of press releases: your friend is certainly earning his money. :)


 * As for Hollander, being a TEDx speaker is not notable-- see TED (conference); being an actual TED speaker can certainly suggest importance, but even it doesn't prove notability . There's been some comment about maintaining quality on TEDx lately, but I do not remember where I saw it.   Aranoff might be notable, but I cannot find enough material. I notice the article on Quest Software does not mention him--but then it lacks balance in many aspects; Oddly, I cannot actually document his role as a co-founder of Quest. Without some actual information there, there's no article.

With related article possibilities, looking at Hollander's companies, there's a promotional article on Jacada that I just cleaned up a little, but I'm not sure of its  actual notability. Just going by size of company, there might be possibility for an article on New Dimension Software.  DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * She just started supporting them, but I'm sure she's writing the press releases now. I will have to advise her that they have poor and inconsistent messaging and need to get their act together. ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 17:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle
DGG, I saw your comment in the deletion review. How do you change the CSD default in Twinkle? RockMagnetist (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * this is one of the oddest ad hoc features of the interface. Go to Twinkle/Preferences. It looks like it's a general page that would set universal defaults, but it actually operates to set your own individual preferences. The explanation of the options is at Twinkle/doc.As I said at DelRev, it was some while before I figured this one out.  DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was surprised how many opportunities I got, as a new admin, to click on the wrong button. I have hidden all those "block" and "rollback" buttons on Special pages - I don't know why anyone would want them. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup NYC this Sunday April 14
Hi DGG! You're invited to our next meeting for Wikipedia Meetup NYC on Sunday April 14 -this weekend- at Symposium Greek Restaurant @ 544 W 113th St (in the back room), on the Upper West Side in the Columbia University area.

Please sign up, and add your ideas to the agenda for Sunday. Thanks!

Delivered on behalf of User:Pharos, 17:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Your review of Kellex Corporation
Hi DGG. Thanks for your review of Kellex Corporation, which I just started. I agree with your review. I definitely intend to expand the article in the coming days. --Ori.livneh (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Salt Civilization Jihad?
Considering that it seemed to have been used as an attack page and has been deleted twice already (other time was last November), I was wondering if we should salt the page. I figured I should ask first, since JimofBleak didn't do it when he deleted the entry and it might be too strong of a move too soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. I've done it. But watch out for alternatives.  DGG ( talk ) 13:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * FYI, the page in question has been created again in a number of different locations. I hope I'm not speaking out of turn either by mentioning this. Guy1890 (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I see that there is not a consensus to use speedy A10 again, though otherwise I would be willing to use it, so we must rely  the current MfD. After it gets deleted, we can deal with further re-creation. Are there additional copies anywhere?  DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The only other copies that I'm aware of are already documented in the current MfD. I wouldn't know where else to look at this point. Guy1890 (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Re:deletion criteria
Ok I admit my mistake. But the page Dinara, Bihar needs a lot of improvements.-- Milesandkilometrestogo (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Now substantially improved - and has a couple of incoming links, too. Couldn't resist the challenge. Pam  D  09:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But I still don't understand "vidhanshabha"! Pam  D  09:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Vidhan Sabhas are the Legislative Assemblies of the states of India. Maybe it is a constituency of Bihar Vidhan Sabha. - Milesandkilometrestogo (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Yvonne Kroonenberg
Hello,, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on Yvonne Kroonenberg, appears to be directly copied from http://www.womensfestival.eu/events2006/dutchwriting.htm. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Yvonne Kroonenberg if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Yvonne Kroonenberg


A tag has been placed on Yvonne Kroonenberg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —Ignatzmicetalkcontribs 04:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * artefact of page move, now rewritten.  DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Business & Decision and Boursorama
I thought it better to send these to AfD, because of the presence of the frWP article, and the major stock exchange listing. I will probably say to delete, but I think the community should decide. Articles for deletion/Business & Decision and Articles for deletion/Boursorama. I will probably do similar with some of the similar PRODs.  DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Works for me. For your help in finding these, they all relate to Template:CAC Small, a template containing all of the businesses on the Paris Bourse that aren't in any of its major stock indexes.  They're all publicly traded, or were at one time.  Most of the redlinks on that template were there before I started looking at it.  Some of the links on the template (Affine (company), Cegedim, Audika, Cegid Group, Delachaux) were a7'ed on my proposal, and deleted by others; these had nothing more than the assertion that a business by that name existed.  The ones without sources or convincing claims to be encyclopedia subjects in the text, I PROD'ed.  The ones I thought might be notable, I tagged for any defects I saw in style or sourcing; and finally, I put the template itself up for discussion as a collection of links to articles that mostly don't exist. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Robert Joseph Greene
Hi, I'm a bit concerned that I was told an article that was nominated for deletion (by you) would be up for discussion for seven days. It is now past seven days and the article was not moved over to the Wikipedia administrators for discussion. Furthermore, I am a little upset because someone added a deletion request PAST the allowed time.tews17:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:George Maharis
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:George Maharis. 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) 19:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've replied to your message. --George Ho (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

One gets used to anything, except a guy
Seeing as you claim to be an expert on these things on the talk page of that article, I'd like to ask your opinion. Do you think this article has enough notability to be kept? Personally, I don't find any credible sources on the subject as a book (yes, I did search in Dutch, a language of which I'm a native speaker). I do, however, find quite an interesting number of sources about the play that has been made out of the book. What are your thoughts on this?  —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  21:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There seems no reason to have a separate article on the book. If a notable  play has been made of a book, the book is ordinarily notable, but it is usually possible to handle them together. Otherwise, when a book is borderline notable, the information can and usually should be merged into an article on  the author.  So there are 2 choice: one article covering everything, or  dividing it up into 2 articles.  In any case, as the book has never been translated into English, it has no conventional English title, and the Dutch title should be used.  But there's something else, claimed in the article for which I see no evidence, but you would know this better than I-- it is claimed that the book title has become a catch-phrase. If there is evidence of this in Dutch sources, that might change things. I haven't gone back to it myself, because I am not able to check that part of it. So do what you think reasonable.  The important thing is to keep the information, not how we arrange it.  But make redirects from everything necessary, including all the possible article titles you don't use. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Merger/move proposal
I have proposed a "merger/move request" between List of U.S. state partition proposals and List of proposed states of the United States, because I feel there is considerable overlap. If you are interested participating in the discussion, please feel free to do so here. Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Cock and Ball Torture
Hi! I notice you removed my requested move template here, saying "not obvious to me--pls et consensus first". I just wanted to ask what specifically wasn't obvious, so that I can either clear it up or understand what specifically needs consensus. Thanks! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * sure. I think the relative prominence of the general term without the capital letters, as compared to the band with the capital letters, is so great that not having the qualifier (band) might be confusing. Even tho it is permitted to be done the way you suggested, if it leads to most people going to the wrong place, it may not be a good idea in this instance. I wouldn't like to rely entirely on your opinion or mine, or argue between us, but see what other people think.    DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, that seems reasonable. It's not a big deal to me, so I'm fine with leaving it as it currently is. Thanks for the reply! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Danny Whitehead
Hi DGG,

I received your message about overtagging. I normally do not overtag. However, I have dealt with the Danny Whitehead article multiple times already, either having my deletion tags removed or seeing the page recreated after deletion. So, rather than nominating the page for deletion again, I decided to purposely put too many tags to draw attention to the article and to let the author know that the article did not meet notability requirements that way. I seem to remember that prior attempts to communicate with the author, who changed usernames if memory serves correctly, did not work. So I just gave up trying to have it deleted myself and resorted to overtagging to draw someone else's attention to the issue. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

Sosthenes12 (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12


 * It's OK--you did draw attention to it. I did what most admins would have done at this point--to protect against recreation for a period. It may show up a year later of course, and we don't usually protect indefinitely, because he might conceivably become notable. I check my log of deleted articles every month or two, to see what has shown up again. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much, DGG! Sosthenes12 (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Æthelgeard
This makes no sense - you say "See talk page" but don't put anything there. If the newest edition of the Handbook of British Chronology has eliminated him as a bishop, if the PASE (see for PASE main page and search results Æthelgeard) doesn't show him and if Google Scholar shows nothing, then the guy didn't exist. There ARE no secondary sources that discuss why he got eliminated - so he really should be deleted. This is not that unusual for some of these obscure "could have been" bishops - could you kindly restore the PROD so we don't have to go through needless bureaucracy with an AfD? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There are 5 confirmed people by that name in PASE. None of them are this bishop. The article can simply be changed to be about them, and mention the possibility of him also.   DGG ( talk ) 13:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I've expanded Æthelgeard. The bishop which also often has that spelling is actually Æthelhard, Archbishop of Canterbury in Kent from 797-805, our one is 950s and a landowner. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld

Volapük Wikipedia
Notable? I must say I assumed that it having more articles than even Norwegian wikipedia it would easily be notable but Aymatth does have a point about sourcing. Can you provide some perspective at the AFD? I'm more on the fence now in light of Aymatth's findings but my natural feeling would be that having such an article is fine.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  14:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The Inferior
As you are mentioned, --Bejnar (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Dani Bone: Unambiguous advertising or promotion
04:40, 22 April 2013 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page Dani Bone (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion:) You deleted the Dani Bone post based on "unambiguous advertising or promotion." I was just wondering if there was any way to save this post or if it it is straight up doomed from the get go. I figure that he being the lawyer in the Garrard case makes him "notable." But, is it possible to note that without being too "promotional"?

Thank you for your help! Freddiedavis65 (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You need third party published articles that talk about his role, and focus on it--articles that do not merely repeat what he said himself. It has been rather difficult to prove notability of trial lawyers here, but if you can find such sources, write the article to emphasize them. The most reliable proof of notability  for this profession is national level awards.  DGG ( talk ) 15:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC).

Thank you!

Freddiedavis65 (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Lottery Wheeling removal
You deleted the above mentioned article based on "unambiguous advertising". I was the last one who edited it and actually tried to make it less promotional and more informative based on recent development, and appropriate links; needless to say, I am willing to further work in this direction, which I cannot do if the article is deleted. So I guess my question is: Is your decision final; and if it is not is there any way to put the article back, or at least if I further work on it and try to follow all Wikipedia policies. My goal was to make the definitions in the article more precise without removing too many of the existing references, which, although not the best, were still relevant; I was also afraid that whoever put this article in Wikipedia might be upset and try to re-edit it to a state similar to the one before my edit. Anyway, to summarize: Is it eternally gone or it can be saved subject to some further editing, which I am willing to do? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotoman (talk • contribs) 10:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing is eternally gone here: everything can be resurrected if there is reason to do so. I rather agree with you that an article could be written, if you can find good sources--sourcing is what everything depends on here. You need to do the following:


 * 1) find references from reliable 3rd party sources that talk about it in a substantial way, besides those that merely advocate using the system. Presumably, some of these references will have some kind of neutral evaluation of the likelihood of something like this actually working. I think a work discussing lotteries in general much more likely to be acceptable than ones devoted to this particular method.

There is a huge Wikipedia article on Lotteries; I can link to it; it is actually one of the pages that linked to Lottery Wheeling; now the link is dead. Lottery Wheeling is just an entertaining method of playing; I am not interested in advertising lottery systems/wheels; it is a widely known way of playing; in fact, many world lotteries have the option of playing a lottery system included in the automated processing of tickets. The reason I edited this article was to disperse some of the scamming aura around lottery systems; indeed, some vendors promote these as "increasing the odds", "guaranteed ways of making money" etc. Systems guarantee wins on condition of hitting several numbers correctly, just like a single ticket does; they do not guarantee profit. My guess is that whatever was left in this article from the previous author(s) has heavily affected your decision to remove it. My intention definitely was not to have an advertising of any kind of strategy, it is more like the opposite: educate people about what exactly a lottery wheel is, what it can do and what it cannot. My edit left only three external links; I could reduce that to one - to a site full of free information, exhaustive explanations and information about the subject; the site also offers a book by the author for those who are further interested, but the his books are at Amazon, and indeed are the most popular books on the subject at present


 * 1) for "In a famous occurrence..." you need references to articles in reliable sources talking about it, not just your own statement. Book promoting the system are not reliable sources (nor tabloids, or local newspapers). For material likely to be challenged, such as this, every statement must be sourced specifically with a footnote to a specific place in a specific reliable source.

Link will be provided.


 * 1) write the article in such a way as to remove adjectives praising the system,and remove unproven judgments, like "the most popular"--to say something like that you need a reliable source saying so, one not connected with selling books about the system.

More links will be added. There are several sites providing criticism of pretty much anyone who is trying to sell lottery wheeling systems via false or exaggerated claims; these could be useful for people who want to know what systems are.


 * 1) Try to coordinate the article with other articles here discussing lotteries--make appropriate links to them.

Definitely.


 * 1) You might do well to have a user name that does not include some form of the word lottery. If you tell me what it is, I will put the article in your user space for you to work on it.

What is wrong with the handle "Lotoman"? It show some interest in the subject, is not it? Plus it is not visible to anyone but the Wikipedia staff, I guess. Perhaps, you could take the risk and put the article back in Lotoman's user space? Thanks.

 DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can use the name, it breaks no rules. But i would still advise you that you are more likely to succeed without it. FWIW, it is visible to anyone who looks for it in WP. Everything here that is not actually deleted is visible. Not all of it is indexed in google. The article is at User:Lotoman/Lottery wheeling.When you think it's ready to be moved back, ask me or another admin. We usually allow at least a month or so to work on it.    DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: Pedro R. Kanof
Dear DGG:

I would like to thank you for you comments on the article that I have submitted, namely that the article does not demonstrate that Dr. Pedro Kanof meets Wikipedia’s criteria for notability.

I respectfully disagree with this conclusion and will deeply appreciate if you kindly could give attention to my reasons why. Furthermore, I believe that changing the wording of the article may more clearly demonstrate Dr. Kanof's notability.

You have written: “Publicly shared bicycles were common in the world long before the 1980's--I recall them in San Francisco in the 1960s. Rental bicycles date from the 19th century." I certainly agree with this assessment. Moreover, I could add that publicly shared bicycles were not only in San Francisco in the 1960s but also more than a half century before in New York, Paris, London, and Buenos Aires, among other cities. Furthermore, you have used the expressions “rental bicycles” and “publicly shared bicycles” and I hope that you could accept that the expression “bike sharing” was created in the last decade –after the implementations of automatic systems of rental bikes in Vienna, Lyon, Barcelona, and Paris, among other cities. That expression refers to a very specific type of rental bike.

This specific system of rental bikes that I am referring to has two keys features that distinguish it from the old procedure of rental bikes: a) it is implemented using electronic technology --that allows for the user to fix and take back bikes from an electronically operated parking station and for the automatic identification of bikes and users--, and b) it allows the rental bike transaction to be started at one point of a city and returned --closing the transaction--, in another point in that city or in another city. I hope that you could accept that the new method –described in b) above--, was possible thanks to the electronic technology –the feature that I referred above in a).

Rental bikes in the 60’s in San Francisco, or other cities, before or after that year were constrained in that the bike had to be returned to the shop that provided it. And that was the old classical method of rental bikes that is still now in use in many cities, such as Paris, Barcelona, etc., -- simultaneously with the "bike sharing" systems.

The contribution of Dr. Kanof is that he was in the 80’s, the first in the word to propose a system for renting bikes automatically, and he was able to do that thanks to his studies in electronics, computer science and business in Buenos Aires, Milan, Paris, and Berkeley, California. And the system that he proposed is what today we currently call “bike sharing’’. Consequently, it is clear that Dr. Kanof invented this system of “bike sharing” --that is a system for automatically renting bikes.

I hope that the additional information I have provided will lead you to agree with me that this is the correct interpretation, and kindly will approve my request to include his bio in Wikipedia.

I think that my wording may not have been clear in distinguishing between the general system and method of renting bikes and the more recent system and method of automatically renting bikes (known as “bike sharing”). In the 1980’s, Dr. Kanof invented the latter method and system, as shown by the investigation carried out by the reputable financial-economic newspaper Il Sole-24 Ore, and many other relevant sources.

In conclusion, to improve the article, I suggest using the following expression: "Dr. Pedro R. Kanof invented in the latest 80’s the system and method for automatically renting bikes, currently know as bike sharing…. "

Please let me know what you think and thank you for your time. JosephRoo (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephRoo (talk • contribs) 12:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The point of AfC is to help you construct an article that will stand at a community discussion, not one that will be likely deleted. I'm trying to do that--see my suggestions below. But no one individual decides things here, and  you have the right to take your chances with the present article.   If you insist, I will move the article to mainspace,  but if I do, i will immediately list it for deletion at WP:AFD.  In that procedure, people, including yourself, will then give their opinions and some other administrator will judge the consensus.  It is impossible to be sure what will happen at such a discussion. but my guess based on long experience here is that the community will not accept the article in its present form
 * If you want to make the article more likely to be accepted, you should rewrite and say that he devised a method. I think there is evidence for that--the article you mention is indeed relevant. I don'l think you can reasonably claim he was the only person who came up with the idea, unless there are reliable third party sources that say he was the only one who did so. Additionally, normally the people here give credit for a notable invention to those not who merely propose an idea, but reduce it to practice, and I think it's clear from what you and the sources say that he did not do that.  DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Sex 3.0
So when you say that "We describe whatever has already been written about by reliable sources", are you waiting for mainstream media to publish a series of articles about it before you will allow a wikipedia page to even exist about it?

If so then wikipedia seems to have evolved into something that can only ever act as a barrier for open source which is totally bizarre bearing in mind that it is an open source project running on open source software.

How can an open source social movement ever exist if you won't allow a wikipedia page to exist about it until it has already become so well established that it has been extensively written about in mainstream media?

I had no idea that it was the job of wikipedia to stiffle innovative, open source and crowd sourced ideas. Wow!

BTW the timing of your deletion was very unfortunate as a mailing went out about one hour before your deletion to the entire mailing list of members of the Sex 3.0 movement (a large mailing list) annoucing the open-sourcing of 3.0 and proudly announcing the wikipedia page.

Those members would have gladly helped flesh out the page and added references and citations but you did not give them a chance to do so in your desperate rush to stiffle an open source movement. What happened to the one week appeal period?

Not only that, a movie is currently being made in San Francisco right now - a documetary about the Sex 3.0 movement - the trailer for which is going to be put up on kickstarter in the next few weeks. The movie specifically talks about the open source nature of the Sex 3.0 movement and we had hoped to feature the wikipedia page in both the movie and the trailer and now we can't - thanks !

PS Evidence of the existence of the social movement can easily be obtained by reading amazon reviews and taking a look at the official website.

PPS Please change the reason for deletion if you are not going to un-delete it. Its states self promotion of a book as the reason for deletion but, based on your last message, you basically said that lack of citation from "reliable sources" was the reason.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizza Lord (talk • contribs) 01:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If viewed in relation to the book, it's promotional. If viewed as a movement, its promotional for the movement. There is furthermore no evidence for the existence ofthe movement except the one self published book, so it would in any case be rapidly deleted. When some other people publish references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources,   about either the book or the movement, then try to write an article  DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) There is not a single reliable source in that article to suggest that Sex 3.0 is a notable topic. A link to Amazon's page to purchase the book certainly is advertising. Lady  of  Shalott  01:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Further comment: I agree  that the link--no matter who added it-- isn't enough to make it speedy-deletable by itself--an article has to be entirely promotional and incapable of fixing by normal editing. This was. I am not going to restore it. I very rarely say that in response of a good faith appeal, but the article is so totally unsatisfactory that it would serve no purpose, because it will almost immediately be deleted. If you can find some third party sources, try again. If not, there's no chance whatever of a satisfactory article. We do not serve for the promotional of even the best and most socially desirable ideas. We describe whatever has already been written about by reliable sources.   DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * For anyone seeing this, PizzaLord has changed their comments several times in response to my postings and those of the Lady--it would have been  much clearer to just add  to them. I have just seen Sex 3.0: A Sexual Revolution Manual, which I have listed for deletion by AfD, as a self published book, without even a listing in WorldCat. Though there was nothing explicitly promotional in the article, it is clear to me that it was intended to promote the book.  I could quite justifiably use G11 for that also, but  I do not like to use speedy when it is only by implication, as this might appear as a way of evading the A7 restriction that rightly prevents using it on books. Further, it would be fairer and more in the spirit of the way I normally work to let the community deal with it, and not give an impression that I am acting on the basis of a personal opinion,  I have also seen your edits to Sexual revolution, which have, very  correctly, been reverted by another editor. In context, it does not appear to be possible to distinguish your promotion of your book, from the promotion of your idea; you have tried to make two complementary articles, and any your personal pov to another article, to promote the two of them. Any further discussion should be at the AfD.  DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Pizzalord : The page Sex 3.0: A Sexual Revolution Manual was created not by me but by wiki admins. Here is the chronology of what happened :

1. I created a stub of the page sex 3.0 with the aim of fleshing it out

2. Before I had time to do so, wiki admins created the page Sex 3.0: A Sexual Revolution Manual and set up a divert to forward people from the Sex 3.0 page to the page Sex 3.0: A Sexual Revolution Manual. This page setup by wiki admins talked about the book and directed people to the amazon page

3. I made it clear that I was not interested in talking or writing about the book, I was writing about the Sex 3.0 Movement - the worlds first open source sexual revolutionary movement -

4. Text on the subject was written by me (in a non-commerical way with no mention of the book or link to it) and the two pages were forked which now gave us two pages, only one of which I contributed to (the sex 3.0 movement page)

5. Other wiki admins arrived on the scene, read what other wiki admins had written about the book, deleted the Sex 3.0 movement page and marked the Sex 3.0 book page (which was created by other wiki admins and not me) for deletion and threatned to ban me for content that wiki admins posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizza Lord (talk • contribs) 05:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Promotion means promotion of an idea, concept, or movement just as much as it means commercialism. My warning was about promotional editing, not about a particular article; if you continue it, you will undoubtedly be blocked, but not by me. If you or anyone want to challenge my speedy G11, go to Deletion Review. If you or anyone want to defend the article on the book, go to AfD. If you or anyone want to write an acceptable article on either, find some third party sources.    I have alerted the other editors who seem to have been involved about this, but further discussion should be elsewhere.   DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Sex 3.0 page (as oppposed to the sex 3.0 - sexual revoltion manual page which I did not create) is a descriptive wiki page about the notions behind Sex 3.0 as a theory in the same way that this page is a descriptive page about romantic love.

It is written in a non-prescriptive manner. Please cite examples on the page of promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizza Lord (talk • contribs) 06:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please look at this section of the page you linked. Third party reliable sources discussing the topic - that is what your article is missing. That is what is required to establish notability as required by Wikipedia policy. If you can find such sources, by all means, write up the movement in your sandbox, and submit it via WP:AfC. Lady  of  Shalott  12:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the above is very good  advice for rewriting,  though it is not what I relied on for the speedy. We do not of course speedy delete for not having references or not showing notability. Even for no indication of importance, which is a much lower bar for notability this does not apply to philosophies, movements (or books).
 * However, it seems futile to continue the discussion here. I'm going to undelete and send to AfD. The ed., however mistaken about what is acceptable on WP, is acting in good faith.  DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Cultural intelligence
Hi DGG--I ran into this, which has great potential (according to JSTOR), but it's hardly my field: I can't write such articles on such topics. Perhaps you can have a go? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Kansas-Armenia National Guard Partnership
In reference to your issues with the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_-_Armenia_National_Guard_Partnership I am the main contributor to the 22 National Guard State Partnership pages, but I am not the one deciding what goes up on each page. I was tasked by EUCOM with coordinating the efforts of each SPP director (there is one for each State) and each BAO (there is one in each overseas embassy) and taking what they give me. Obviously, they do not want to duplicate there own work and rewrite what they already wrote on their State National Guard website so they are copy/pasting select content and asking me to upload. This is what EUCOM wanted to do in order to avoid requiring each SPP director and each BAO to learn the enormous Wikipedia guidelines and to prevent a drastic variation in style and quality.

Tell you what you suggest. The content is not plagiarized. Would a comment on the State National Guard websites indicating Wikipedia is authorized to use the content be the fix? Incidentally, we are nearing completion of our own SPP page here http://www.eucom.mil/key-activities/partnership-programs/state-partnership-program and if you click on any of the 22 links halfway down, you will see it takes you to a pdf (currently in draft form) that shows the exact same content that is appearing on the Wikipedia pages. These pages are going to be part of a printed posture statement. Again, this is to avoid having to create yet another version of the same material.

As for the pictures not being relevant to the partnership, I'm at a loss for words. These were very carefully selected from a large pool of pictures and they each show something meaningful about the program. The soldiers lined up on the airfield getting off a plane is an example of a monumental form of cooperation among two countries that just a few years ago were bitter enemies. The fact that they appear together at all in a picture like this should speak volumes. If you don't get that then I suppose nothing I say will matter.

I am open to your suggestions. Briansmith451 (talk) 11:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

There are a few principles involved. There are several courses I could take, as an experienced editor: I could nominate these articles at AfD for deletion as promotional and lacking   3rd party   sources ; I could list them for a requested merge into the main article; I could list the problem on a suitable noticeboard and ask for opinions; I could  persuade you to fix them; I could fix them myself. I do not want to delete content if there is any alternative; a merge would greatly decrease the usefulness as indicating the foreign relations of each of the countries involved; I will list them on the COI board (WP:COIN) if we cannot reach agreement, but perhaps that will not be necessary.
 * 1) Copyright. WP requires that all material be either in the public domain or licensed under a  free license, by which we mean a   CC-BY-SA license, which  irrevocably gives everyone in the world the right to copy, reuse, and modify the material. Permission for WP to use it is not sufficient--WP is a free encyclopedia, which intends its content to be used freely for any purpose, even commercial, as long as attribution is given and the material remains freely licensed. Any use of material not under such a license is limited  to brief quotations. We do not permit any compromise with this.
 * 2) We additionally do not permit Close paraphrase of unfree material; not just the words must be changed, but  the arrangement into sentences and the sequence of ideas.
 * 3) As I mentioned, material published by the uS Government is in the public domain, and so is material published by a certain few individual US states, such as California. (This does not apply to photographs or other material they reprint from elsewhere, which may already be under copyright). Material from most states requires a license--see WP:COPYRIGHT.I note that almost all   material from other country's governments (and the UN) is not in the public domain--the US is almost unique in this generous provision for free use.
 * 4) Plagiarism, which applies to all material, free or unfree, copied or paraphrased. Anything taken from an outside source must be attributed to the source explicitly. This goes beyond copyright--it's a basic convention of responsible writing.
 * 5) conflict of Interest You are apparently editing on behalf of a group of outside organizations, as part of your job. This creates a conflict of interest. For our rules on this, see WP:COI. We do not absolutely prohibit it, but we do examine such edits very closely for objectivity. As a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without COI; it's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest or as a paid press agent, but it's relatively more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know.
 * 6) Ownership. Nobody owns a WP page, and anything you write is subject to editing by anyone--as an official editor you are no more entitled to determine the content than anyone else.
 * 7) Notability A Wikipedia article needs to show notability with references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. All or almost all the sources in the articles are from the relevant government units, and do not show importance. There should however be newspaper articles available for all of these, but they must b  independent, not essentially copies of press releases.  Additionally, such sources can show undisputed facts, but they can not be used for conclusions, such as the success of the programs, which must be shown by outside sources.
 * 8) Promotionalism Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subject, or to prospective supporters, or intended to produce a favorable public impression of the program --that sort of content is considered promotional. WP is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for promotion of even the most worthwhile things.
 * 9) Illustrations. Actually, I noticed that photograph to which you might be referring, in the California-Ukraine article . I noticed it as a very good photograph, though there is nothing to indicate the field as being in the Ukraine But there is no need for the duplicative photographs of soldiers practicing treating casualties in the Illinois-Poland article--onei s sufficient; and I do not think purely ceremonial photographs such as [] or [] or  [] are appropriate--dignitaries meeting each other are PR, as are group photos of the participants. They may make good PR, and good content for the organizational websites,  but they add nothing that cannot be said in words as far as the encyclopedic purpose is concerned. Yes, it's important to show the soldiers from the two countries working together I agree with you on that--it adds a demonstrative element beyond what words can do,  but  perhaps once per article is sufficient, and also those few that show actual military joint activities, rather than just training. Excessive use of what would be a good thing if used in small quantities is a sign of promotionalism--saying the same point over and over again. But, as I mentioned, since nobody owns an article, neither you nor I need decide this.

But there is one thing I must do as an administrator. I must remove copyright violations from the articles, by either rewriting or blanking the sections, or listing at the copyright problems notice board. If you do not immediately remove the ones from state pages which are not public domain, I will do one or the other, or remove what I can quickly find, and then list them all--action there usually takes a few weeks.  DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Katherine More and editor Shropshire Lad
You previously gave Shropshire Lad two warnings over disruptive editing on the article Katherine More. After recent discussions on the talk page I became aware of what appears to be WP:CANVASS, as I understand it, another form of disruptive editing. In appeals to other editors he's encouraging them to, as he puts it in these messages, “to seize these pages back”:

User talk:Gnesener1900 User talk:Peterkingiron Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shropshire There were at least two others so far, but were deleted by the talk page owners.

Can you please look into this? I can see what might be several policy violations but I wanted to see if you could make more sense of what this is. This appears to be starting to play out on the Talk:Katherine More page. I've just never seen anyone suggest this to other users this way. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Muggins, I'm looking into this since it's my lunch break--but I gotta tell you, you're making a mess of that user's talk page (see this as well). Please use preview, and please don't remove other messages (such as that by DPL bot, for instance). Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Canvassing states that it's OK to leave messages about ongoing discussions "on the talk pages of concerned editors", which is what I assume these people are. I don't see evidence that they have been on the same side in previous discussions, so the audience is not, presumably, "selected on the basis of their opinions". Now, I think those messages are not great or smart (they're way too long: a simple notification would have done) but I don't think they violate the canvassing guidelines. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ditto. For most people, including myself, the hardest part of dealing with difficult editors is to avoid over-response. It is usually better to delay responding to canvassing until it affects the discussion; normally, attempts at it are not very effective, and accusing someone of canvassing adds another level to the increasing argumentativeness.    DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Arctic  Kangaroo  03:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Kekoo Gandhy
Thanks, DGG, for stopping by at this under-construction entry. However, how much weight does your intervention give toward acceptance of the page without modification? Or does the previous editor still have the overall, final say if s/he refuses to accept your argument in favour of acceptance in the form it first came to her/his attention? Kind regards, Jim Moody Jimmo 17:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmo (talk • contribs)
 * Well, I hope the ed. follows my advice about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kekoo Gandhy and accepts it. I could have accepted it myself immediately--any established editor can, in fact, accept an AfC if they think it suitable, even if it has been declined previously--but I think the response of the ed. who declined it was a clear error, and I like to give people the chance to correct their own errors.   I will look at it again in a day or two.  The recourse of anyone who thinks an article has been accepted that does not meet the WP requirements is to list the article for deletion at AfD, and get a community opinion. Since AfD is unpredictable, it would help to strengthen the article with additional references, and perhaps reorganize it into longer paragraphs.  DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi DGG It's been three days since you dropped by and at least four since Arctic Kangaroo did - AFAIK s/he still has not revisited to review the now-amended page. Any chance of an approval from you? Jimmo 11:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmo (talk • contribs)

J.O. Patterson, Sr., Nazis, syphilis, etc ...
Thanks for your very interesting message. I have read it all with interest, and replied to the part that is of most immediate relevance. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Pol430  talk to me  18:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

H.C. Tonking
Nice save, thanks! --j⚛e deckertalk 17:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Monde Selection
Thank you for rescuing Monde Selection and improving it by removing more of what you rightly describe as "non-encyclopedic detail". I was meaning to reinstate it myself, but wanted to avoid any semblance of a possible edit war; plus I've been very busy.

Whilst this article started out as advertorial, it is now much more critical, and is the sort of subject where the general public might expect us to have an article. I quite agree with the emphasis on your User page that we need to edit with users in mind, and not the whims of other editors. Edwardx (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Northamerica1000(talk) 02:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

American vs. US
User:Sitush has raised an interesting question on my talk page, about using the word "American" vs. "US" in titles. In particular, a couple of articles I started 1950s American automobile culture and American automotive manufacturing in the 1950s. His thinking is that US should be used in the title instead, but that sounds awkward to my admittedly US-centric ears. I'm not sure how WP:MOS falls on this but felt you might know. If you have an opinion, I would be glad to hear it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input there. In relative terms, you are expert on these matters so don't sell yourself short.  I knew I could depend on you for a sound, objective and experienced opinion. I've now submitted it for WP:GA, only my second.  Creating these GA quality articles has helped me gain some perspective, and empathy.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 16:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hafiz shahid raza
Hi DGG,

I wanted to ask you about the user Hafizshahidrazaqadri who seems to create pages about himself. He created the pages in December of 2012 but they were deleted and he was warned about creating autobiographies. He created another page about himself again today entitled Hafiz shahid raza. Do you mind looking into the situation a bit? Thanks.

Sosthenes12 (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12
 * deleted, and warned, level 4.    BTW, G4 is only applicable   when re-created  after an AfD -- not after a previous speedy.  DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Thanks for the help! Sosthenes12 (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Speedy deletion declined: Juntobox films
Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Juntobox films, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''Actually, the links with Forrest Whitaker and Indiegogo is enough of an indication for A7. May well not pass the GNG, so needs to go to AfD if required.''' Thank you. Ged UK  11:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I AfDed it, having spotted it myself: Articles for deletion/Juntobox films Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Islamic Azad University Khorasgan Branch (Isfahan)
Dear DGG, hello thank you for your advice. I made some changes to the passage eliminating promotional words and somewhere rewriting the subject. I tried the text to be informative. I Used deferent references (both English & Persian). Please check if its ok I would appreciate confirming it.Thanks for your kind attention. Regards Mehrnazar (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Mehrnazar
 * It needs more radical changes than that. A Wikipedia article  needs to be written like an encyclopedia article, not a press release or a web page -- Even though the material has now been licensed  according to WP:DCM  the tone is not suitable, and the English does not read clearly. That's why I usually advise that there is no purpose in giving permission; it is almost always better to rewrite.The various comments already made at the page will guide you.
 * My first suggestion would be to remove all adjectives, and just give the information. Moonriddengirl gave you some good advice about that on your talk page.
 * My second is that it would help having fewer photographs--one or at most two is better--pick the best of them. I would suggest one showing the campus or the most impressive building, not the routine photos of the interiors of what after all are rather standard classrooms and laboratories. I'd would pick the first and third in the first group of photos.
 * third, the section on the The Institute of Advanced Robotic and Intelligent Systems and the other special units are all of them too detailed. Remove what is relatively routine; keep in what is exceptional.  DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC).

Blackboard Inc.
Hello there, DGG. It was excellent meeting you in person recently, and I hope you've been well! I have a question about a page we've both had involvement with, albeit not at the same time: Blackboard Inc.

A few years back, in fall 2011, I researched, wrote, and eventually posted a new draft of this article. This was the pre-"bright line" era; while I sought feedback from uninvolved editors, I was the one who moved it from my userspace into the mainspace after getting thumbs up from an editor at WikiProject Education. A little over a year later, in fall 2012, you made some changes, among them adding a template which still sits atop the page, stating that the article "reads like a news release". I certainly didn't intend to do that, but upon re-reading it, I can see things I might have done differently. I am again working with Blackboard, and we'd like to see what needs to be done before the warning could be removed. Would you be willing to share, here or there, what you think should be changed?

I know you've largely decided against reviewing drafts with company representatives, so if you'd prefer, do you have another suggestion for how I should proceed? And whatever the case, when it comes time to make updates, you can bet I'll find someone else to implement them. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll always give suggestions about articles or drafts. What I do not want to do is be responsible for the article. If I wanted to be responsible for a major revision, I'd write it myself. I'm looking at both this article and Blackboard Learning System, an article inexplicably not even linked from the one on the company--an article which I think would almost qualify for G11  when I saw it just now. (I removed the worst of the promotionalism added in recent months & left warnings.  I hope the company hired you because they wanted  to   stop such improper editing.)   There are too many specific problems with both to list; I'd advise starting over on both of them. The first question is whether there should be two articles. I think there is such an enormous amount of discussion of the BLS in the educational literature, that there is probably enough to support two articles.   Some key points:

 DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) too much of the company article is obsolete. The key market share data point is from 2006; the legal matters discussion ends in 2010, as does the discussion of the technology.
 * 2) For software as major as this, we usually discuss the development of the different versions in brief outline.
 * 3) The article is confusing. The article at present does not really make clear the major thing the company actually does, which is produce BLS. This would be the reason to have one article. The reason to have two, would be to separate the (related) legal questions about both the patents and what is seen as a de facto monopoly. In that connection, can the statement about WP i really be justified by ref 65? It's almost an accusation of bad faith, and if used, should be quoted.
 * 4) Too many of the sources in both are company press releases.


 * Thanks DGG, I appreciate the fast but thorough reply. Interesting point about Blackboard Learning System; I don't actually recall seeing it before, but I agree the two should be reconciled somehow, whether it's one article or two. I'll look at your other points, especially about the inclusion of sources. I'll very likely be in touch, but I won't ask you to be responsible for the update. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 01:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Photo
You posted on "Dr. Galen Starr Ross" that the photo may have been copied from another site. This photo was in a private collection and I compared it to the photos in the links I created in the article and they did not match. The photo was supposed to have been copied from an old brochure. How can I confirm it is not copied from the site you mentioned? Rachida10z (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * see your talk p.  DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will work on this. Rachida10z (talk) 06:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I rewrote the article. I think this is much better.Rachida10z (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 02:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)