Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:41, 5 August 2011

p>_matic 04:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

my view on the notability of murders and murderers

Despite what my favourite author says, murder/murderers these days are not necessarily considered sufficiently important to be notable at Misplaced Pages. Murders/murderers of multiple people are--when I came here 4 years ago, it was often successfully argued that ≥2 victims made them notable (I think that's about 10% of the total) --our standard seems to have risen, so I'd say it's now ≥3. Murdering in special conditions that excite human interest makes for notability-- murder in schools, or accompanied by torture, or committed in exceptional manners, or greatly disputed cases, or of (or by) those who are famous, and so on. (none of these apply here. )
Murderers who are executed are always notable, as I see it. That very few people actually are executed, even among murderers, makes the cases of particular interest & notability, and almost all the world considers such executions notable instances of barbarity. This is my fundamental position, but I no longer argue it , as the argument is very rarely accepted here. Executions under any special circumstances are however notable, even here, and the argument is accepted often enough that I will argue it.
This particular case does not quite fall into that category, as she has not yet been executed. But that she should even be sentenced to death is exceptional because of her status in one of the protected classes, and legally interesting, as there seem to be so few of the usually aggravating circumstances that the sentence appears a matter of particularly outrageous injustice, even as a sentence. A jury verdict like this with respect to an adult male in Florida and some other US states would not really be notable to the same extent, as it is relatively common. But a woman is normally given the benefit of the doubt , and here it seems she was rather the object of local prejudice. In southern states, local prejudice has a particularly ominous implication, as a continuation of lynching, that affects the way people look on it. (I'll put off for the moment the question of whether the articles should generally be on the murder or the murderers) DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that DGG. I think we have fundamentally differing views as to the notable elements relating to this and similar cases.

• "that she should even be sentenced to death is exceptional because of her status in one of the protected classes". This is a factual inaccuracy, I believe. She wasn't pregnant when sentenced to death (nor was she even pregnant when charged—the chronology is pretty clear that she gave birth in March and was arraigned in April).
• "murderers who are executed are always notable". Why should there be de facto notability for this class of individuals rather than letting the guidelines apply?
• "she should ... be sentenced to death is ... legally interesting". This leads to the conclusion that it ought to be covered, not that she ought to be covered, or even that the case be covered. The case is not legally interesting (it provides no legal authority on any proposition of law). As you point out, the jury verdict is interesting, but it is an interesting fact about the Florida criminal justice system or jury process generally, but not about the specifics of the case or individual.

You have gone to lengths to explain that you don't think that tabloid-style coverage of the subject is appropriate, but what else can there be in an article focused on her or the case, rather than putting the verdict in the context of capital punishment in Florida (or generally)? _matic 01:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

For the Carr article, I think I suggested rewriting to change the emphasis at the AfD. We may not be that far apart on this particular article. That can often be the case in coming from different directions.

More generally, I just above argued why women should be considered a protected class for this purpose

I also explained why I think each executed criminal (at least in the 21st century) is notable. I recognize there may be an element of more judgment involved., but it's the moral judgment of most of the world, & whether it's my own is irrelevant. We can continue this on the talk p. of the essay i propose to write based on the above. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Public Broadcasting Act of 1967

Hi David, I just wanted to say I am looking forward to having you help us work on our Misplaced Pages assignment. If there are any hints or advice you have, feel free to let me know. I will ask questions along the way too. I apologize for getting back to you now and have started to discuss on the article talk page.

Mike32389 (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you consider being my mentor?

Hello Mr. Goodman,

I am Arielle Parker, a student at Syracuse University, and I am currently in the class Transnational NGOS in World Affairs. As a class, we are participating in the program The TNGO Initiative and the U.S. Public Policy Wiki Project. I would be very grateful if you could be my mentor and allow me to come to you with questions (about Misplaced Pages editing) should the need arise.

Thank you so much for your consideration,

--Aaparker (talk) 06:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Arielle Parker

International Relations Class of 2012

certainly; but what topic specifically are you going to work on? If you haven't selected one yet, what have you been considering? DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Am am planning on trying to flesh out the article about CARE (Relief Agency). If possible I would also like to contribute to the page about USAID; it seems to need a lot more structure though, admittedly, I have not delved into this with much detail. As of right now these are my primary focuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaparker (talk • contribs) 21:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you'll have enough to do with CARE. think about how you're going to proceed in general, and let me know. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi DGG, My article is going well and I am finally adding my contributions. I want to add a picture of the CARE International logo to the article, but there isn't one in the WikiCommons and I don't know how to add one. Could you please tell me what I should do?

The other thing I'd like to know is if it is possible to change the title of an article because I think it makes more sense for it to be renamed either CARE International, or CARE (Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere). Personally, I don't think that "relief agency" works very well. Would you please advice me on what I can do there too please?

Thank you so much for your help! --Aaparker (talk) 02:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Another expert who finds us unwelcoming

I wonder if you can help with another case of a subject-matter expert who has come to give us the benefit of his knowledge but collided with Misplaced Pages's standards and processes and is finding us unwelcoming. User MaxWyss (talk · contribs) is an extremely experienced and well-qualified seismologist - see his user page. He has written a paper at User:MaxWyss/Loss estimates in real time for earthquakes worldwide which was (rather prematurely) nominated at MfD as an "essay". In reaction to that he went to WP:REFUND ("I'm sorry that I am one of the leading experts worldwide.") His paper looks good stuff, well worth publishing somewhere, but unfortunately is not an encyclopedia article - a classic example of WP:SYNTH and also rather against WP:NOTHOWTO. I have left a note on his talk page explaining this, and have sorted out some minor problems caused by a username change and an all-caps title; but it all still seems rather negative and I am at a loss for anything more positive to say about how to proceed with his draft. Maybe you can do better: even some words of welcome and sympathy from you would help. It would be a pity to lose him. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I have repeatedly gone out of my way to emphasize to him that we welcome subject-matter experts here, and that he has nothing to apologize for in being an expert, although they are required to observe our other rules (specifically, in his case, WP:OR). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I was not getting at you, Mike, more at myself - having given my best advice on his talk page, it seemed to me that it was still negative, I cast about to think of a more positive angle, failed, and hoped DGG might be able to. JohnCD (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a little different from than the usual. The article is not OR, but a summary that could easily become / encyclopedic with a little sourcing, instead of being written entirely out of his own knowledge. i do not consider it SYNTH, I doubt very much he goes beyond the published literature; I just consider it insufficiently sourced. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Your question about Genetic Alliance

Hello, not sure where to answer your question - so am putting it here.

You asked about Genetic Alliance relationship to Genetic Alliance UK. There is no relationship. Genetic Alliance is 25 years old October 30, 2011, and has used the name for 25 years. Genetic Alliance UK informed us in 2010 that they were going to use the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfterry (talk • contribs) 19:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Provident Personal Credit redirect

Hello DGG. You recently redirected the Provident Personal Credit (PPC) page to the Provident Financial (PF) page. I have looked into your comments and I completely understand the reasons why you did this. I have taken your comments on board regarding the need for references from 3rd party independent published reliable sources in the article and I have found numerous ones, including an article from Joseph Rowntree, that I am going to add into the content. You mentioned in your comments that PPC is a reasonable search term and I completely agree, is some respects it is probably a more popular search term than PF as PPC is the name that PF trade under and therefore the name that people associate with the service. If I included a number of 3rd party references and I undid the redirect would the article be OK or would it still be at risk of deletion? I would appreciate your feedback. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahjoanne123 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Request to mentor a small group of students

Hi David! I'm trying to find mentors for each of the groups in the Energy Economics and Policy course. Would you be willing to mentor this group? If so, please sign up on the course page and introduce yourself to the students in the group. If not, let me know so I can find someone else. Thanks!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

yes, I signed up. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Since you !voted in one Econ hist AfD...

I'm curious how far your inclusionism goes at Economic history of the Christians and Economic history of the Muslims. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

What journal articles should NOT contain?

David: Back when you wrote DGG's suggestions for what journal articles should contain. Your essay is mentioned on the WikiProject Academic Journals writing guide. With this background, I am wondering about WP articles that contain "Significant articles" section -- like this one:California_Law_Review. The authors of the significant articles do not like notable people and the articles written do not seem to have any impact on notable court cases. Is this an example of what an academic journal article should not contain. I'm looking for guidance in this regard. Thanks so much. --S. Rich (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

such sections should use an objective criterion. The one I prefer is very simple: most cited. (In law, I'd include citations from both journals and court decisions). You may be interested in a very recent paper: Donovan, James M. and Watson, Carol A. "Citation Advantage of Open Access Legal Scholarship" Univ. of Georgia School of Law Research Papers Series, no. 11-07, published March, 2011, Other criteria are possible: papers that win awards, papers by famous authors. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so very much!--S. Rich (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like you to look something over...

There have been too many instances where the subsection WP:NFF of the guideline WP:NOTFILM has been treated as if it were an immutable and ironclad policy, rather than as a part of a guideline that like all others encourages treatment with common sense and allowances for occasional exceptions. In attempting to address these continued misconceptions, I have written the essay Misplaced Pages:Future Films. I would like you to look in and advise if you wish. Thank you, Schmidt, 20:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Edwin Howard Armstrong award

Hi DGG. I see you recently edited and removed a prod from Edwin Howard Armstrong award. The link you provided and the reason you removed the prod appear to relate to an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Communications Society award wheras the award that is the subject of this article is awarded by the Armstrong Memorial Research Foundation, making them seem like two different awards. Do you think I'm reading things right and this article should be deleted and maybe replaced with the IEEE award or I'm I missing something? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

there were a number of similar awards prodded. I meant to look at all, & had them all open in tabs, but I only got to one or two & the rest got deleted by whoever checked them *assuming they checked, and didn't delete just because nobody had removed the prod; some admins do that & I think it irresponsible.) It is thus quite possible I commented on the wrong one, I will re-examine the entire group--after all, I did say sat my RfA that I wanted the tools to look at deleted articles, though most of the time I seem to use them for deleting articles myself. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear but there appears to be more than one Edwin Howard Armstrong award, nothing to do with the other four Armstrong awards I prodded. (as an aside, I have no reason to beleive the deleting admin didn't check, my own check prior to prodding found nothing significant) duffbeerforme (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Theodore N. Kaufman

If you have access to more periodicals than I do can you help with the article on "Theodore N. Kaufman". He can use some help with quotes from articles behind paywalls. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

are there some sources in particular you'd want copies of? DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Recrudescence from a speedy you declined back in 2009

See Talk:National Career Fairs. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ágnes Heller

David: There is a very controversial, current paragraph in the Ágnes Heller entry. The prior version was extremely biassed toward the right wing view, portraying Heller as being guilty of fraud. In reality, she is only being accused of fraud (by the right-wing government, of which she is a severe critic). According to the left-liberal and international press, Heller is the target of a systematic harassment campaign and is not guilty of anything. Please see the paragraphs in question (they are the latest ones with the do/undo changes. Many thanks, Stevan Stevan Harnad 13:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnad (talk • contribs)

yes, the wording does not seem to reflect the balance of sources. I've done a few copyedits and removed some irrelevant material. I've asked for some references, and will do some editing accordingly, if references are not very promptly forthcoming. It would be very useful if you could guide me to some Hungarian publications in support of the view she is being persecuted. The international statements are enough of a source, but this would help for balance. But I strongly urge you not to add material which is apparently satirical--I at first took it for genuine unsourced negative comments. (In any case, I have removed it. Please, either let me handle it, or take it to the BLP noticeboard WP:BLPN if you decide you are not satisfied with what I shall be doing. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no worries at all about your handling it fairly and competently. I was just worried that it was not getting any editorial attention for weeks despite the obvious absurdities (such as implying that using grant funds to cover conference travel and lodging costs, or to do a new translation of Plato were some sort of evidence of misdeeds! (That's why I finally inserted the parenthetical mention of teleportation and YMCA: To make it make the absurdity of the original transparent. (For Hungarian publications in support of the view that Professor Heller is being persecuted, they are linked daily in the Facebook Forum I linked "End the smear campaign against the philosophers": It appears in the Hungarian left-liberal press. But because the left-liberal press has been weakened in Hungary (and will be weakened further by the new press laws and Constitution), there are far more articles smearing the philosophers (in the Government-supported right-wing press) that there are anti-smear articles in the left-wing press. But everything there (and abroad) is is noted in "End the smear campaign against the philosophers" The ones published in Hungary are in Hungarian, of course. If you think it would help, I could ask one of the people monitoring the press to say which are the most important few articles that have appeared recently criticizing the smear campaign against Agnes Heller and the other philosophers. Stevan Harnad 22:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnad (talk • contribs)

Although Harnad's remarks seem excessively satirical, trivializing, they quite correctly describe the general opinion strongly pushed by the Hungarian government, the right wing media (Magyar Nemzet, Magyar Hirlap, HirTV, etc) and miriads of anonymous commenters---that it is an abuse of the regulations to spend research grants on travel, hotel bills, book publications, hardware and software, essentially anything. As we all know, in times of hardship, it is useful to have an enemy, somebody that can be pointed to, as the guy who spends millions when our pension (say) is worth less and less. The whole affair is reminiscent of the Stalinist period of Hungary in that the accusations are not well stated, are unclear, and an air of intimidation is created so that everyone should see where does any criticism of the Orban government lead.Nedudgi (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

As you say, it was similar enough that it at first took me in also. I am not particularly familiar with the particular situation in Hungary, but similar patterns are seen elsewhere, & the US is not immune. Some such attacks are for political purposes purely, show show a general populist distrust for intellectuals, seen across the political spectrum, and some simply show a misunderstanding of the academic world. The US style, I think, relies less of vagueness but on overemphasis on specific but unrepresentative examples.Though apparently simple0minded, it is in fact extremely difficult to argue against, because people will believe strongly in the first apparently understandable fact they are shown. The enWP is best written in very plain language, keeping in mind that a very large percentage of our users and contributors are not native speakers. Rhetorical device tend to work neither in articles nor in argument. We need to make a very strong effort to keep the use of representative examples balanced, which is why NPOV can be very difficult to achieve. It is very possible by small moves over time to affect the balance of an article, and very hard sometimes to argue against the relatively trivial elementary changes.

But as for Stephan's question to me about what would help. Since we cannot use Facebook as a source for, especially for the biographies of living people, even when what happens to be posted on Facebook for convenience is in fact a good summary, it would help to have a few additional newspaper or magazine sources in Hungarian--and in countries outside the US. It would also help to have articles on the other people being attacked, if enough material can be found to show their notability. DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

David, please note that the Stevan Harnad page is being vandalized by "Tüzes fal" ("Firewall") under the pretext of removing "excessive amount of external links", but in reality "Tüzes fal" is simply trying to remove the link to the controversy. See his edit page: He is a one-issue editor, and what he does is remove passages that are unflattering to or refute Hungarian right-wing allegations. (My guess is also that "Tüzes fal" might be one -- or all -- of the anonymous posters to the ScienceInsider Forum to which he removed the link. He removed the other links merely to camouflage his intervention. Stevan Harnad 22:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnad (talk • contribs)

• Stevan, the external link section is not the place to list what you consider your significant postings. There were indeed excessive external links, and I had meant to remove them myself; I apologize for not having gotten to them, for it might have been better had I been the one to do it. I restored the other editor's edit, adding back one link which is appropriate but had not been described clearly. Regardless of his motivation, he did not just remove the one link to your posting on Harel ((Hungary)); the edit was not vandalism. I shall, of course, check what else he has been doing. Looking at the bio, there are additionally too many see also's--that's not the way to list the fields of scientific accomplishment--they should be described in the text with a reference to a key article and linked there. I'll make the change tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks David, I have full confidence in all your edits, and your general Misplaced Pages expertise and judgement. Misplaced Pages is very lucky to have you and your experience both as a librarian and biologist. Stevan Harnad 12:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Glasgow University Conservative Association

FYI, Twinkle never created the nomination page. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

twikle seems to have become less reliable lately. I'll do it manually if it doesn't get fixed before I have a chance to get there. DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that we can't guess your rationale for nomination; you're the only one who can properly complete this.  --Lambiam 22:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the listing from the AfD page and the template from the article so you can try Twinkle again. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was planning to do. thanks. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Rosario Parrino, Peter Gruenwald

I'm not sure how to use AFD, can you submit Rosario Parrino, Peter Gruenwald articles for me. The PROD's for each have been removed, both are not notable enough. The references found about Gruenwald are about his involvement in the Lufthansa heist. There is enough information about Parrino on others articles he is not notable. --Vic49 (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Is Kirk Kirkpatrick still a good article??

Hello again, DGG …

I was reviewing Category:Flagged articles and came across Kirk Kirkpatrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which you contested for a WP:PROD a while back … looks like a bunch of {{dead link}}s and some very sloppy editing that was probably intended for the Talk page … I'm Too Tired to try to clean it up now, but since you thought that it was worth saving, I figured I'd ping you. :-)

Happy Editing! — 71.166.156.113 (talk · contribs) _{01:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)}

if you give it a check for replacement links, I'll try to do some rewriting. But, more exactly, I deprod because something might be worth trying to save, not necessarily that it can be saved. If something I deprod goes to AfD and gets deleted, that's fair enough, as long as it gets a good try at improvement first. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

About: your eloquent summary of what does and does not improves this project

Hi DGG, or if I may be so bold, David,
You wrote at WP:AN/I Archive691:

There is more than one valid way of working here. Some people prefer to create only high quality articles, even though they may do very few of them. Some prefer to create many verifiable articles of clear notability even though they may not be of initially high quality. As this is a communal project, I think every individual person is fully entitled to do whichever they prefer, and the thing to do about people who prefer otherwise than oneself is to let them work their way, while you work yours. The only choice which is not productive is to argue about how to do it, rather than going ahead in the way that one finds suitable.

Many editors include a statement about their attitudes to editing on their userpages. I am not one of them, that is until I came across what you wrote. I would really like to include this on my userpage. While I can add anything at all I like to my userpage subject to WP:USERPAGE, I nevertheless ask for your permission to add the quote. OK with you? I'm fine if you decline this.
--Shirt58 (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course. DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Imersion has given you a cupcake! Cupcakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cupcake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Great comment in the Ideal .. DRV. Hope you like cupcakes! I was goign o say you are a courageous guy, but then I read your position pape r on POV. Very thoughtful!

Sandusky (automobile company)

While I normally appreciate your CSD work, I have to bring up a few points with Sandusky (automobile company), specifically the edit summary you used.

• "probably notable" - notability != significance. You know this. If you meant "probably significant", that's not the same as "actually significant". If you meant "probably notable" you should have some, y'know, sources, which it might be helpful to provide to Fluffernutter.
• "First look for sources, & if not found, only then nominate for deletion" - Fluffernutter is an experienced contributor - she doesn't necessarily need stuff like this thrown at her.
• "See WP:BEFORE" - again, she doesn't need this thrown at her, but more importantly, it's optional. If you're trying to give advice, fair enough; if you're using it as part of your rationale, you should probably take a look at the guideline/policy pages on the subject.

As said, I appreciate the good work you do. But if you were basing it on "I think", notability is not the test. If you were basing it on "I have found some evidence that it is", you should have provided the sources. A failure to follow optional due dilligence guidelines does not exempt somebody seeking for others to follow them from doing so himself Ironholds (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

One this was proposed as a speedy deletion. Speedy is for unquestionably necessary deletions. Any doubt anyone (except of course the contributor) may have about the appropriateness of a speedy deletion is cause to remove the speedy, though it should be explained, if only to guide further action. (But the removal is valid even if not explained properly or at all). I remove speedy tags based on thinking, guessing, or whatever. What I do not do on the basis of mere guessing, is delete (or undelete, or any other admin action). Removing a tag is not an admin action: anyone may do it. I would not have closed "keep" at an AfD on a reason such as I gave here. Of my declined speedies, probably one-third end up deleted. That's perfectly reasonable--speedy is not the only deletion process. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Two any of the pioneer automobile manufacturers are possibly notable, and that's enough reason to look further. Not necessarily to keep, but certainly to look further. If it needs looking further, it's not a speedy.

Three WP:BEFORE is just a restatement and amplification of WP:Deletion Policy, which says unambiguously that deletion is the last resort. It's a suggestion of things to try, not all of which will be appropriate in every case.

Four It is relatively difficult to find wordings to separate advice from requirement in the space of an edit summary. I shall try to reword this one a little, since it's a message I frequently use. You're correct that I probably could be clearer.

Five I explain what I'm doing, even to experienced contributors. Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars is an essay that, by and large, I disagree with. I treat all editors equally, as I want to be treated. (And the edit summary is furthermore intended as information for whoever might look.) If I think someone has placed a tag in a way that is demonstrably very wrong, I leave them a personal message, adapted to the person. This was not that sort of a blunder, & there was no need for instruction or remonstrance. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

DGG, the problem I see here now is that you removed the speedy tag but left the article in a state where it still very clearly doesn't assert any importance. I mean, I find A7 extremely vague, and very rarely dare use it for that reason. And it's clear even to me that this article doesn't assert any importance. If there is importance to be asserted, which there well may be, was the correct action on your part not to assert it, rather than remove a valid tag and leave the article in a state where, unless someone is inside your head to see what importance you know of, it has no validity as an article according to our inclusion guidelines? I mean, a NPPer could come across it tomorrow, see that it asserts no importance, and tag it again. Would you then re-remove the tag, again asserting that it's "probably" important? How long would the article need to stay in a doesn't-meet-inclusion-criteria state before you would allow it to be deleted? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

A Deleting a speedy is optional, except for things like copyvio and BLP violation. . ANYONE can stop the process. Speedy and Prod are processes deliberately designed so that any one person can object. Otherwise, they're too dangerous. That's why I don't do single handed deletions unless its something really harmful and completely obvious (or, I must admit, if I get really impatient.)

B In any case, I consider any historic company at the development of an industry notable. I consider saying so and having evidence for it not just an assertion of notability , but a proof of it.

C If a NPPatroller or anyone replaced or retagged any removed speedy for the same reason, I'd remove that tag and warn them, because it isn't permitted, according to WP:CSD. If an admin were to deliberately do it, it's close to wheel-warning. The recourse is AfD .

D One of the good things here is how looking at any one article can lead to a long bypass. I've spent some amusing hours finding the various sources for old automobile advertisements & resolving some inconsistencies. I haven't finished, but a good magazine chose one of their cars to be in the 50 they listed in 1904. I have been working on the article. I just didn't do it immediately, DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• "In any case, I consider any historic company at the development of an industry notable. I consider saying so and having evidence for it not just an assertion of notability , but a proof of it." - three points:

1. What is this evidence of notability in the article as it was when tagged?
2. What allows what you "consider" to constitute notability, without reference to any policy or guideline, to be the rule?
3. Can you explain how a company which existed for two years, the article on which was referenced to a single source of dubious reliability, can be considered to have evidence of notability with relation to our actual guidelines? Ironholds (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't you get it? You don't need any reason to remove a CSD or PROD nomination. Any editor's own idiosyncratic notions are enough. If you think the topic is not notable, there is a way to test that where each editor's view is counted—it's called AfD. It so happens that DGG's views here are probably within the mainstream, but who cares? If you don't like the article, use the process and make the editors who feel it should be kept justify their views—something they are not obliged to do when removing PROD or CSD templates . _matic 15:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for Ironholds (and I'm quite sure I don't in this case, because he knows what he's doing far more than I do), but I guess I (as someone who is not a regular NPPer or CSD tagger - I kind of stumbled onto this article in the course of my normal non-deletion-related editing) figured that because CSD had strict criteria, an article that met the criteria persistently (as opposed to while under construction, etc) would be deleted. I don't think I was aware that CSD tags function like PRODs and can be removed for any reason or no reason. So, to make sure that I understand this now, someone could equally well remove a CSD tag on a gibberish article, or any other CSD-criterion-meeting article, even if they made no improvements, and that article would then have to go through AfD to be deleted? That's how the process works? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

All Misplaced Pages actions are only valid if they are performed in good faith. A removal of a CSD tag to be disruptive could be reverted, but sometimes even these are taken to AfD for the sake of getting a definitive judgment, as the community judgment is always stronger than that of any individual administrator, and serves better to prevent further disruption. However, if the tag was regard to unsourced negative BLP or libel or vandalism or undoubted copyvio, it will almost certainly be directly reverted, but such material is deleted immediately even if not tagged. I've seen AfD tags as nonsense incorrectly placed on articles, that are not nonsense, but if it were true gibberish and there were no prior version, it might well simply be deleted also. I am not aware that anyone in good faith has ever truly removed a CSD tag placed for undoubted nonsense. (Some tagging for hoaxes has been disputed from time to time.) A person doing disruptive tagging or de-tagging for deletion processes (or anything else) on a continuing basis would probably find their actions being discussed at WP:AN/I, and if continued after a warning would probably lead to a block. Several such instances of possibly disruptive nature have been discussed there in recent months, and resolved in various ways, but there has often been no clear consensus on what is disruptive, with mass inappropriate tagging or de-tagging more likely to be considered a problem.

CSD has strict criteria, yes, but any criterion needs judgement and interpretation, and the CSD criteria being strict means that they are interpreted narrowly.

If you consider my detagging disruptive, discuss it there, but I think the evidence that I was able to improve the article, as people there know that I rather frequently do, will demonstrate my good faith. If you want to change the rules, discuss it at WT:CSD, but I think my improvement, and the frequent improvements many editors have been able to make on similarly weak articles, will show why it and similar articles should not be deleted, and why any good faith objection is sufficient. If you question just this article, use AfD. AfD is unpredictable, but I estimate there's only a 30% chance it will be deleted there even if not further improved. Or perhaps you will think it now strong enough. DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

DGG, I don't intend to say that your detagging was disruptive in the slightest; I'm sorry if it comes across that way. I'm just trying to understand why the way I thought the process worked is not actually the way the process works. Yeah, it seems kind of counterintuitive to me, but if that's the way things work, that's the way things work. I'm still a little skeptical that the company will turn out to pass notability requirements, but I'm perfectly willing to wait and see what you turn up in your expansion before I make that call. My main issue was with the removal of the tag with no concurrent work on the article, which objection is now moot, since you are working on it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

i'm seeing an increased use of the speedy, when references "are not good enough". while the intent may not be to circumvent consensus AfD process, this is the effect. badgering users who take down speedy's is bitey. there seems to be a lot of restatement of positions, and motivation through deletion, rather than working with good faith editors. we have a list here of hundreds of defunct auto manufacturers, not much better than this one: will we now speedy or mass delete them all? Slowking4 (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I object to my questions here being characterized as "badgering" or "bitey," Slowking. DGG took an action that I didn't understand, I asked him to explain it, his explanation raised another question in my mind, and I asked that. Is it now considered rude to try to ask for explanation when something happens that I don't understand? I've made no attacks on anyone, I've not claimed that DGG's actions were unconstructive, and I've not implied that anyone was operating in bad faith. I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I certainly do not regard any of the questions asked me as improper, and I appreciate Fluffernutter's comments. I like having an opportunity to explain how I see things, and if people doesn't agree, it's good to try to narrow down the area of disagreement. DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

i apologize if my comments were taken as bitey, i'm less interested in the present case than the trend: article improvement via speedy. Slowking4 (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

A7 Speedies for referencing problems can & should be brought to Deletion Review, but there is not all that much point in doing so unless there is some chance of making an article. The only times a speedy for referencing problems might be valid is negative BLP and re-creation of an afd'd article if referencing problems were the reason for deletion at AfD. Mass AfD nominations are strongly deprecated. The way to go is to test the waters with one or two of the weakest articles. But the real thing that needs doing is finding good sources for this material, There must be books, and the advertisement and articles in magazines of the period are increasingly available at Hathi Trust and Google Books. For everything in the US before 1920, these PD sources are really a wonderful way of increasing both the breadth and depth of content here. If people spent as much time on improvement they spend on deletion, we'd get somewhere. For one thing, we'd be able to concentrate of quickly getting rid of the real junk.We must have a few thousand articles , some in here quite a while, that could qualify for speedy. The other thing that needs doing is more people monitoring speedy and prod--it is not necessary to be an admin to remove a tag, and, in fact, it's excellent preparation for adminship. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

GLAMcamp

Glad to meet you today at GLAMcamp! I look forward to receiving the material you mentioned.Trouver (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

A notable book?

If you have time, could you check your usual sources for The Tower (crime novel)? Worldcat shows 67 holdings in Australia (author is Australian), 1 in US, 0 in UK. Google News as usual shows almost nothing; apparently, though, the book was condensed and serialized in the Sydney Morning Herald. Regular Google shows a smattering of reviews, although they all seem to be on unreliable sites (i.e., just random customer reviews). I can no longer access Amazon at work, so I can't check reviews there. I appreciate the help if you have time. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what normal holdings are for Australian fiction in WorldCat--I'm not sure how to interpret the numbers. Book Review Digest & Book Review Index show no reviews, and only one utterly trivial nonprofessional one for The Simple Death (crime novel); his historical works do have reviews. WorldCat however shows it was included in a Readers Digest Australia compilation , which might I think be some possible evidence for notability along with the Herald republication, but I need to check other authors they include, & I don't think that's necessarily enough as I do not know their standards. Amazon shows only one customer review, which is worthless. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

For comparison, I tried looking up Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, obviously a notable book and one we can assume will be held by a very large number of libraries in any English speaking country. There's a few different editions, but of the two main ones I see, there are 59 for one version and 147 for another version. Looking up something a little more academic, The Color Purple has about 105 holdings in Australia. So, at 67, it seems like this may indicate some level of notability in Australia; however, I actually don't know how libraries go about choosing and acquiring books; for example, can an author/publisher donate books to libraries to increase exposure (would they?)? The Reader's Digest Australia is an interesting point, but also still borderline. Perhaps as a borderline case it's better to err on the side of keeping, although keeping an article with no citeable indication of notability does always bother me. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

These may not be the best comparisons. They are internationally famous books. What we need for comparison is novels by Australian writers, who are not famous, but notable in Australia with significant reviews there, and I would need to do some checking to select good examples. Public libraries in general buy books on the basis of reviews, known interest in previous books by the author, local authors, patron requests, and , sometimes in some genres, everything likely to be read by fans of these genres who will read everything in sight. The three principal genres this way in US libraries are mysteries, SF, and romance. As there have been no reviews yet, and the two books are his first novels (there are two previous historical books with modest reviews enough to establish him as a mildly notable author, but they aren't relevant here) I assume the libraries that have bought it have bought it on the genre consideration. We also need to take account the time from publication: as the book is '10, there is time for reviews by now. His other book is '11; the article for the first books was added soon after the publication of the second, which has one review. "Duffy is indisputably a writer to watch. He will soon be ranked alongside the likes of international behemoths Michael Connelly, George Pelecanos and Don Winslow. There is no higher praise.' Winsor Dobbin, Sun-Herald"-- I do NOT consider this as much of a positive review,as it might appear; reading carefully, it amounts to "not yet notable". The editor has worked on almost nothing else. The two indexes I used are not all that comprehensive for Australian fiction, but they do cover some of the possible sources.

I consider the default to be merge. There is nothing in the articles but plot summary--and, what is worse, plot summary of the teaser kind, characteristic exactly of the typical press release. I intend to merge them. If they become popular/much reviewed, or if he does become famous, they can be unmerged. I want to add that I myself think the GNG as applied to fiction is very weak indeed--two reviews in two newspapers is a very minimal requirement. It has led to is our practice of including individual works of fiction not on the grounds of anything resemble real-world importance, but on the basis of "I'm a fan" which is an open invitation to promotionalism, while completely ignoring most of what is actually important in the field. I personally consider avoiding promotionalism the critical justification for notability standards in general. A encyclopedia can talk about the relatively unimportant and be an encyclopedia , but once it starts including advertising, it becomes unreliable. DGG ( talk ) 15:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Very well put. The author himself may be notable (not sure yet) based on his other work on Australian TV and as an Australian journalist, but I am happy with merging the books. I'd be happy to go through the formal Requested Merge process if you like, or you can do it, or one of us can just do the merge without discussing. I'm personally hesitant to do the latter. I've always felt odd that WP:BEFORE allows an editor to effectively blank a page without a deletion discussion or even the input of an uninvolved admin (like CSD and PROD), especially in a case like this where the merge isn't actually going to bring over most of the text in the book article. It feels awkward to me, like a way of bypassing at least the veneer of consensus. I mean, I know it's a legitimate move, but it just feels "off" to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I too am concerned about the quirk in our procedures that allows destructive editing without any attempt at looking for consensus or asking for an opinion. the rationale for that, is that any edit can revert it, which is certainly true, but nonetheless can easily lead to conflict as disruption. The key rule is this respect is WP:BRD, which is treated as policy, though it is only an essay. I think it wrong except when used for something trivial or obvious. I do not do it. I think it should at the least be deprecated. Better, it should be treated like WP:IAR: it's available when really needed, but anyone who uses it is answerable if what they did lacks consensus. The proper rule for anything non-trivial should be PCE, propose, get explicit or at least implicit consensus, then edit. We sometimes say as a caution, BE BOLD, NOT RECKLESS—but anything Bold a person dislikes, they are likely to consider reckless. When I came here are saw we actually promoted BRD, I realized that this is a place which encouraged uncooperative behavior.

More specifically, having asked advice, since we both feel the same way, there's no real reason to ask further. If you haven't done it by tomorrow, I shall. I generally ignore Requested Merges, as anything controversial ends up at AfD anyway, and I cannot watch everything. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I did the redirects; since both articles were just plot summaries, and the only cites were links to the publisher (which didn't even clarify publication dates) I didn't actually merge anything. In the process of cleaning up, though, I did find a good review of one of his non-fiction books; if there's more out there, that book may actually even qualify for its own article. I do think the author/journalist himself appears notable enough to not worry about. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

A quick note

In the Clifford Kubiak ANI thread you had mentioned you were concerned with protecting an article you had written yourself. Once you do have the new article up, feel free to drop me a note and I will add the protection for you if you'd like. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo 13:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

List of most popular missing articles

Can you comment here. I've proposed a list of say 1000 of the most popular searched for articles in the search engine but which are without articles.Tibetan Prayer 16:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at CFD:Science writing

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 1#Category:Science writing. Fayenatic (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Category:American novels by century

There is a case to answer that Category:American novels by century is over-categorization. It seems to have been set up last year following Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Novels/Archive 15#Category:American novels because of the need to diffuse a large category. You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Literature#Categories by century, country and genre. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well Written

• Thanks for the strong and well written argument on Kovesdy discussion. --S.Buntout123 (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

An apple pie for you!

Happy 4th of July to our fave scholar! FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Books books books

Hello DGG, evil deletionist ogre here. I've just noticed this list of publications. The preamble is so peacocky that it's unintentionally amusing. I can deal with it in a twinkling, but no harm will be done if I leave it for another 48 hours. What I'm wondering about is not the preamble but the table that follows it. Its content seems factual and I suppose is verifiable, but even before I start to investigate I know that it's incomplete, simply because I have a copy of at least one Steidl/ICP book that doesn't appear in it. I have no appetite for the work needed to update the table and keep it updated. Neither can I see that such work is more merited here than it would be for any number of other publishers, publishing collaborations, or "imprints". And yet this arguably analogous though "standalone" list hasn't been trotted off to AfD. Any ideas? -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

they are the major publisher in their field. But we generally do not have such lists; Perhaps we should add articles for the notable books and make this a category. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sensible words, as always. Yes, we should indeed add articles for notable books, but notable photobooks rarely get paragraphs within articles here, let alone their own articles. (For that matter, even those that are in print often go without any comment at Amazon.com, the average quality of whose comments surprises me ... and thereupon saddens me: all that unpaid effort going to help a commercial monopolist whose packaging policies clearly imply a hatred of books. But I digress.) Ah well, here's my first bash at transforming this from a puff piece to a decent article. -- Hoary (talk) 05:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

RE: Natami

For sure! I've restored the deleted material for one user; I can put it up for you too, if you'd like. m.o.p 19:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

talkback

Again. Regards, SunCreator 00:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Another friendly nudge. :) Regards, SunCreator 14:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

books

DGG, you were involved in a discussion on bibliography here a long time ago, and you might be interested in this AfD, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of books about ballroom dancing. I look forward to reading your comments. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

email

Dazzpedian

Hello David, I am new to the world of contributing to Misplaced Pages but I do have an educational/professional interest in article sourcing and, in particular plagiarism. If you would be interested in serving as a mentor please let me know! Thanks, Dazzpedian (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome! As you can see, I'm a little to busy to give general assistance, but I'n always glad to help with specific problems. So what in particular do you want to ask? DGG ( talk ) 15:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind welcome! I am new to the Misplaced Pages way of doing things and found your take on issues to be instructive. I appreciate that you are busy at the moment but, if it's all right, I might come back to you with specific questions. Thanks again. Dazzpedian (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You get a lot of messages!

Just read your last message (page archived), haven't logged on for a few weeks, concede that I may have been harsh in last message (but not over the top), your reaction was nice and calm. Otherwise, if you followed every newby like you did me, you'd never have time in your day for anything else, so I still think it was a bit stalky, even if not intended that way! Also retract my retraction in the earlier message, you are probably an alright admin, but haven't got time to check.Borgmcklorg (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion, you might try replying or sending messages to other people on their own talk pages, certainly looks like you use your own strategy (doing everything on your own one) to, well, you know what you are trying to do. Sure makes the page look busy!Borgmcklorg (talk) 11:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly response. Yes, I follow many people. Probably too many, but my main present activity here is to help newbies who are having problems. The reason I do it on this p. is so I don't have to check too many other pages--like most active admins, my watchlist is too long to be useful.Instead I use this p. to keep track, plus a private checklist. DGG ( talk ) 15:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, see the point.Borgmcklorg (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply requested

I left a response and a query here. BTW, thanks for joining the conversation. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Adding_to_.28or_changing.29_WP:CSD.23A7

Please comment on Talk:Martin Ruzicka

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Martin Ruzicka. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

currency qy

I appreciated your warning on BLP concerning Robert Zoellick's bio. I see you're also an Ambassador. Can you use another mentee? I hope you can help me because a reliable stakeholder analysis predicted in 2004 a 90% risk that failure to resolve the issues now under consideration in Misplaced Pages will result in a currency war. I will be happy to share this stakeholder analysis with you and other background documentation. The former Chair of the World Bank's Audit Committee invited me yesterday to connect on LinkedIn.Currency1 (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

If the information is published, link to it on the talk p. If published, but in a confidential communication which you do not have authority to cite, it cannot be used until someone actually publishes it openly--whether or not they have the authority to do so is irrelevant, if published in a reliable source. If a blog posting, and it has been publicly and reliably sourced to an authority, it can be used as their opinion; link to it and explain. If a private communication or your own unpublished research, it cannot be used. I will look at the relevant talk p. DGG ( talk ) 15:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

A mediator from Mediation Cabal said my edits improved the Robert Zoellick article and requested additional sources, which I provided on the Robert Zoellick talk page several days ago. The editor who reverted my edits has not made any further comments. Under these circumstances, what do you suggest now?Currency1 (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Further reading

I recently posted to Misplaced Pages talk:Further reading to agree with something you said. I'm not sure if you have that page watchlisted, so I'm dropping off a note to point out what I said here. I've also asked a few others to comment, as I'd like to see this discussed more. Carcharoth (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Right on. I've commented further there (btw, I appreciate notes like this, because my watchlist is too long to be useful). DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Actors

Hi I've opened a discussion about categorizing actors and actresses separately at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Splitting actors by gender. I need some input. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

My CSD history

Hello there. You said in this edit that you could and would check my CSD history. I was accused (not by you) of knowingly and repeatedly misusing A7. It was very easy for that user to make those claims without providing any evidence. I asked that user to either provide evidence or to provide a retraction; s/he did neither! It's very easy to cast aspersions, and to call people's good names into question. I have been waiting for you to review my CSD history, and for you to confirm that those claims are totally false and without reason. I look forward to hearing, or should I say seeing, your review. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

will do tonight or tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I appreciate it. Advice and review regarding any other CSD categories would be very welcome too. All the best. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

BigDwiki (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Rescuing Samir Joubran

Hello again, DGG …

Since you declined my WP:CSD nomination of Samir Joubran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and I lack the motivation at this moment to put lipstick on a pig, I have flagged it with the WP:FLAG-BIO protocol … also, someone should initiate a dialog with the article's creator if there are going to be any constructive improvements to it. :-)

Happy Editing! — 70.21.24.28 (talk · contribs) _{03:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)}

Dear Bi PolarAnon-IP (as it says on your user page--I'm revealing no secrets here) --in my opinion, Leaving a notice for someone that their article may either be copyvio or non-notable or violate the COI guideline is a remarkably nonspecific and unhelpful step. Leaving new users negative messages about their articles, and signing them "Happy Editing! is , in my opinion, insulting. And, again in my opinion, your advice is likely to be taken more seriously by those users if you actually do use an ordinary user name, instead of insisting on editing as an ip. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

<Sigh!> The very last thing that the {{Flag-editor}} template says is,

… I realize that some of the expressed possible concerns may not be appropriate in this case.

The point is that it's much friendlier than the WP:CSD warning, which has been their only contact, and which does not invite a dialog. — 70.21.24.28 (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Change it from "I realize that" to "I apologize if". :-) — 70.21.24.28 (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed, if your point is that the preexisting standard notices are so unfriendly as to be counterproductive, I would certainly agree with you, and will be very glad to cooperate with you (or anyone) in any good faith effort to improve or replace them. I have learned that people read only the fist few lines, espeically if it seems hostile, and it is better to be brief than to cover all situations. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For being one of the wisest thinkers on wikipedia in regards to content development and assessing notability. You don't strike me as the sort who cares about barnstars but what the heck, your presence on here is big, I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks that. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

at WP:REFUND]], I have emailed a copy of the article. JohnCD (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Journal of Cosmology

Could you take a look, please? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

looking--it may take a while, as I want to examine the actual journal carefully. DGG ( talk ) 20:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

7X24

I agree with your close on the Atheism 3.0 AfD, but in my opinion it might have been better to wait the full 7 X 24 hours, considering it was ca contested discussion. Even a few hours early tend to drift, as other people go to 6 then 12 hours early, etc. This is one place where it matters. This definitely does not mean I disagree in the slightest with the close, and I certainly do not plan to take exception to it, but just a reminder. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Of course I am in full agreement - I closed the original discussion to extend AfD from 5 to 7 days. It is something I have advocated myself. When I closed that AfD the time date said 7 days, and I didn't look further. It might be helpful to have a similar date notice as is carried on the Prod template:

The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for seven days. Please check the history to see when this template was added. / This message has remained in place for seven days and so the article may be deleted without further notice.

Changing the wording to:

The discussion may only be closed if this message has remained in place for seven days, unless the discussion meets the criteria in either WP:Speedy keep or WP:Speedy delete. Please check the history to see when this template was added. / This message has remained in place for seven days and so the discussion may be considered for closing or relisting.

Do you think it's worth starting a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion? SilkTork 13:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, there actually was such a template there for a while. In any case it would presumably be easy enough to do it. The only technical problem I see is that presently relisted debates do not have to be open a full 7 days extra, but perhaps the solution is to change that also. Let's bring this to WRT:AFD, The basic reason is to keep things orderly and prevent people from making errors. I have a clock overlay on my computer screen to display GMT when I work on Misplaced Pages, and it helps, but it still takes some thinking when the day changes. DGG ( talk ) 15:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll start a discussion - linking to this. SilkTork 16:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thai Life

thanks for this. Seems logical to me too. Yes, what has drawn me back somewhat is the recent AfDs on museum, cultural, etc. stuff. Hope all is going well for you. StarM 17:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

recent RFC

Hi DGG, thank you again for your input at Talk:Hockey stick controversy where you said, "Criticism is almost always the better word for a Misplaced Pages article on anything controversial. The reader will decide on the nature of the criticism and the merits of the arguments." You might be surprised that despite your input and that of two others who said the same thing, it is being claimed that because you qualified this with "almost always", it means that while you agreed on the specific point ("criticism" not "attack"), you probably didn't agree on the general principle or interpretation of NPOV. Somehow they claim that you would still think that if a reliable source uses emotive, loaded language, it is generally better to the use exactly the same terms in the article to avoid misrepresenting the source or subtly altering the meaning or reducing the clarity. Is that actually your view or was I correct to take your statement as agreement on NPOV as well. Best, Alex Harvey (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I have dealt with it now. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I wish that was true. In his response he seems to want to say that this is exactly what he always said and once again asserts that I have mispresented him. Naturally I don't agree. He goes on to say that a mutually acceptable compromise was found but in fact it wasn't; I just gave up. Would you mind having a look at my response to see if you agree with my commentary? He also asked a question about Lysenko which I tried to answer and perhaps you'd like to give your view as well. I do feel, for what it's worth, that so much of the conflict in the climate change pages could be resolved if this point about NPOV is ever settled. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

nothing will ever settle this controversy, because too much of the motivations on each side are other than purely scientific. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So what do you suggest. Edit warring? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay. But a serious question. What should I do. Raise another RfC for the next issue? We all know what happened to the good editors like Cla68 & AQuestForKnowledge when they requested Arbitration. So that's not an option. Should I just accept that I'm not welcome to edit in the topic area of my primary interest due to labeling I've received as a "fringe theorist"? I am not, by the way, on any "side", and I have to say I resent the assumption, if it was an assumption, that because I'm under constant attack by the majority in there I must be on the "other side". Certainly they keep repeating this loudly and as often as they can, but that doesn't make it true. My view is exactly the same as yours as stated above, "too much of the motivations on each side are other than purely scientific". I couldn't agree more. I just don't like the way it seems to be directed at the present NPOV dispute, which would include me. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

My own experience is that I avoid editing in some areas where I have considerable professional or personal involvement because of my desire to avoid disputes here, and my knowledge that I could not manage to edit there without either getting into fights, or resenting the fact that I had to refrain from getting into fights. I do have a very strong position on the basic issue behind these articles, but I will not edit them, and will only make a comment if I can make a neutral one. In one different area, where I tried deliberately writing for the enemy, so they could be more sensibly refuted--an area where the enemy were too unskilled or ignorant to make a decent job of writing for themselves, I found myself being accused by those whose views I shared of being a traitor, and being deliberately deceitful in saying I was writing for the enemy. It's many years since I've even been willing to take a look at those articles. In some other areas where I have been initially unknowledgeable and have tried to intervene in a neutral way, I find myself under attack from both sides. That, I've learned to accept, but I realize that if I continue editing there I will surely develop a bias for one position or another.Hence I skip around. There is no way to win a fight on Misplaced Pages. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

Thank you very much for your participation my RfA. Apologies for the lack of Wikilove formatting like I'm using for my other thankspam, but I want to say something a little more complex here, so it will format better this way. As I admitted, you were absolutely right that I screwed up the A7 question. And, as you pointed out...seriously, how was that even possible, given that it's such a common RfA topic, I knew I was under review, and thus who knows what I'll do in the field? And you're totally right. I have no idea how I let the most obvious part of the question slip past me, and got focused on other things that didn't even matter. And I feel especially bad, because yours was support I had really been hoping to have. Why? Well, your work here really impresses me. My interactions with you on AfDs and other places were the first to start to substantively change my opinions about deletionism/inclusionism. At one point, I actually called myself a deletionist; now, I like to think that I'm neither (as, I believe, are you), seeking instead to make individual decisions about individual articles. I also feel like I'm less quick to jump to an AfD on older articles, and more likely to take more steps, give the original/regular editors more time to make improvements, etc. Seeing your work on AfDs and on improving articles helped me realize that we really all should have the same goal: making the articles we have as good as possible, and deleting them only after we've tried to fix the problems and really decided that they are, ultimately, unfixable.

With that being said, if at any time you happen to see me making bad decisions, or even questionable ones, please feel free to step in and tell me to shape up. Furthermore, if you have any particular suggestions about how I might make sure to "get it right", please tell me and I will happily study, review, etc. Of course, I'll be reviewing all of the policies and procedures again before taking any actions, and for the foreseeable future I'll be doing any deletions with the mop in one hand and the guidelines in the other, but I certainly welcome any help that you have. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You have my support in every way that matters. Having my support in a real way is not the same thing as my voting support at the RfA. Sometimes I feel the need to call attention to an issue at the cost of not appearing to support a person. In such cases I generally write various drafts of my comments (as I did here), taking different positions, before making a decision which one to post. Every time that happens I remain unsure if I took the right course to have taken, I think you are understand well enough not to hold it against me; I would feel very sorry otherwise, and conclude I made the wrong choice. (I would have felt even sorrier if it had prevented your selection, and if I thought it would have done so, I would have posted differently).

As for future assistance, you will find I am much more willing to criticize those I trust to understand, than those who would take it poorly. DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that as well. Your oppose was actually well written, and to me represented a very clear "ethical" stance (that understanding CSD is something all admins should be able to do). Its even a stance that makes sense to me; had the CSD issue gained momentum, I would have willingly accepted a consensus against promotion and then spent the next 6 months getting it right. Now, I'll just have to make sure I get it right as I do it. I'm going to start in slowly, dealing only with obvious cases (like, I doubt I'll have much trouble identifying a G10, or even an A7 that says "My girlfriend is the best!")...no need to rush anything. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

CSD

So you think that a person who has only one film credit, to a film that has not even been released yet, is a claim of notability? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That would tend to mean that we can't delete anything via WP:BAND, since having sung a song is a claim of notability. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

what article? It would depend on the film and the role whether the claim is credible. If it is a self-produced film, it might not be a credible assertion. I do more work with books than films, and having written a book, other than a self-published book, is considered a credible assertion. Music is not my strong point, but if the Band has not recorded anything yet, then their claim is not credible either, and we delete a good number of such garage bands a day, for even people like me can tell. And I remind you that it does NOT have to be a claim of notability. It just has to be a claim to some possible good faith credible significance or importance, which is much less than notability. Deliberately so, in order that we not delete potentially improvable articles. What you want to use is PROD, as both I and another administrator suggested on your talk page . It works very nicely--they either get improved, or they get deleted. If a prod tag is removed without improvements made, then use WP:AFD. It works very well too in getting rid of what is not notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is Matt Dunnerstick, which is the article TParis and I were talking about in the section of my Talk page that you commented on. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've commented at the AfD , not notable , but not a CSD A7, DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ambassador Program: assessment drive

Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Misplaced Pages Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.

In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Misplaced Pages assignments and managing courses are most effective.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

BTW, do you know why some pages, like yours and also Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content amongst others, take so long to load and then give me an "unresponsive script" error message, but load after I tell the script to stop? ww2censor (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

happens to me too, mainly with Safari. I suspect the Misplaced Pages Javascript loads very slowly. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Yeshu

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Yeshu. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yorkshire Imperial Band

I've recreated this article, which was deleted in 2006 as "(was put on speedy for nn band; looks like nonsense to me.)", perhaps by someone unfamiliar with UK brass bands. They have recorded, won championships, have a long and illustrious history, etc. Could you userfy for me the previous article, in case there's anything useful in it? Thanks. PamD (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I restored it as the oldest item in the edit history--seemed simpler. . I see no reason why it shouldn't stay there to give credit for the earlier work. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think the earlier version includes anything I want to copy in to the current version. Could you remove it, please, so that the edit history of the current version reflects its history from when I created it yesterday? Did I really not save any versions of it for the first hour of work on it? Perhaps I was over-anxious not to create a feeble stub which someone would speedy again? Thanks. PamD (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Iagree with you, and shall right now do it. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks but... the way it looks now makes it look as if I over-wrote a 5-year-old article entirely, with edit summary "info re recordings"! (OK, so anyone looking at the history might wonder how it hadn't been speedily deleted after nomination for speedy). Could you please revert it to the situation before you did anything - ie the old version, having been speedily deleted, had disappeared completely, and I started a new article from scratch? I only asked to have a look at the old version in case there was anything useful (refs, cats, etc) which I ought to include in the new one. (And I'm not sure that the old article's version of the Rothwell side of the history is right: I gather there was a major bustup between drinkers and teetotallers so that the Rothwell band split into "Temperance Band" and "Old Band", one of which then merged with the Imps, but not sure which!) Thanks for your help. PamD (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I hope I got it right this time. DGG ( talk ) 14:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - my first few incremental edits are still lost, but at least it shows that I created it. And I think I've even got the Rothwell history sorted out now - so added it to Rothwell Temperance Band too for good measure. Pam

Aether mod

I am not truly sure for the reasoning for your deletion of this page (Aether mod). I am not related to the Aether mod or the person who created said aether mod page. The person who made that page placed it has placed it within the wrong area, its place should be along with the Minecraft (By "Notch" and Mojang AB) page. You've stated yourself as a librarian which I find to be knowledgeable, helpful and well learned. I do not know all things and subjects within, I do not try to make myself look like I do either. Should one really throw out book just because it was in the wrong place? I believe the information on that page could have been helpful. It is a popular link on google and therefore must recieve some amount of traffic. It's significance was the relation it had with minecraft, a game that has expanding quite a bit since it's initial release. http://en.wikipedia.org/Aether_mod (Aether mod page) http://en.wikipedia.org/Minecraft (minecraft)

  68.105.233.107 (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, Minecraft is very highly notable and even I know that. But not everything connected with Minecraft is significant, and being connected to Minecraft is not a claim of significance. Being a mod of a famous game is not a claim of significance. Being mentioned in a Minecraft forum is not a claim to significance, & there was nothing better in the article and I can find nothing better on the web. Can you show me one mention outside a Minecraft forum, and not connected to the authors of the mod? (the techunwrapped description reads as PR-- and even says at the bottom it is a Press Release, and therefore not independent). DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Question about deletions (another admin)

Sigh...I feel like an elementary school, tattling on another student...here I am only 3 days into adminning, and I've encounter another admin doing deletions that are...concerning to me. I know I could take this right to ANI, but I feel like bringing it here is a little better, since it's less likely to cause unecessary drama in case I'm wrong. You know deletion policy better than anyone else. If you could, please take a look at the Special:log] of User:DragonflySixtyseven. I came across the admin because a user whose page had been deleted by DS was questioning the process and the outcome. So, I asked DS about that specific deletion (it was of The Creator's Testimony: An Introduction to Applied Philosophy. Now, this is a vanity press book (so DS claimed), so, odds are very high that no matter what process was used, the article would eventually be deleted. However, DS deleted it with an edit summary of "(published by Author House => notability not asserted)". As was made abundantly clear in my RfA, A7 (the closest criteria) is not about notability; furthermore, A7 doesn't apply to books. I mean, I suppose WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY could apply here...but then I looked at DS's log, and saw a broader pattern. See, the second thing about the deletion of that article that surprised me was that no CSD tag was every put on the article--instead, DS just deleted it without giving the editor a chance to contest the deletion, without even notifying xyr. I checked policy, and I can't find information either way, but I thought that part of the principle behind CSD is that at least 2 editors (one tagging, one deleting) see and confirm that the article meets the criteria. When I looked through DS's log, I see a lot of deletions that fit this pattern: no warning, no discussion, no second editor. Again, in the cases that I looked at, it seems likely that the articles would like be deleted (I saw a lot of User pages that were being used for promotional purposes), but this type of deletion without even a second opinion worries me. It seems like, at best, it saves a little time, but, at worst either alienates editors (who could easily not even readily understand what to do when the article they were working on suddenly disappears w/o warning or discussion) or even ends up with articles deleted without at least a minimal amount of double-checking.

So...does this look like a problem to you? Am I simply, in my inexperience, failing to see the method to DS's work? Is this, in fact, acceptable behavior (i.e., if I come across a new page that I'm certain is deletable, can I just delete it immediately without tagging it first)? If this is a problem, how would you suggest is the best way to handle it? I've already asked DS a question about the specific book article in question, but not about the overall pattern. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

First, generally: There are other admins doing similar, including at least one wikifriend. This is the sort of situation that shows the weakness of some elements of our community structure. With 700 active admins, the only way to avoid incessant conflicts is to avoid challenging one another except in extreme situations, and to tolerate things we know to be harmful to the encyclopedia. A long-term admin who has made many interpersonal connections can essentially do as they please, unless they violate one of the few bright-line rules--and even they experience shows they are likely to forgiven, or that nobody will have the courage to complain, and this has led to mutually-protective long-term alliances. No one admin can break this; it is not as much a matter of courage as the almost certain failure.

fortunately , for some situation there are direct ways of procedure--in cases like this, deletion review, where a truly wrong admin action will usually be reversed. However, in the past this has not always worked with an article like this for something which is clearly and hopelessly non-notable. The response has in the past often been, NOT BURO, and IAR. But recently this has sometimes been the case, and I would not hesitate to do this if I thought the article had any merits whatsoever. However, for this particular article there is a more evasive solution which I would normally do: G11 is flexible enough that the the article can be considered entirely promotional, so I can simply assume the wrong reason was accidentally chosen--and this does happen in good faith, especially using semi-automated tools; I've done it myself-- so I can undelete and immediately redelete under the right rationale to correct the error in the log, justifying it , of course, by NOT BURO and IAR. I intend to find similar ways to deal with some other deletions, and will comment accordingly on the user talk p. There is a related discussion at WT:CSD you might be interested in.

Systematic errors are a more difficult situation, and though the articles can be dealt with, the admin remains a continuing source of new errors. . The usual course is to wait for slightly defensible articles, and take each of them to Deletion Review in the hope of eventually embarrassing the admin into improvement. Almost everybody here pays some attention to public opinion, If not , the deletion review decisions serve as a background to AN/I, And, if necessary, AN/I, to arb com.

I do not think I have ever taken something to AN/I, except to confirm a block or some other admin action, though I comment if someone takes something there & I think I can be helpful, or if I need to add another voice to establish a clearer consensus. I have once suggested the available technique of blocking the admin, which I think might at present prevent them from admin actions except viewing deletions, but in any case is a perfect prelude to a quick Arb Com, as unblocking oneself in a case like this is one of the bright-line rules, and taking admin actions even if the system allows would is probably be treated as another. However, my suggestion was totally disregarded, and it's not something one admin can do without clear consensus, for another would unblock, and then Wheel-warring applies. Similarly, there's the possibility of starting an RfC/U; I have certified once, to no avail, and offered a second time, which would also have been to no avail. I've rarely know RfC/U to produce anything useful, unless the editor is actually willing to change in good faith, which used to never be the case, but has this year happened once or twice.

As for second editor, I have tried repeatedly to get such a rule, and come near it. I suggest you propose it at WP:AFD, using the above examples, I think consensus has changed sufficiently. There are valid cases when one admin alone is enough, and these have caused some difficulty in the past. I'd suggest limiting the rule to criteria other than copyright, vandalism, defamation, and author-requested. Empty and no-context have been previously proposed as exceptions, but there have been errors here also. There is one additional possible exception: an article that has already been prodded, but seems AfD-able. I've sometimes deleted them myself, on the theory that the prodding ed. is a second set of eyes. But I may have been wrong in doing this. A previous argument was the backlog at CAT:CSD, but of late weeks there have not been backlogs. DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the extended response. I also saw your response to DS on Anand's talk page, and that was another point I had made to DS earlier. As has been widely discussed elsewhere, the whole speedy deletion process, if when fully complete, must be quite frustrating for new users who really are trying to contribute what they see as a useful article. The idea of shortcutting it even farther, down to a single person making a decision and not even informing the editor of it, disturbs me. And on applying the criteria strictly or not, I read over some of WT:CSD, and there I see numerous editors strongly derying that both they and the community as a whole believe the criteria must be interpreted very narrowly. I have no interest in taking any sort of actions against DS (at this time), nor do I think I'll spend much of my already limited and over-full WP time monitoring xyr deletion logs...but it just shocked me and, in fact, saddened me a little. At some point, I'll probably look into participating at Deletion Review (in general, I mean), so I'll see what rolls over there. For myself, I'll try to stick to more "standard" interpretations of CSD. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the practical way to affect policy in this area is deletion review. It has a rather specialized way or working, so just as you plan, it is easier to become effective if you you watch it a while first. There are a few regulars (like myself) who seem to do it all unless something of widespread (and usually unfortunate) interest is there, so wider participation would help greatly--as with everything in Misplaced Pages including the overall project. Things can change, sometimes for the better; there used to be many more single-handed deletes. (cc. to all talk page lurkers.)

Meanwhile ,the best way to help is to get people to improve articles before re-submitting them. There are probably about one or two hundred worthy cases a day, but if you and I and everyone else who care gives friendly effective help to one of them a day, it will help--and the good new editors will I hope know enough to be friendly in their turn. If people are treated in an unfriendly manner when they start, even those who overcome it are all too likely to treat others just the same. (cc. to all talk page lurkers.I wrote this paragraph expressly for you) DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Belatedly contested PROD

I see that you undeleted Vach Lewis, but for some reason did not restore the edit which PRODDED it. I have restored that edit, as it should be on record that the article has been the subject of a contested PROD, since that makes it ineligible for another PROD. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

actually, that was pretty stupid of me, because all I meant to do was remove the prod. For some reason I didn't think of the re-prod issue. Thanks. DGG ( talk ) 14:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

your thoughts please :-)

Hi DGG, could you please have a look at this issue and share your thoughts on it? Thanks --DeVerm (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC).

afd is designed for this sort of thing--though I am likely to have no real opinion on the subject, others will. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Rachel Beckwith

Hello DGG,

I agree with you 100% that this article should be deleted under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. No compromise on the bottom line. Here, we are dealing with a user who is almost, but not quite, a single purpose account. Six months ago, this user reverted vandalism to George Clooney. Almost certainly, this user is someone close to this little girl who was killed in a car accident a week ago. So, I take exception to your use of the word "pathetic" in the AfD debate. Can't we explain why the article should be deleted while still selecting our words carefully so as not to further hurt someone trying, in all good faith, to add an article that we both agree doesn't belong here? In my view, there is always room for compassion. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• It can be difficult to explain why something really and genuinely important to an individual may yet not be encyclopedic. I used pathetic not to denigrate, but in the sense of pathos = emotional, emotionally rather than intellectual significant. Because it's used in the negative sense also, it probably was not a good choice of words, and I'll try to find a bette expression. I thank you for making me aware of it, because this is something important to me also. Some of our standard terms are unnecessary unsympathetic; there are some words and phrases we should avoid, not just in dealing with articles on people, but on other things, which can be equally emotionally important: for example, instead of "not notable" — I try to say "not notable for the purposes of an encyclopedia". instead of "not significant, or "unimportant" I usually say "not of significance to the general public who would use an encyclopedia." or "though important, not relevant to the purposes of an encyclopedia.", or "not what most people would expect to find in an encyclopedia.". Even those with good faith emotional involvement will usually recognize with care that an encyclopedia is not necessarily the place for the material they care about, once they are reminded that Misplaced Pages is , after all, an encyclopedia. The term "encyclopedia" does still have a connotation of "general interest from an abstract and impersonal point of view", and most people will accept this in the end. But it's all too easy in dealing with material not appropriate here to fall into bureaucratic coldness, and I am not exempt from this; other people can always judge the import of one's words better than one can judge ones own. The general rule holds, that if what you say is misunderstood, the problem is with how you said it. All writers require the help of an editor, and here, with no formal editing authority, we must help one another. Being one's own editor is like being one's own lawyer, and the proverb holds, that he who would be his own lawyer has a fool for a client. I hope everyone will do as you, and correct me when i make a mistake--to the extent I may be less of a fool that some others here, it's because I'm aware I make errors. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your thoughtful and perceptive response, and your adjustment to the AfD comment. By the way, it is clear to me that you are far from a fool. Cullen Let's discuss it 21:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Lalla Latifa Hammou AFD

• - Lalla Latifa Hammou AFD

New york new york so good you vote commented keep twice. Off2riorob (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

fixed it. Thanks. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries, thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Cara Hartmann

Most of the !votes were entered after the article was redirected - and all of the !votes eplicitly deal with the video and its notability (as that is the basis of the article). In that light it seems a bit of a beuro-creep to close that as "keep" (when it is clearly delete) on procedural grounds that it has to be under the new article name :S I encourage you to re-open it, or close it properly. --Errant 20:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

reverted & Relisted. I think I did it right the first time, but it isn't important one way or the other. If any cleanup is needed, pls do it. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

EU projects

Hi, the following EU projects are at AfD: Adaptive Services Grid, Discovery Project, European Robotics Research Network, European integrated hydrogen project, GENESIS – Groundwater and Dependent Ecosystems, ISTAG, Insemtives, PARSIFAL Project EU, PRoVisG, SALERO, Single European Sky ATM Research, WHOQOL-DIS, and Wireless Access Platforms for Electronic Communications Services Management. That's actually a bit more than I realized myself, but still only a small fraction got dePRODded. In a few days, I go through some more of them. It's slow going, because I check any links/references given, but fortunately (for me, if not for WP), many have no references and only a link to a (sometimes non-functional or outdated) homepage. I only take them to AfD if they are de-PRODded, though. --Crusio (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

They appear quite a mixture of the clearly indefensible, with some that need some discussion of appropriate guidelines

I've given a discussion of what I consider the key problem at one of the AfDs, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Adaptive Services Grid . I think there is a problem in finding applicable criteria, and that a more general discussion is needed. This is another case where the GNG depending on the manner one interprets it, is either much too inclusive or much too exclusive, and thus can be used to justify whatever one wants. DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. I'll give it some thought and respond at the ASG AfD. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Your librarian expertise is requested

I was NPP patrolling, and found Juloos. The problem is, the book is in Hindi. WorldCat finds it under the name Julūsa; if you search for that, on page three of the results here, I see it listed 3 times; 2 are distinct--one in Texas, one in the UK (no additional results when I copy and paste what I presume is the Hindi name in, either). I don't think there's an article on hi.wikipedia, but, of course, I'm just guessing by copying and pasting and assuming their interface works the same as ours. How do we determine the notability of a non-English book that's over 40 years old, that may or may not have ever been translated into English.... Qwyrxian (talk) 07:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: I left a note with the article creator to see if they've got any info. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

India is a major problem, because there is no internet accessible union catalog to correspond to WorldCat, and no online periodical indexes. And no US library really has an adequate collection of print sources. But I see from the link you give many more than 3 sources. I see 25 at least. Your display setting is truncated, probably because you never entered your location--if so, it shows only the first listed holding that cataloged the book. 23 worldCat locations -- all the US university libraries that have some sort of Indian languages collection -- for an 1965 Hindi novel that count is a good many. There are more than 3 entries, see -- you get that p. by clicking "show all editions and formats". Looking at that p. I see it has reached 6 editions, with the latest being 1997. That's a rough criterion of possible notability The author seems highly notable, based on the WP article on him, which does have references. One of his books was made into a film. There is also the page which you get by clicking the "Find more information about ..." link at the bottom of the catalog record. I'll add the worldcat material to the article for WP:V. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice

Could you perhaps have a look at this article? There are obvious problems with the journal which has been criticized for being biased towards a certain political point of view. Nevertheless, I think the lead is unduly biased but was reverted within minutes after changing it. Perhaps I'm wrong, so I'd appreciate your opinion (see also my comment on the article's talk page). Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yak Formation Team

G'day from Oz; the 'ref' you added to Yak Formation Team has nothing whatsoever to do with the formation team in NZ. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

oops. My geography is slipping. I'll remove the quote. User prod or AfD as unverifiable. DGG ( talk ) 14:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 16, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 23:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

International Student Senate

Dear DGG, would it be possible to send you an email ? I am sorry to say I am not able to find your email address.Peter Vonke (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User talk:Timeshift9#Your userpage 2

Hi DGG. You participated in Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 earlier this year. Several months after the MfD was closed as "delete", Timeshift9 (talk · contribs) has recreated the page with blog-like material. I have asked admins at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User talk:Timeshift9#Your userpage 2 to delete the page per the spirit of {{db-repost}} but none seem willing to. Several have suggested that the page be renominated for deletion at MfD. Because of the bad-faith accusations towards myself, I think it is best for me not to initiate the discussion. Vitriol was directed at GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) who initiated the previous MfD and who engaged Timeshift9 in discussion at User talk:Timeshift9#Your userpage 2 regarding his current user page. I believe it is best that neither GorillaWarfare nor I initiate the MfD. If either of us started an MfD, accusations of harassment and wikihounding would muddy the discussion and detract from a discussion of the policies regarding user pages.

DGG, would you review User:Timeshift9 and determine if it violates your interpretation of WP:NOTBLOG and WP:NOTSOAP? If it does, as someone who has had minimal involvement at the MfD and with the current iteration of the user page, would you initiate the MfD? If you are uncomfortable with becoming involved with this, I understand. Best, Cunard (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I went back over the whole thing & re-read the various versions. The current page is not as objectionable, and I am not sure an mfd would succeed. I would probably once again say to delete, but it might be better to let the matter rest. Perhaps he simply should be urged to make it a subpage /politics. That he re-created it shows it matters to him; that he improved it, that he is willing to improve it further. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

While the page is shorter it will, in time, grow to be as long as the deleted version. The deleted version began as a short blog and then grew to one that spanned several pages. I see the same thing happening here. I do not see it as improvement from the deleted revision because the page still violates WP:NOTBLOG, WP:NOTSOAP, and WP:BLP. Would you re-read the third and fourth paragraphs of the user page, where Timeshift has some very negative criticism about a politician with a surname of Abbott? ("how can any self respecting Liberal be happy to jettison ALL policy and belief consistency in the name of regaining government") Such a statement, of which there are many on the current version of his user page, does not belong anywhere in the userspace. In the sixth paragraph, he talks about a "Mr Wrecker". Cunard (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think in the past there has been quite enough conflict here on Australian politics and the editors who work in that area, without raising issues that are not related to article content. From at least my US pt of view, nothing here amounts to a BLP violation, considering the subject is a politician & it's user space. It's just personal opinion. When I noticed the ANI last night, I checked the p. & judged it borderline and therefore not worth comment one way or the other. Seeing the ANI, I checked the p. yesterday before I saw your note,, and decided it wouldn't be worth comment. The fuss about it makes it more important than it really is. You wanted a relatively uninvolved view, you've got one. And if you think it might look like wikihounding if you did it, how would it look any the less so if I did it because you asked me? DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have replied at ANI. Cunard (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Bgwhite (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

DRV comment formatting

Did you mean to use quite so much italics in this comment? I would "fix" it, but I'm not sure where you meant for the emphasis to begin or end. --RL0919 (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Asian Journal of Environment and Disaster Management

The article creator has left a message on my talk page stating that this journal is included in EBSCOhost. Do you think that is sufficient to establish notability? Apparently there is nothing else... --Crusio (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

there's a simple answer:no. The only real qy. about notability is the article on the publisher. DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Again

Did you see JzG telling James Cantor that his alleged COI prohibits him from editing any BLPs related to his academic field? Didn't the AN discussion after the last round actually repudiate JzG's stance on this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

yes,he may, but I personally wish he would avoid close associates or opponents. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

International Student Senate bis

Dear DGG, you post on your WP biography you discuss matters via email. Where can one find your e-mail address ?Peter Vonke (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:EMAIL. the first step is for you to enable your wikipedia email, which you do from the first screen of your user preferences page. You get sent an email to confirm it, and after that you email is active. When you go to my user page or my user talk page, in the "toolbox section on the left, one of the items will be : email this user. But if you just want to ask me what will let your organization have an article, I can only tell you by email what I tell you right here; references providing substantial coverage to show notability from 3rd party independent published reliable sources. the links in the previous sentence explain the meaning of the terms. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Girlsounds

I have provided 15 references to show my little article's relevance and notability and I am not receiving any feedback or aid from editors who have been inappropriate in their behavior towards me as well as the article. There has been a considerable amount of time spent rewriting and editing as well as searching for references. Discospinster, although, initially accusing me of plageurism(I'm writing about myself!) feels the article has some merit however Mark of the Beast is pushing for immediate deletion. I need to have feedback on whether to continue for it is cruel to have me working for weeks on an article that does not meet with the Wikepedia standards. This has been a particularly unpleasant experience which I plan NEVER to repeat. bye wikiGirlsounds (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've given you on your talk p. the best advice I can. It is possible there is one or more articles there, but it would take someone more knowledgable than myself in the subject area to untangle them. Please do not give up on Misplaced Pages You have, it appears, some specialized knowledge, and it seems there are some books on the subject. You might do best by writing about other artists than yourself. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Knight's Bridge

My understanding is that Article for Deletion discussions are not normally speedy kept when the nominator "withdraws" if there are delete expressions. Is that different from your understanding? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's not automatic. In my view, it depends on the nature of the other delete !votes. If they just "per nom" or are addressed adequately by the comments of the nominator when they withdraw, I think a speedy keep is justifiable. if they have raised another issue, then the discussion should be either continued, or, sometimes, restarted on the other issue. In this case, I thought all the objections had been met. If you do not think so, either I could re-open, or you could start a new AfD that would take into account the discussions at the first one, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Knight's Bridge. I suggest you consult with Valfontis first--articles such as this are his specialty, He can give a more thoughtful opinion than i can. DGG ( talk ) 08:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't an "I don't agree" sort of question, just a more general "open to other views" one. Thanks for answering. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A question about a question I can't answer

I'm hoping for some options. First, Cantor asks me a direct question, by name, then he quickly deletes my response. While not at all surprising, this seems marginally uncivil. I don't see a way to respond visibly to his question that wouldn't be cited as evidence for some "vendetta". If he doesn't want an answer, he should at least retract the question. Could I trouble you for your thoughts? BitterGrey (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

you have now called your comments to attention. But as anyone who reads it can tell, instead of answering his question, which was to confirm the letters, you made 2 very definite personal attacks on him, both in the letter quoted, and in your comment. Personal attacks off-wiki with respect to Misplaced Pages editing are harassment, just as much as on-wiki. Accordingly, I ban you from his talk page under any circumstances. BTW, he should not have posted your letter to the subject, & I shall ask him to remove it, unless you give permission, which you can do so here. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)