Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MadmanBot (talk | contribs) at 19:57, 28 January 2012 (Semi-automated edit: Delivering message by request.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

     ARCHIVES

Reminders

Topical Archives:

BLP (Biographies of Living People)
Deletion reform, Speedies, Notability , Sourcing,
In Popular Culture, Fiction, Bilateral relations.
Academic things & people, Journals, Books & other publications,
Misplaced Pages Ambassador Program

General Archives:
2006: Sept-Dec
2007: Jan-Feb, Mar-Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec 
2008: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2009: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2010: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr , May , Jun , Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2011: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr , May , Jun , Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2012 Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr , May , Jun , Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec

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)

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!

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)

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)

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

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)

Talkback

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For being one of the wisest thinkers on[REDACTED] 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)

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)

May I have your input, please?

It appears that a couple users are trying to implement the restriction of new articles to autoconfirmed users from the recent RfC (please refer to this bugzilla thread). I'm not certain that everything is in place to start that restriction. The closing admin specifically mentioned a few conditions.

the discussion also showed consensus for making (unspecified) improvements to the Article Wizard and giving more attention to the Articles for Creation process.

and

Almost everyone who commented on it seems to think that the Article Wizard can and should be improved. There were also repeated concerns about making sure that the Articles for Creation process gets more attention so it does not become clogged and proposed articles get the improvements they need. Participants on both sides of the discussion agreed on these points.

As you wrote the key dissenting view, would you mind looking in to this situation and then providing your input to this conversation with the WMF staff? Thank you for your consideration. Cogitating (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I see your comment there and I agree with you, and will say as much, but I am also going to say that I do not think the WMF can or should prevent the community from doing something like this. I've consistently opposed their interference in our content beyond the minimum legal necessities, and I've opposed some of the policies resulting from it, such as the excessively stringent NFCC restrictions beyond the requirements of copyright law, and the adoption of a BLP policy that permits use to suppress unfavorable but well-sourced articles on significant subjects, and is potentially destructive of NPOV. I saw their attempt last year to impose a policy of restricting sexual images, which was only reduced to some degree of reason by a change in board membership. I see their willingness to encourage a mechanism within Misplaced Pages to facilitate outside censorship; again, the only thing which has kept this from being not just encouraged but required, was a change in board membership. This will be a recurrent issue. I oppose using them as a court of final appeal for issues within Misplaced Pages, and shall continue to do so. This far outweighs almost any individual issue. Even though we may decide wrong, at least letting the WP community decide gives freedom of action to the individual Wikipedias to have divergent policies, and thus allows experiment even in sensitive areas, which is the only way to prevent stagnation. IMO, this applies both to the board and to the programmers. I opposed the introduction by the programmers of a crude and unscientific system of article rating, and their willingness to expand it, without each time getting explicit consent of the community. It has nonetheless apparently been accepted by the community, and I am not sure it is worth the effort to involve myself in its improvement. I opposed their attempt to introduce a deficient version of vector as the default, similarly--at least then, so did much of the community, and we were at least able to get it improved significantly.

Yes, I consider the introduction of this feature a potential disaster. I expect to see the number of incoming editors fall precipitously even below its present unsatisfactory level, as soon as it is implemented, and possibly not recover even after the trial has stopped. The attraction of being able to make an article is one of the primary motivating factors for editing. It is however possible that I have misjudged, and the proven discouraging effect of the extremely negative comments that new editors encounter is even worse, and the decrease in this might counterbalance the negative effects of not being able to immediately start an article. The only effective thing I can do in this case is to try to persuade people to diminish the length of the trial, and try to find ways of working with new editors despite the constraints, and, perhaps, try to keep fewer promising articles from being rejected via the article creation process--at present, too many of the few people working there insist on a good quality, rather than just an acceptable article.

Sometimes a cause is lost. I opposed the use of BLP Prod, but it was adopted, and my experiences at prod patrol indicate it has had at most a trivial beneficial effect, as everything it properly deletes would and would have been deleted anyway. and a considerable negative one, as it leads to many deletions of articles on people who could have been sourced had anyone experienced here had the time & incentive to do it under a deadline--and it has not noticeably decreased the number of incoming unsourced BLP articles. I've given up on getting rid of it, even though it takes a good deal of my time to prevent whatever percentage of inappropriate deletions I manage, and thus has decreased my participation in other things, such as just this sort of policy discussion.

Sometimes opposition can be effective, as with patrolled changes. I certainly opposed it, and when it became clear it would be adopted supported those who successfully limited it to a trial and to a limited range of articles. The community , upon seeing among other things that those using it did not limit the trial to the intended purpose, ended up by rejecting it, at least in its present form. (The community asked the developers to improve it for another trial, and the developers, not unreasonably, were unwilling to do the amount of work involved if it was going to be to be rejected in the end, as they I think correctly foresaw it would be.) DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Avaya AFD

WOW - Thank you so very much!!!! > I will start to make as many changes as possible, and I have added many 3rd refs over the last week. What would you recommend that I change on Avaya ERS 8600? I have edited the top of the page is this more like what it should look like? Geek2003 (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

now stop a bit, and I'll show you DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

OK Geek2003 (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

done. Please make sure you see the reason for each of the changes and omissions. (Basically, brevity, and to avoid sounding like a spec sheet.) DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow thanks!! Is it OK to talk about the specific modules and what they are used for, just don't use bullets. Geek2003 (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Only the key ones, that are unique or innovative or relating to basic function. Power supplies are power supplies, and the details of them and the various output configurations and so on are best left to the manufacturer's literature--but if the entire line has redundant power supplies that fact can be mentioned, because it differentiates professional from consumer equipment. . It matters when buying a product, but not to understanding it. That's the basic distinction. If only a client or user (or potential client or user) would care, it's not encyclopedic material. Thus one thing that always needs to be omitted even from those that are worth mention is model numbers and the like, or even the precise technical name of the unit. The most important information in the article at present is that it was capable enough to handle the Olympics. That's the sort of general interest material we want. And please make a thorough search for all possible substantial 3rd party reviews, though of course they're easier to find for consumer electronics. There is some simple missing information--where does it stand in the line of products from the company--is it the largest, is it still the current state of the art, when was it introduced, how many have been sold if the data is available.

The next question, is whether this should be combined with other switches in a combination article. What's wrong with an article on "Avaya switches", or more general if necessary, like "Avava infrastructure products."  ? If you want to do this, and I hope you do, let me know--it's very tricky to do in the middle of an AfD, and I would want to consult with the nominator on the best course to follow. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So would a history section to explain the 16 years of evolution be appropriate? Then we could also cover all the 8000 systems (8100, 8103, 8106, 8110, 8300, 8303, 8306, 8310, 8600, 8603, 8606, 8610, CO8600, 8800, 8803, 8806, 8810) group evolution as 8100, 8300, 8600, 8800 within one page. Geek2003 (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is usually the best way to do it. , This is sometimes done as a paragraph describing the trends (higher speeds, faster connections, more sophisticated software --btw, do such switches have software, firmware, or both)with selected details in a table, but to keep it readable it should contain key features only. A article doing this is sometimes fairly easy to reference as compared to that for a single model. Even if the present article is deleted, you can prepare such an article. For all similar products, it would probably be a good idea to start with such a group article. DGG ( talk ) 14:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Opinion needed: as you've been involved in the messy Avaya MfD's, do you think there's a better way to handle them? Like freezing the similar MfD's and link them to one general? I don't know. I'm just guessing, OR is the matter that each product needs to be viewed separately to see its individual notability? Thanks is advance... ~ AdvertAdam 20:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

inre User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines

You are cordially invited to User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines as I feel it going live is imminent and I value additional eyes and input. Schmidt, 00:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:Schmidt's Primer (shortcut WP:MQSP) Whatcha think before I go live? Schmidt, 07:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedies

Thanks for your note, as you can probably tell from my user page, I am not a deletionist type at all, and this may have been the second page I ever nominated for deletion (pretty sure it's my first speedy). I do not think the magazine mentioned is particularly notable, the link to it was broken as well. The article appears to have been created by a single purpose type of account and was using the subject's "linkedin" page as a source. It was poorly written and referred to the subject almost exclusively by his first name. Is merely being a published writer enough for notability? I was under the impression that notability guidelines meant that the subject was to be written about independently of him/her self. Thanks for your assistance and the education.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No, being a published writer is not enough for WP:Notabity; the relevant criteria are at WP:CREATIVE. Having written a book (other than just self-published) or having stories or articles in established magazines or being an editor is enough material is give some indication of importance, and that's enough to pass speedy. Put another way, if we place writers on a scale of 1 to 10, if truly famous writers are 10, the criterion for notability is about 6 or 7; the criterion to pass speedy is 1.5 --any good-faith indication. Now, if you can find no sources to indicate that any of his publications are important, then take it to prod or , AfD and say so. What you give are excellent reasons for deletion, but not speedy. The article was written factually so it escapes G11, entirely promotional. Many such article are just vague hype, and then G11 applies). It's good to learn the deletion criteria, and this can only be done by practice, so I urge you to continue. The safest way to learn deletion is to start with PROD, and see what happens to the articles. DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, again for the education. I'll do better next time. Sorry if I hosed up and caused you any extra/unnecessary work.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

"hosed" is wording it much too strongly. As you say, you were new at this and showing new people how to do things is the most satisfying part of my work here.

Thanks, I've been reading some of your essays, etc. If you have a newsletter, sir, I would like to subscribe to it!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have indeed been thinking about moving some of the essays to a blog, and I just might. Any ideas on titles? DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for your encouraging words, even when I messed up! jsfouche ☽☾Talk 01:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:AUTHOR

Why does it overstate notability, in your view?--Cerejota (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

because too many thoroughly non-notable books get two book reviews. This especially applies in the academic world, where almost all books from all significant publishers are eventually reviewed, but most of them are routine. It would make more sense to combine them into articles about their authors, and that will work for full professors, for whom I have successfully argued WP:AUTHOR. But I could also argue WP:AUTHOR for associate professors in the humanities in highest quality US universities, all of whom will have necessarily written 2 books. We don't usually accept articles on associate professors otherwise--the citation record of equivalent people in the sciences is usually considered short of the borderline; I think we should, but I have other priorities.

The problem is fundamentally the same as for elements of fiction. WP:N correctly says that passing WP:N (and WP:NOT) doesn't necessarily mean there must be an article, if the material can best be handled otherwise. There is rarely any real need to split off a full article for a character, but in practice anything less gets reduced to an uninformative list. Given that the only effective process is AfD , the only protection is a full article, and I defend the articles there on that basis. The same goes for books. Articles on book of all types are usually very cursory, and best combined. If not, they are often much too expansive, promotional of the authors ideas-- sometimes to absurd lengths and detail. It is very hard to reduce them, unless the person who wrote them has left & nobody else cares. Promotionalism is a real danger to Misplaced Pages; we have a problem getting new editors, but what makes it worse is that too many of the editors we do get are here for promotional purposes. Whether a promotional article gets deleted depends upon which admin sees it--there is no consistency in applying the standard; indeed, there is no consistent standard to apply sat speedy, and at AfD anything that does not attract widespread attention is a toss-up.

One of the problems with promotionalism is wildly inconsistent coverage of borderline subjects. We would do much better to have a rule, and to work on filling in the gaps. I would be glad to have articles on all reviewed academic books, but not just on the ones which promulgate particular interests. but that is impossible to accomplish here without special projects dedicated to filling in the gaps. (Anyone want to join me in going systematically through Choice's Outstanding Academic Books of the Year, and add every one of them--only about 5% will already be in Misplaced Pages , and also add their authors--only about 25% will)

I consider my position open to further discussion; my view is not necessarily fixed. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Loves Libraries

I was wondering if you could offer some sage advice here? We're still in the spitballing phase, and I wonder if you could point out work we could use to help local librarians understand the natural Misplaced Pages/Library connection. Your subpages seem a good start, but I'm thinking we'll want to construct a librarian entry point, with FAQ and ideas. Perhaps the folks over at GLAM would also have some input. What do you think? Feel free to answer there. BusterD (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussions about citations for notable alumni

Dear DGG, you have always been a Dean to us occasional editors. Please enlighten me on an issue being discussed with another editor here: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Muhandes#Citations_on_QES_page To roughly summarize the issue, he insists on citations for all alumni listed on a school page, such as this one QES, HK, even tho those same citations already appear on the alumni's bio pages. I cited MIT Alumni as example to show that as long as those citations appear on the people's bio pages, they would be considered verified. I thought the bio page would serve as hub to verify everything about that person. Please advise. Much obliged.--Kgwu24 (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

replied there in some detail. Nobody questions that everything must be sourceable, but this is not the same as saying everything must be explicitly sourced inline, or even in the same article. Such lists are mere summaries. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your eloquent response, as usual. It seems a trivial matter that the guy would hang on so hard-nosed. There is at least one kind of unintended consequence for having the citations on the school page. Since it's primarily visited by students, those who are not familiar with Wiki will misread that the citation is to support notability. Just imagine the implication -- someone winning a high school scholarship is considered to be notable.--Kgwu24 (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

People here often hang on to trivial matters with great determination. The way of working makes it easier, for someone who is really determined can keep at it obsessively. This is relatively non-trivial compared to some of the things the most persistent fights have been about: the most recent is when to use hyphens { - ), as compared to en-dashes ( – ), -- even though most computer users cannot tell them apart on the screen. ( I generally use -- in comments, though I know it is not permitted in articles where I must use an en dash without spaces—like this. ) and whether or not spaces go before and after. Even with references, there is no agreement about whether they should always be required in-line (they are for FA), and the various styles of referencing (footnotes are not the only acceptable method, though some think they should be). Precisely because the matters are trivial one can give long arguments in each direction, none of which can be definitively refuted.

Your comment that the footnoting confuses referencing for notability is correct, but there are other reasons also. Excessively footnoted articles are hard to read; footnoted articles are extremely difficult to edit; the current Misplaced Pages methods of inserting footnotes are confusing to the extent that they keep people from contributing at all (I use ProveIt though I dislike parts of it); most important, it detracts from concentrating our attention on the really questionable material. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra 11:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks. I don't want to give the impression that there is conflict between us about the general matter of handling ELs--improper ELs are something we both consider it a priority to get rid of. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I think first I do owe you an apology, when first looking through the contributions, I actually thought it was you ... there is considerable overlap in the articles both edit, and of the 'opposers' of XLinkBot you are one of the strongest. But things clearly did not match up (even though there were some points that made it likely, others made it very unlikely). I decided to wait and see whether the IP would screw up (which they did in the end).

It would be good to have a re-analysis of the reverts of XLinkBot. I've done an analysis of 30 MySpace reverts quite some time ago (1-2 years), and at that point, 29 of the reverts were 'good' ('superfluous links': MySpace of individuals or old members on band-pages, non-existing MySpaces, unrelated MySpaces, plain spam, fanpages, etc. etc), only one was a case where it was the actual MySpace of (IIRC) the band (though the official bandpage was on that page as well - I would describe that as 'I would not have reverted, but not added either'). I did a couple of months ago a quick-check of 10 YouTube reverts, and that contained 2 copyvios .. a significant concern. Yes, more and more YouTube become official, still way way more is either unsuitable in the first place, not official or even plain copyright violation, I do not believe there is a major shift in the percentage of official video's on YouTube.

Surely, there will be reverts of good links, but I think we need to see it in percentages of the total reverts on a domain (and if the percentage of reverts of good links, in relation to the badness of the other reverts, becomes too high, then indeed such domains should be removed from the list). If you put yourself to it, it is possible to find a lot of allowed YouTubes, Twitters, MySpaces, etc. etc. (see the edits by the IP that started this discussion). But I still believe that by far most of them, when added by 'new' users (who are not aware of our policies and guidelins), are not suitable. Of course, all should be personally analysed on one end, on the other side, reminding editors quickly that they have to take WP:EL/WP:NOT/WP:COPYRIGHT etc. into account is also important. And with 18 edits which add external links per minute (46 links added per minute) it is impossible to check them all by hand (and preferably in the first couple of minutes after addition). XLinkBot is extremely soft, tries to be friendly, especially on its first revert. And it does not get too often to AIV. One needs to 'push' it, and most of the editors that get to a level 3 or level 4 warning do go 'yell' at the bot first .. if only this IP would have done that after having been reverted 4-5 times, I might have noticed earlier and resolved it (I've now added a detection for this to the bot); we've had workarounds built-in ever since the very beginning of the bots that work this, most now also accessible to all admins on-wiki). This type of editors, editors who are continuing to add good links and are continuously reverted, are pretty, if not extremely, rare.

Hope to see you around. --Dirk Beetstra 08:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I recognize the same problems you do. I rework a lot of organization pages, and I remove youtube and the like from the EL section if there's a regular web page, just like I remove all the links to the internal pages of the main site. (Hey, can you think of an automated way of detecting that particular problem?) (What I see more of in the areas I work is valid Facebook pages than YouTube pages, but I avoid working in popular music and related areas, which I think is where YouTube is prominent). Certainly the percentage of bad links to such pages is on the order of 99%, but that 1% is still a substantial number. I recognize the need with our volume of material to have computer assisted tools for editing; I don't consider the problem is mainly with the bot--or other bots, but the editors who think like bots, or who completely trust them.

However, I admit that I have extended good faith a number of times when it hasn't been present and other people would have been more skeptical; I prefer it to the opposite. Incidentally, I have carelessly edited a few times when logged out , but I think I have always asked for oversight. I don't do POINTY things, but I will sometimes defend those who do if I think the point is important. I know I am working in some areas fairly near the limits, and so I try to be extra careful not to go beyond them. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That 1% is about the amount I guess that gets reverted wrongly on that type of links. I do agree, of those editors in that 1% some will be bitten (what, of all the reverts, good or bad, some will be bitten by a friendly remark that their link is not appropriate), and that is an issue, but also a small part of editors is bitten when you leave a (non-bot) personalised message on their talkpage. I do that sometimes, and I do still get yelled at, or blindly reverted, or editors just never return. I know, c'est le ton qui fait la chanson (sorry, don't have a reference for this quote), but sometimes that 'ton' does not even make a difference.

You said somewhere, that you manage to convert promotional editors .. you actually have to group them. You have the promotional editors who are here to promote a person, a company, or an organisation - editors who are often specialists in an area and would be an asset to Misplaced Pages when converted - you have the 'promotional fans' - who only care about their subject and putting them in the best possible light, they don't care being converted and doing something else - you have the SEO's - who are only out for money, they edit what they get paid for (and often, also their own company when they are here anyway) - and true spammers (sildenafil, tramadol, muscle enhancers ...), they only care to have their links here. Every converted specialist is one, and that should certainly be an attempt. But also of those, if you approach them with silk gloves and hugs and kisses, some will be bitten, while a friendly remark does also convert editors sometimes (I do see the 'I did not know that, I'll take more care in the future' messages).

One of the issues is the IP or new editor, who is boosting with activity, and picks up the policies and guidelines really fast. Those editors should be made exempt from XLinkBot (whitelisted) as soon as possible, but they are difficult to detect in the plethora of edits. XLinkBot now alerts me of editors who have more than 9 messages from XLinkBot, either way, such editors need to be looked at (either they are genuine editors and should be whitelisted, or they are slow spammers and should be blocked for a bit of time to actually get the message). Maybe the note "Due to the nature of what the bot does, it will occasionally revert additions which may have been appropriate. As an RC patroller you are always required to make sure vandalism is obvious and uncontroversial, please do not revert someone who reverts or 'undoes' an XLinkBot edit based solely on the bot reverting the addition originally." on User:XLinkBot's userpage should be strenghtened and expanded, and be linked from the AIV-reports the bot produces (see IPuser-reportstring and user-reportstring in User:XLinkBot/Settings, there also the messages the bot leaves can be adapted in 'real time' (settings are loaded before every revert; feel free to adapt if necessary, please do check if the messages it actually leaves are formatted properly, they are concatenated in a bit complex way). --Dirk Beetstra 09:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

PR firm discussion

Hi,

I really appreciated your comments at User talk:Jimbo Wales. You said you've worked with a number of internal PR departments, but no PR firms, because none will admit it. I'd like to work with you, representing the first firm that admits it. I've been editing here seven years. My contribution history just shows a year and nine months because I had to change my username due an off-wiki situation, but my current account has over 5,000 edits and I've been involved in a couple leadership positions here. I believe in Misplaced Pages and its mission, to the point of telling clients "Sorry, we can't do that for you." Words/phrases like "premier," "first company to..." and "world-wide" do not appear in my writing. I see a potential for PR firms to have interests aligned with Misplaced Pages's mission and contribute high quality photos, articles, and other items that will improve the quality of the encyclopedia. I'm coming into an executive role with my new firm, and so I'm not subject to pressure from clients, because our company's reputation and effectiveness mean more to us than a little money from a client who just wants to promote him/herself. I've contacted ArbCom and received advice from them about how to proceed. Would you be willing to work with me on this? One of two things will happen: Either my firm and Misplaced Pages will find a mutually beneficial situation that could become the model for future collaboration, or it will become clear that it is impossible for PR firms to edit neutrally, and thus this experiment will be clear and incontravertable evidence of the same.

To be honest, if this experiment shows that it is impossible for PR firms to work with Misplaced Pages (or that it requires too much AfD time or editing time), I'd like to know that, because I'll be leading the effort to detect them and ban them, even though I work for one. Why? Because I want the playing field to be level for all the firms. Either we all have a way to work transparently, or else none of use are allowed.

Please let me know your thoughts. ɳorɑfʈ 03:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

reply in progress., will take a day or so. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! ɳorɑfʈ 10:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, got your email, but have been unusually busy. Will get back to you when I get a free moment. Thanks. ɳorɑfʈ 08:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on a "high school" A7

As I am, of course, well aware following my RfA, CSD A7 explicitly exempts schools. Do you believe that it applies to "online" schools; specifically, Denver Online High School? I just removed the speedy deletion template, though I'm not really sure it qualifies for the exception. Looking at their webpage (just added as an EL to the article), it looks like they probably are real, and seem at least somewhat connected to the Denver public school system (though they also seem to charge fees, which confuses me). If the are operated by the State, then they probably even meet the general "All high schools are automatically notable" AfD exemption.

Obviously, the article needs clean-up, but I'd rather wait and see if it should even be an article before doing so. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed a public school, though private high schools are just as notable as public ones. (I don't see a mention of fees, but most public schools do collect some sort of fee, and almost all charge tuition to students from outside their district.) The article however was totally unacceptable--mainly devoted to the names of the teachers. I removed that, but there is still much necessary rewriting. The real question for an online school at this or any level would be whether it is actually a separate school, or merely a program--we cannot necessarily go by the name it calls itself. If a program, it would best go in the article for the Denver Board of Education. My feeling is that it an actual separate school, but for something like this, a 3rd party reference will be really helpful. What it clearly is not is a mere tutoring center or support facility, which are almost never notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That all sounds very reasonable to me; I figured erring on the side of caution (removing the A7) was the better choice. Thanks for the trimming; I'll go take a look and see if I can find any sort of third party sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Thank you for letting it stay;) Well,i have already been criticized by some that i categorize cemeteries/burial grounds by religion/denomination but it really helps people who are interested in genealogy,as most of the time the religious affiliation is related to ethnicity (Baltic Germans=Lutheran,Russians=Orthodox etc.) Most of those cemeteries in the West are non-denominational/non-sectarian or multi-confessional today but that was not the case before the WWII Evangelidis (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Notability of high schools

Hi -- I hope you have been well. I seem to recall, and have stated (or mis-stated, as the case may be) that I thought you may have said in the past that (verifiable) high schools are generally presumptively notable. But, in the event I've mis-spoken as to what you said, feel free to correct me. I made mention of my recollections at an AfD where I've not myself !voted (as of yet), here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mesivta Tiferes Yisroel. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

such is the accepted compromise: high schools have articles, elementary schools in the absence of special notability get merged. But the compromise , like all informal and formal Misplaced Pages rules, has effect only as long as people here want it to have effect. I think recent decisions have upheld this in general, but there are always one or two people who challenge it. Such is probably the case here,There may be other factors, though, which I mention them at the AfD. DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Jewellery

OK, I've restored. I suppose non-notable or essay/OR would have been better reasons, but if you think the editor can make something of it, that's fine with me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Re blp prod at Sulev Kannike

Hello DGG. Having read your statement above I'd like to point out that for one I see nothing wrong in prodding unsourced BLP articles and thus informing the author of the relevant WP policy – even though I could have searched for sources myself. That way the authors of such articles who are most often new to Misplaced Pages are told in a friendly but consequent way that there are certain standards to obey. By inserting missing sources myself and afterwards telling the author that such sourcing is actually required there is always the risk that new editors regard this as a free service and won't care too much about writing profound articles themselves. Moreover I like to think that I'm experienced enough as a WP editor to decide what to prod and what to accept without comment while patrolling new pages.

The real problem in this matter are automated scripts like Twinkle or Huggle that regularly keep missing non-standard sections like "Sources" or "External links" in BLP articles and slap a prod on it even though such articles may have valid sources. Regards, De728631 (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Response

1 I absolutely see a good deal wrong in BLP Prodding unsourced articles when the person is specified as a public figure of sufficient importance that they will have easily findable sources. (This man is Latvia's ambassador to NATO, & there were dozens of excellent sources under his name as given, in English, in Google News Archive, which is as easy as it gets in finding sources ) This is especially true because some admin feel they have no obligation to check , either, before deletion. This reduces the human work on BLP prod to the dimensions of two particularly dumb bots, checking an article for the presence of formal elements without reading it, let alone understanding it. That's fine for placing a notice; it is not fine for deletion. WP:Deletion Policy applies to all deletion procedures: deletion is the last resort. The very best alternative to deletion for unsourced articles is to source them, and everybody working here has a obligation to help in doing this at al least a little as occasion offers when they see an article, and as resources and time permits. I don't consider everyone has anything like the obligation to do this the way I do: it is the main thing I do here, and an important one of the purposes for which I joined in the first place was to improve WP's referencing; I have access to a little more resources than some people; I can work at least minimally in a number of languages; I have greater skill in using even elementary resources than most and certainly have greater patience in using then; and I have the librarian's ability to make an accurate guess whether or not sources are likely. An appropriate minimal effort anyone can do is looking in Google News Archive or whatever similar search engine might be appropriate under the name given--it's even built into the automated notice.The way I work on the problem BLPs:

In some fields I no longer attempt to source some fields because they interest me less, and a very large percentage of the unsourced articles in those fields are in fact unsustainable even if sourced: popular entertainment, and sports. At the start of BLPO prod i tried to do them all, but I found myself without time to do anything else.

People writing an unsourced bio are often here to add the one article with no intention of doing anything else. They;'re not even likely to see the notice, and if the person is important, but not very important, it offers our one practical chance to get the article . If someone looks like they intend to continue, or their edit history indicates they intend to continue, they need instruction. Instruction is best administered in a friend but firm manner, not by threatening people. The automatic template does an altogether wrong job of it--though it makes an attempt to be informal and positive,it is still obviously an automated notice,with the expected negative connotations, and people have learned to ignore them beyond grasping the general import--I doubt anyone ever reads it through. If I think it will be of any actual value, I leave a message explaining that while I did it, they must do it properly in the future, telling them what is needed, in terms focussing on their particular article to show I have indeed read it personally, and making it clear that otherwise the articles run a considerable risk of deletion otherwise--it seems to communicate properly about half the time, which is pretty good for any sort of notice. For sever cases I have something stronger, for example:

Advice and Warning

As the reviewing administrator for these deletions, I need to offer you some advice. We are very glad to have articles about footballers from all countries, but they MUST have references. If they have appeared in games on the highest level national league---which is the basic requirement for them to have articles in Misplaced Pages-- there should always be references in the relevant national newspapers --usually easily findable in Google News and Google News Archive. There should also be a discussion or at least a listing of them in the web site for their team, and a listing in the general football web sites. These references need to be added, and they need to be added at the very beginning.

Sometimes I have been able to check articles like these before deletion and add at least one necessary reference, but I cannot promise always to have the time to do so--and football is not one of the subjects in which I have the most personal interest. It is not my responsibility to do this, nor the responsibility of anyone here but yourself. If you can write the article in the first place , you surely have the references in front of you when you are doing so, in order to get the names right and add the key statistics. That's when to do it! It is unfair to expect others to fill in what you can do so easily. I expect that you will start doing this, otherwise you may find that you are wasting your efforts, because the articles will get deleted. I have other responsibilities, and it is taking too much of my available time here to do your work for you,when there are so many other things that need fixing. In particular, I am not going to work further on the currently nominated articles. If you want them kept, work on them yourself.

Sometimes it doesn't work and they continue. Then I'll give a formal 4th level warning, which usually stops them. If not, I have blocked if they add so many that it amounts to disruption.

2. I am also concerned with developing new editors and removing the barriers to increased participation. One of the foundation priorities this year, at general request, is increasing the number of editors, Not discouraging them at the initial entry is critically important--the foundation's research surveys as well as individual complaints have shown that having an article rejected is extremely likely to prevent any further attempt, no matter what reassuring messages are sent. It is unreasonable to expect most new editors to get everything right initially. Therefore they must be taught, but taught in such way that everything practical is done to get their articles improved if improvement is possible—and in cases where it is not, that personal non-threatening actually helpful advice is given. The existing BLP Prod process , and all other deletion processes, is neither friendly nor helpful. In cases where it appears an article is possible, the new editor needs help in doing it properly, not just a warning to do it. In cases where it appears the article is hopeless, the editor needs an explanation why--with respect to that particular article, not in general terms--and guidance in finding more useful work to do here,

I find, as do most teachers, that a very good way to provide help is by example. In case of unsourced articles, that means adding at least one reference and explaining that more are needed., and where to find them. Nobody can be expected to understand initially either why we need sources, or what we consider acceptable sources, especially for biographies. Those of us with experience here need to share it. This is a community project.

The problem is primarily the people here. We can expect bots to be stupid. DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Thanks a lot for explaining your thoughts on the BLP process. It seems that we have two oppoosing views on the benefits of templates here. Let me note that in my opinion the current BLP prod template message is by no means a threatening "warning" like the standard vandalism messages ("please stop or you will face consequences"). Instead the BLP prod message is a neutral notification that has even a disclaimer included not to take anything personal but to improve the article in question and how to do it. It has also an icon which makes it more noticeable than a text-only message written by an editor. Therefore I see it absolutely fit to serve as a helpful means in improving the skills of new editors. Of course we can address anyone without any templated messages but as you put it I mostly "find myself without time to do anything else." My approach is to mark problematic new articles while patrolling the new pages list and then leave the rest of the work to the experts and/or the author. Of course not without giving advice to the new editors but mostly in form of the standard template message. And I have in fact gotten feedback to various template messages where people asked for further guidance. That's the usual point where I start "personal" communication. Speedy deletion messages on the other hand are something else. E.g. for insignigicant bands or recordings I tend to add an explanation to the template message in the line of "WP has certain rules on the importance of musicians and albums. Please see WP:Music" etc. And from my experience this is either understood and people do come up with sources (of any quality) or they choose to ignore every communication. De728631 (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

In many respects we are both trying to do the same thing. & often use the same methods. We both do, yo often personalize the existing messages, which is a reasonable solution in many cases; I wish more people would do this, and what you say encourages me to try to personalize them more often--and to do it by shortening them--the longer the message, the less of it people read. Improved ways of communicating like sre important but are not what this discussion is basically about.

What I said I find myself without time to do, is to personally source all the new unsourced BLP articles--another order of magnitude entirely. The only good solution as we all agree is for people to source their own. Responsibility asides, they usually have the source in front of them at the time they write, for they usually add specific details that nobody really memorizes except when doing shameless autobio. Nobody else can match this later--what would take anyone else time to find, they have immediately. And even if they have only an inadequate source, it's at least a good starting point. Where I differ from you is in two areas fo emphasis:

First, we need not to reject articles on really important people, even if unsourced, but to source them. I usually patrol 24 to 48 hours before the ending time. The ed. has had 8 or 9 days, and if by that time they haven't done it I decide whether it's worth trying--which depends upon the stated importance. So you might have a point in giving them the window first--but this would only be so if all admins actually checked and sourced where important or necessary at the end; however, of the ones who patrol BLP prod, most do not--they work mechanically. using justifications such as yours. There's a level of importance where sI do not take the chance of that happening--where if I find an article on someone important enough at any point, I add at least a single decent source to keep the article alive. I do not want to miss such people: they're too important to our users. I yesterday added an article on an exceptionally distinguished member of the National Academy of Sciences who had received a major appointment, but nobody had written an article about. This does not surprise me any longer, but right after that I saw an article on BLP Prod about another member of the NAS reach the 8th day.

The 'second point is even more important--more critical than having or not having any article, is retaining a contributor. More basic even than educating them, is to keep them around long enough to be educated. Surveys have shown that most people who get a negative notice never return again, and I think it would almost as bad if we had the politest possible negative notices. This is spiraling us downhill into disaster--at least the disaster of stagnation, though we should have enough people to avoid total extinction. True, it's necessary to eliminate junk--but it is so much easier to remove junk than to retain a contributor. I've deleted 12,000 articles so far in 4 years as an admin, and saved only about 10% of that, while all that time I've been able to rescue at most 100 ,(about 1% of that number) of contributors, contributors whom other editors and admins have discouraged. I work in outreach also, but my chapter is happy when we can reach the goal of one new active contributor per meeting. And only a few percent of those who take classes in the Ambassador program continue, And that's with most teachers having their class write offline in order to avoid the negativity. Such is not a method of communal writing, and does not teach the wiki way way working, where the goal of communal writing is everyone who sees an article doing something to improve it, not just to tell someone else to improve it.

My priority is people: first the people already here, because being here we must cooperate, and second the newcomers, and only then articles and article content.I think for too many people its the other way round, that they think tolerating borderline articles to keep the contributors so they'll stay with us and write better articles to be improper. I must live with them here, because they are unfortunately a majority, no matter how destructive i think them. The hope is that new people will be increasing aware of this and dilute those. we won't be able to eliminate.

I accept there are more than one valid way to make an encyclopedia , and to look at articles. No one has to agree with my way, & I think none the less of them. But I do not accept working in a way hat discourages newcomers. for the sake of quality, which will eave us a nice clean fossil, and those who would do that I cannot agree with and I will try as hard as hard as i effectively can to diminish their influence. DGG ( talk ) 13:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

AFD

Any thoughts on the notability of Roy Eriksen? Loads of hits in google books. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Dr B, I know you've been around here long enough to know not to use WP:GHITS as an argument in a deletion discussion, and I'm sure you know PROF, ANYBIO, and GNG like the back of your hand. Also, you are more than capable of clicking a link, doing a news search, scholar search, etc., so why on earth wouldn't you actually offer an opinion with real supporting evidence? Being the author of books in itself doesn't demonstrate notability. _matic 00:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised, Bongo, that any editor who understood G Scholar would use the low number of hits there as an argument for deletion of anything in the humanities. I have almost never encountered a full professor in a major research university who was not found notable here. DGG ( talk ) 14:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it as an argument for deletion, but (as I intended to imply in my nominationcomment) a (weak) lack of argument for keeping. Indeed, the notability guidelines work this way—something affirmative fact is required to meet them (even the intrinsic ones—in which case it's simply a demonstration of inclusion within a class.

The career of the individual in question appears to have received little note in sources that are conveniently available to me and I haven't seen anyone here argue that other sources have identified more. Your opinion at the AfD was just that--an opinion, possibly—no, probably—with compelling reasoning based on guidelines, with consideration of specific accomplishments or publications behind. But such reasoning was not offered along with the opinion, so I'm not sure if it's just general feeling that someone who's been in the trenches for 20-odd years is notable, or if Agder is a "highly prestigious" award or if Early Modern Culture Online is a "major well-established academic journal" in the subject area, or what other considerations may be determinative. _matic 15:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

the determining factors in most non-ovious AfD discussions in any subject are opinions. The key words we use "substantial" "authority" " reliable" are all non-quatitative. Myself, I'd certainly be in favor of a more quantitative categorical approach--not in order to reach fairer results, but to avoid discussions over topics which could go either way. One of the traditional values of a reference source is consistency, both consistent level of writing and consistent coverage, and Misplaced Pages notoriously has neither. DGG ( talk ) 15:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The opinions are supposed to informed by verifiable facts (e.g., "editor of X") used in conjunction with interpretations of guidelines ("X is a major well-established journal"). Of course, whether X is a major well-established journal, or whether an individual's (verifiable) contributions to a field if inquiry have had a "significant impact" are opinions. Your own thought process would be useful to me, anyway, and I'm sure to anyone else who stops by the AfD. _matic 16:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Nova Science publishers

Could you please comment at WP:RSN#Communist crimes against humanity about Nova Publishers. TFD (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron/Self-assessment

Hello DGG - you may already be aware of this Foundation initiative, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. Since you are a long-standing member of the Article Rescue Squadron and I don't think I'm the only one who'd like to hear your thoughts about it. Novickas (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Sharon Gaber

DGG, unless I'm wrong, I don't think there is any kind of inherent notability in being a provost, and thus I don't see a credible claim to notability. If I am wrong, please point me in the right direction. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not say the person is notable: I said there is a sufficient claim to importance to pass A7, which is much less than notability. I think and continue to think that anyone who has a professorial rank or has written a non-self published book has some plausible claim to importance, whether or not they are actually notable being another question. (In contrast to, say, to some who asserts being a graduate student, which no reasonable person could think a claim to importance) Now, since such an appointment at most places is not a routine job, is the chief academic officer (which means they make the final decisions on new faculty appointments and funding and tenure), and normally goes to a senior full professor, one whom the others will respect enough to accept the decisions. At a research university like Arkansas, I'd say, that if investigated, there's a decent chance the person like any full professor will actually be notable through their academic work, though that's not at all a certainty, and needs to be shown. I'd never argue for keeping on such grounds, but it does pass a7. I suggest giving the author some time to find that information, before starting the AfD. I left a pretty clear note about the need for it. I could look myself, and if necessary, I will do so, but most of the time in such cases the ed. does the job themselves--they just need to be told what is required. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not about to start an AfD. I was tempted to use BLPPROD, but decided it was more fun to find some verification. Problem is, it's another one of those biographies that is a drag to put together from what meager sources an outsider can find, coupled with all the usual academic problems (database access, finding published works and reviews thereof). So I'm going to leave it be; with the one reference I added it won't be prodded. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite used to fleshing these out--I do two or three a week, and I wlll not forget to go back to this one. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Chinmaya.328

Thanks for your comments on User talk:Chinmaya.328 (though I'm not certain the editor even knows of the existence of talk pages). The user's other article, Themis Medicare, reminded me exactly of your recent comments on Wales's talk page about identifying when a PR firm has written something...a list of milestones, reference to the company being first at numerous things, etc. As a side note, I don't know (and maybe you don't want to make public) how your conversations with NoRaft went, but I support the idea of working with paid editors, not just blanket forbidding them (since we can't even do that successfully anyway). I honestly don't get why Jimbo thinks that such involvement is now and has always been forbidden and everyone knows that and no one disagrees. I totally accept that he opposes it, and even accept the idea that he/WMF can make a fiat rule against it, just not his idea that there is an obvious and overwhelming consensus that agrees with him. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that one--in fact, I would have listed it for deletion except that I saw you had worked on it. It's large enough that it might be notable, but whether I feel like doing the work for an article like that depends upon the factors of how important the company is & my opinion of the editor's good faith. I've had no conversations with NoRaft. I sent him an email, suggesting he privately & confidentially tell me who he is, & what articles he had written, but had no response. I will not do something potentially problematic with someone who hides his identity from me, any more than I go down dark alleys with masked strangers. I can see his problem, though--he's promised his clients confidentiality, and by our own rules I can't insist he tell me. Therefore, I shall do as always: any article he or anyone known or unknown asks me to look at on-wiki, I will look at and give my opinion and advice, on-wiki. I'll talk with even masked strangers in bright lit public places. I do not think Jimbo's ruling has literal consensus, but is rather one of the pious statements that nobody will openly challenge, but nobody will actually follow. It is even contradicted by his own statement of our basic policy, that anyone can edit. Anonymity has its benefits, but also its problems, and can lead to such paradoxes. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Notability of books

I would be glad of your advice on assessing notability of books. New user Demossoft (talk · contribs) has input a string of articles about books by a Lebanese author, Lina Murr Nehmé:

• 1453, Mahomet II impose le Schisme Orthodoxe (Worldcat shows it in 18 + 12 + 10 = 40 libraries)
• Baalbek, Monument Phenicien (5 libraries)
• La Douloureuse Passion de Jésus-Christ (5 libraries) (she provided historical notes)
• Prophéties de la Bible pour Le Liban Moderne (Arabic version in 1 library)
• Le Liban assassiné, lettre ouverte à Monsieur Sarkozy (not in Worldcat)
• Les otages libanais dans les prisons syriennes, jusqu'à quand? (not in Worldcat)

I have told him about WP:BK and about COI; others have PRODded two of the books, and Demossoft removed the PRODs with (not unreasonable) requests for more time.

The suspicion of COI and promotion makes me want to look hard at notability. Figures to the right are the number of libraries shown in Worldcat as holding the book. On that basis, the first passes the "dozen libraries" threshold in WP:BK#Criteria, but the rest do not. Depending on whether more references are produced, I am considering an AfD for all the books except the first. My questions are:

• Is the Worldcat library count the right measure to use against the WP:BK threshold?
• Any other ways to assess them, bearing in mind that they are in French?

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

As a practical matter, she is perhaps notable as an author, since two of her books are in many but not all of the major French university libraries, so an article on her and a merge seems reasonable. There's even an English language source, . I agree with you the writing articles for even the really minor works indicates a lack of understanding of Misplaced Pages. Normally people even with COI either write the author article first, or an article on one of the books, usually the most recent. As for library holdings, Worldcat gives the same as the French university Union Catalog, sudoc, ; I am not aware of any union catalog for French public libraries, and these are in any case, not the sort of books one would expect to find there, I often look for an additional indication of the importance of French academic books from German academic library holdings, which are more likely to do well than the US. I use the superlative German-based international union catalog, Karlsruhe Virtual Catalog KVK , which has an English interface, . In this instance, almost none of her books are present there. I think however a thorough search would probably find reviews of her books--I think a thorough search would find reviews of essentially all academic books from major publishers, and if we took BOOKS literally every notable author would have some or all of their books separately notable, as would many non-notable authors. I just thought of a way to summarize my view of that guideline: books, as well as sports and popular entertainment, are among the things over-covered by the press, especially the coverage of academic books by academic journals, and so the GNG for these subjects is way too broad. To the extent Misplaced Pages:Notability (books) incorporates it as criterion 1, it is way too broad. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I shall try to explain things to the author. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

See a review of her Mahomet book on a website, including a short interview with the author. This makes the thesis of the book look interesting although possibly fringe. The book is translated into both English and Arabic, which suggests there is a publisher who thinks the book will find readers. Surely there are reviews by historians if anybody knows how to find them. Not sure if this onefineart.com web site is a reliable source for anything but it could be an external link. Combining these separate articles on the books into one article on the author is probably best until the additional sources are found. The publisher of the Mahomet book, Francois-Xavier de Guibert, looks to be a mainstream French publisher. they are described as a Christian publisher in their small article on the French Misplaced Pages: fr:Éditions François-Xavier de Guibert. EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree they're a mainstream publisher. As I cannot source by myself everything submitted to Misplaced Pages I tend to work on sourcing the ones I think most notable/important/encyclodia-worthy, or articles where interesting questions are raised in the AfD. And I regret to say I no longer have remote access to most of the humanities databases, so I need to be even more selective. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

If you did have access, what humanities database would you check? EdJohnston (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

=

Investigative Newsource help

Hello, DGG... thank for your input on the Investigative Newsource page. I have cleaned up some minor formatting errors and am now looking at the formatting guidelines page for further information. I am new to formatting, so I will definitely ask for assistance if I hit a hurdle. Also, working on getting third-party information to increase the verifiability of the page. Again, thank you for your help :) Coconnel51 (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Thanks for your efforts to preserve articles about notable topics. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

CSD Nominations

Hey, thanks again for pointing those things out, I still have got couple of questions, is there anyway we can get in touch Live ?? any IRC channel or gtalk or facebook or anything ?? Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

let's try email, at least first. You can email me from the link in the toolbox on the left. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I did read WP:CSD and got some idea cleared about few things, also wanted to ask you about these SkinnyGuyy, Nicholas_Crosby,Victor_Gurley_Jr and Sunil_Hirani. Are the CSD nominations for these alright or some thing should still be changed ?? Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I cannot judge Skinny Guy. The assertion he received airplay is possibly a good faith statement of importance, but I don't know how credible it is. I have too little understanding of the subject to tell, and so I leave it to other admins to take responsibility for either deleting or de-speedying articles like this. Nicholas Crosby is a classic A7, there is no credible assertion of importance--but it was tagged G11, which does not really apply very closely--the subject just wants to express his own sense of his own importance. Many people confuse us with Facebook, and don't realize we're an encyclopedia, and this needs to be explained to them. I deleted the article and shall leave a note. Victor Gurley Jr. is interesting: the claim was that "Gurley Jr. had the potential to be a superstar athlete but was plauged by a season ending knee injury, which lead to the end of his career as a college football player" and the article was submitted by his college's athletic department. I do not think any competent PR staff can really believe that this is enough for an encyclopedia. I will need to follow up to make sure there are no other such articles from that source. If it had talked instead about a possible brilliant high school career, I would have considered it a credible claim, though not enough to meet actual notability. Possibly he was, but the article did not say so and the likelihood of an acceptable article is too small to be worth the checking. Sunil Hirani was tagged as G11, but I declined to delete it, and said "factual, not entirely promotional, rewritable by normal editing if he is notable, which is possible. If doubted, send to AfD" He's given as head of a $635 million company, which might well be notable. The article had a ref. from Crain's Under 40, which is a decent 3rd party source, though a little based on press releases and only partial proof of notability. The article simply described his career in purely factual neutral language. It was written somewhat in the style of a press release, using his full name too often, but that is easily fixable. If it had described without any specifics his superlative merits, but no actual facts, it would have met G11, because that would take total rewriting, not normal editing.

So you see that each one of these is worth some thought and some comment. Speedy is for what is incontestable, but almost always it takes a little consideration before deciding that. With experience it's possible to make a pretty accurate guess, and after ten thousand of these I can usually quickly figure it out--but there's always some reasoning that I can explain, and likewise any admin should be able to--we must be able to explain, because the contributors of these articles often question us, and we must at least convince them we're not wholly irrational or prejudiced, unlike what they often think.

The way I personally think of A7 is that the importance or significance referred to in A7 is basically any importance that any one in good faith would think makes the subject suitable for an encyclopedia--what I often call " encyclopedic importance". For example, to say someone is mayor of a small village is a good faith claim, and does not qualify for A7, but for prod--the new editor is simply not aware that we do not consider it sufficient. The claim that the subject is the best student in his junior high school is not an adequate claim--everyone even at that age ought to know that no possible encyclopedia would include junior high school valedictorians (& actually it seems most such articles are submitted by the parents, who certainly ought to know.) There are some admins who consider credible some assertions that I do not, and vice-versa, but this rarely causes actual problems because almost always such borderline cases would inevitably be deleted. Sometimes, of course, I and all other admins who are at all active here do make mistakes in both directions, and when asked, we correct them. Sometimes an admin has idiosyncratic views. If it starts affecting articles that might actually make it, it will be explained to them at deletion review, and they almost always understand after a few reversals.

G11, promotional, is trickier, because what would constitute fundamental rewriting is hard to say. I will sometimes go beyond that if I think the subject worth the trouble, but nobody is expected to. However, if it can be cured by simple deletion or stubbification, then it's not a speedy. Admins differ greatly in how they interpret this, and I would only rarely say that someone who made the opposite decision as I was definitely wrong. Occasionally I'll even rewrite copyvio from scratch if I think the subject is really important, but that takes serious work--if I see one and do not want to do the work, or do not have time to, then it must be deleted. Not all that many admins do that, but I enjoy actually writing once in a while. If I think the subject has potential, I'll explain to the contributor what they would need to do, and suggest they try again--and I hope any good admin would do so also, not just do the deletion. Sometimes the person who placed the tag explains well enough, beyond the over-general and rather useless advice in the standard tags, but I'll often add my confirmation, to reinforce the message. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I guess its time now to delete Hayagriva_Madhava_Temple since it clearly violates WP:G12 also no one is editing that page since its creation. Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag removals

Hi DGG... perhaps I'm being overly sensitive but:

1. "I and other admins" must be untrue since that suggests three or more removals, when I only placed two speedy deletion tags.
2. I have read WP:CSD on several occasions and have re-read it now. While it mentions the criteria for speedy deletion, it doesn't mention the criteria for tagging something as SD. There is a short outline of what to tag as such on WP:NPP but does not mention any specific procedures. In particular, it does not state that it is required "that when you do place a speedy or other deletion tag, you indicate this in the article summary." However, I will do so in the future.
3. "president of a major company" - there is no article for that company on WP and I was also unable to find any reference to it via a major search engine.

On the other hand, I accept that being head of a major bureau of a major newspaper is clearly indication of importance and I was hasty in marking that article for speedy deletion.

New page patrolling is not the most interesting part of editing on WP - although occasionally I learn something interesting from new articles - but it is absolutely necessary. The tone of your note is a little abrasive, as though I'm trying to damage your website. Perhaps a little encouragement for people doing thankless tasks might not go amiss.

Incidentally, I'm never sure whether to respond to a comment on my talk page directly after the comment or on the commenter's own talk. Which is best?

FunkyCanute (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:CSD, section 1, 2nd paragraph.

"Immediately following each criterion below is a list of templates used to mark pages or media file for speedy deletion under the criterion being used. In order to alert administrators of the nomination, place the relevant speedy deletion template at the top of the page or media file you are nominating (within <noinclude>…</noinclude> if nominating a Template: page). Please be sure to supply an edit summary that mentions that the page is being nominated for speedy deletion. All of the speedy deletion templates are named as "db-X" with "db" standing for "delete because". A list of the "db-X" templates can be found at Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion/Deletion templates."

I added the boldface., Perhaps we should make it more prominent in the text, and say it on Deletion Policy elsewhere. I understand "be sure to" as meaning "it is required to". That wording can if necessary be clarified. And yes, it's a problem all over Misplaced Pages finding procedures and policies because they are spread out in multiple places.

I don't own speedy. No one admin does most of it. Discussions about it go on WT:Speedy, where you will see the general trend is towards making the requirements narrower, with which I heartily agree. An article wrongly deleted at a speedy can in principle be restored, but it almost always costs us both the article and the editor. Someone else may eventually write the article, but an editor who has a bad experience here will discourage others from even starting. An article not immediately deleted by speedy, will be deleted or fixed by prod or AfD, and if kept by these processes by chance or error, will have attracted enough visibility that someone will get back to it.

NPP is interesting, but difficult. The job of NPP is not just to remove junk, but to remove hopeless junk, nominate the dubious for prod or AfD, tag everything that needs fixing later, and explain clearly and personally to new editors who show any signs of becoming useful what they ought to be doing--not just posting the standard messages, which are over-detailed and non-specific. How quick one can go depends on what one works on. I can do one a minute if it's stuff that I don't have to write personalized messages for or carefully check contribution histories, or confirm in google, but anything else takes longer. I do a little sometimes at the end of the day to keep in touch with the incoming stream, and I've learned to do only a few at a time because otherwise the amount of trash inclines me to start deleting too much. I normally tag, not immediately delete, & I think it should be the rule for admins, but since it still isn't I do sometimes just remove. But normally I find problems in patrolling by catching the incorrect deletion tags. I became an admin quite specifically to do this, so I could check on what had been deleted also, as well as dispose of somethings quickly.

I think my message was terse, but neither rude nor condescending. Part of the terseness was due to just the effect I mentioned above in patrolling--I had previously dealt with a person doing considerably more errors, and it affected the way I was thinking. And I was influenced by the nuisance of having to check everything you edited to see the ones that were deletion tags, because of the lack of edit summaries. Anyone else who sees this is welcome to check & correct me on this.

as for the articles, I probably should have said, head of a possibly major company, going by reported size. "possibly" is enough to defeat speedy. And true, I should have said me and another admin. Usually when I comment it's with >2, so I just routinely typed it. It's not a prebuilt message, but my brain can work a little too much on internal automatic pilot without outside devices to accentuate it.

I probably should routinely say to answer on my talk page. Like many who have been here a while, my watchlist is too long to be useful. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for response. Appreciate the clarifications. FunkyCanute (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure I've seen you reference this essay

WP:TALKINGSOFASTNOBODYCANHEARYOU. Is my memory that faulty? I can't find it, and it's possible the syntax isn't precise. Did you use this a sort of irony? I seem to remember you used the link to represent bullying behaviors. I'm seeing one such user who seems to be wanting to turn the entire AfD process on its head by using such a technique. BusterD (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have sometimes used pseudo-links like these as a statement for their own sake, without writing an actual essay. I remember saying something like this, but I can't find it. I think this one was TALKINGSOMUCH... -- but I can't find it either. As for the problem, I've commented pretty extensively at AN/I: , and will comment at the RfC also, But please don't confuse the reasonable message, with which I am in agreement -- that Deletion Policy is overbalanced towards deletion, and one step towards rebalancing it would be to require some version of WP:BEFORE -- with the unreasonable way it is being over-expressed. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, David. I was a debater in school before "talking so fast" became the current style. I feel anything which games the system deserves appropriate response in order to keep the system sound. I appreciate your valid concern about deletion procedures being over-weighted toward one outcome. Thanks for your valuable comments in those forums. Be well. BusterD (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, I had forgotten that context. And so was I,in college--a very valuable experience, especially in facilitating the sort of intercampus experiences only the athletic teams otherwise gave occasion for. But the stimulus is interesting: if I take a turn at NPP, the amount of junk turns me for a while into a deletionist before I catch myself and stop being so unfriendly to all the newcomers. If I take a look at AfD, the number of unwarranted nominations makes me want to give a similarly snappy and unjust response to all of them, with the less than rational thought that if I argue against all of them, maybe there's a chance the good ones will make it. Several good inclusionists have run into trouble here falling into such temptation. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Military Families Speak Out

hello my name is Brendan and i am attending SCSU, I need a mentor and i would be very appreciative if you could help me in this arena. i am writing about Military Families Speak Out, a program dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan soldiers families. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Careyb2 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I gather the assignment is improving the existing article, which is much too promotional and does not have a NPOV. I've made some specific criticisms of it on the article talk p. Talk:Military Families Speak Out. If the question is how to proceed, I would first practice basic editing skills by removing words and phrases which do not belong or need to be replaced with more objective language. Then, I would look for references and incorporate them. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Autobio

We have an AFD of Adam Taubitz, started as an autobio. Normally I'd have speedy tagged it but actually there appears to evidence he meets requirements. Your thoughts please.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

doesn't matter who started it, since any person with a chair in the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra is notable, and he's head of the section. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

BLP Youtube personalities

Hey, am back with query once again, are youtube personalities notable enough to get on WP ? Please help me out over here GloZell_Green and check this message. Thanks. Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

it depends , as always, on references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. Almost always all material about them is on the internet in the form of blogs of some sort; the question is then what sort of blogs count as reliable for the purposes of notability. In the past, Misplaced Pages has been notably restrictive in this, but as more and more other responsible sources appear in this format, things are changing. There's a subsidiary question in each particular case of whether the coverage in the references is substantial, but that's essentially the same question as with references in any media, and amounts to a question of judgement. Such judgements can depend not on the merits but on what one wishes to prove, since often each position can be justified. The prevailing attitude, which to some measure I share, is extreme skepticism. I summarize it by saying that for someone to be notable, they have to have actually done something notable -- in the ordinary meaning of the word.

but this case is simple with respect to notability: the deleted article on Green had no third party sources whatsoever. I doubt anyone who understands Misplaced Pages would support it at an AfD unless better sources could be found. However, it was deleted via A7, and the criterion for A7 is not notability, nor is it whether the article would be accepted into Misplaced Pages, but some reasonable indication or claim of importance. The question is whether the claims there are such. I consider them borderline. The person certainly thinks what they've done is important. I do not, but I can recognize that a person might think so in good faith. Myself, I might or might not have A7'd. Given that I know I have a prejudice against such careers, I might have passed on it & let some other admin decide. In any case, I have a standard practice for a questioned A7 speedy like this: first I give the fairest advice I can, which in this case is that without real sources it will surely be rejected in its present form, so it would be best to submit it again once there are sources; and then, if the person still wants me to, I undelete and send it to AfD (they rarely do, if I give the advice clearly enough). It's easier than arguing. If I was right, it'll be deleted, and there will be grounds for a G4 in case of the almost inevitable re-creation. (The only problem is that sometimes it might not be a good faith article, in which case the subject deserves to be protected against the negative comments at AfD. That's not the case here--they want the publicity. The previous speedy of a much sketchier version was deleted on A7 and G11, something I also do a good deal. I might have done that here.)

The case is not helped , of course, by the comparison that's made to Jenna Marbles, which has several good third party sources, and would almost certainly pass AfD. When someone says , but X has an article, there are three possibilities. Most commonly, X is famous, and then almost always the proposed subject is hopelessly non-notable & the claim is absurd—naïve but well-meaning editors argue this a lot, often for self-published authors. Also common, is that X is in fact borderline notable at best, and quite possibly should be deleted also—spammers often use this argument & there's an obvious course to follow, which usually stops their questioning, though it will hardly satisfy them. But, rarely, it is a reasonable protest: either we are generally inconsistent in the area involved, in which case it should go to AfD, to take its chances in the coin toss, or there actually was an error in evaluating X. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That was a nice thing you did

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For taking the time and trouble to explain to Frwrldpce why his articles were deleted. Many reviewing admins would just have hit the delete button and been done with it, but you went the extra mile. Yunshui (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For finding a way to clearly and concisely explain what was to some invisible and to others so obvious that they couldn't find the words on Wikipedia_talk:Civility. causa sui (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Arts Tasmania

Hey, just a note to say that I have blocked this person. Their username was a violation and reviewing their use of article space and userspace it seemed apparant that they weren't looking to contribute anything positive to the project. However, I may be wrong and feel free to shoot me for it. Panyd 02:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There is some dispute about it; myself, I see no reason to block unless the contributor insists on using his original user name, which was not the case; others however disagree, and block as a matter of course. I deal with the disagreement about the proper steps to take by not routinely unblocking if another admin has blocked, and hope similarly that nobody will block if I decide not to, unless of course the situation deteriorates. Normally, if I do not block when I delete the page and give a warning--which i customarily call either "explanation" or "advice", it is because I do not intend to block, not because i have simp-ly forgotten. Ideally, just as I do not interfere with another admins blocks, I similarly expect not to have someone blocked after I have considered the situation and decided not to block. But perhaps that's not clear, and in such cases, I probably would do better to leave an explicit note. But not a big deal either way--I generally do not complain or necessarily notice when another admin reverts me, explicitly or implicitly--there's too much else to do

However, what I quite frankly consider wrong about what you did--and some other admins do it also--including one or two of my best friends here, so please do not take it personally--is to hard block in these situations. A person naïvely introduces a COI promotional article, but that does not necessarily mean they are incapable of doing one properly. Most of our articles about organizations are in fact written originally by people with some degree of COI, where the article is either fixed, or the person has learned to do it properly. Many do not learn, but some do. The ones who are too arrogant or too foolish to learn, get blocked, and I have no hesitation in doing it--even hard-block, if they have used sockpuppets. After all, our standard advice to people using improper usernames is to abandon them and use a proper name, and how are they to do it if their ip is also blocked? we normally give people second chances--sometimes even third and fourth chances also. It is better to have to go back and be more sever after initially not being severe, than to be unreasonably severe to a new editor.

And there is something else: it is generally considered incorrect to also block the talk page, except for people who abuse it, and there were no signs this person did.

So I think it is appropriate to change those two settings. In order to avoid confusing the user, I shall do so now; I doubt you will disagree, but if you do, we can discuss it. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

yes, you got it right. Sorry for the confusion. DGG ( talk ) 14:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

DGG, did you mean to block account creation? I can't tell if that was a mistake, or intentional, so I won't change it myself. I didn't see the discussion above, so I left a redundant note on Panyd's talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, upon re-reading your comments above, I'm fairly confident you were not trying to prevent them from creating a new account, so I'm going to change that setting. My apologies if I misunderstood. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you

Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Open Biology journal

Your edit of August 14 creates a self link within the Royal Society page. I don't recall how this is normally addressed -- maybe unlink the name until a free-standing article is justified? Technically, the journal has begun publication. Its first and only article appeared in September: Glover D, Holt C, Johnson L, Parham P. 2011 Introducing Open Biology. Open Biol 1: 110001. DOI link. More info at Talk:Open Biology#First article has appeared. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

That isn't exactly an article, just an editorial statement of purpose. The simplest thing to do is to leave it alone a little longer. This was a compromise: my own opinion remains that a journal from the RS is notable the day it's announced--is notable even if it ends up not being published, I'll check again to see if there are some 3rd party refs yet, to satisfy those who think they are essential. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

uw templates

FYI. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you and I with our combined experience could go a long way to help develop this. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ping about Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject user warnings/Testing

Hi! If you still have suggestions for any of the 9 listed as "in-progress" at WP:UWTEST, please drop a note on the talk page for that template. We're going to start the new test now and would rather not change the templates in the middle, but it's easy to do a new test or simply incorporate changes afterward, since all we need is a week or so of data. I'm interested to see what you'd like to do, because my feeling is "the shorter the better" on these warnings. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

List of fictional universes

Your comments at the 2007 AfD for this article were cogent - you pointed out that a category can't provide any context, but this list can. The concerns about it being poorly defined were never addressed, and the article is really a mess; it's completely unsourced and includes many entries that aren't clearly fictional universi at all. Could you help establish some criteria for what belongs? I seem to be the only one participating on the talk page recently, and I think you have the know-how to point me in the right direction for article improvement.--~TPW 13:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll assume you have no interest, or no time, else you would have responded by now one way or the other. Thank you anyway.--~TPW 15:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

quite the opposite. How to do this coherently is a complicated problem, and I started thinking about it yesterday and decided to ask some advice of some non-WP friends also. I will try to comment by tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

University of Toronto Misplaced Pages's Canada Education Program Help

Hello Mr. Goodman, My name is Matthew and I am a student in the Master's of Information program at the University of Toronto in the Knowledge and Information in Society course. I found your profile on the online ambassador page which our instructor directed us to. We had to choose an article and contribute an edit to it. I chose information infrastructure and added some sections to the article. I would be grateful, if you could take a look at it and offer some suggestions, because I am new to Misplaced Pages.

Thank you, Matthew In4matt (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I will get there tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I'm looking forward to reading your suggestions, In4matt (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for checking the article. I'm going to incorporate your suggestions into the article. In4matt (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Why the deletion of Lite Airways?

Though it is a planned airline, it will be launched soon. Hence, it's notability as an article.

bedcrawl 16:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

once it does start operating , it is likely to be important; at that point, if you have substantial sources for it -- not a mere routine statement about transfer of ownership--then you can write an article. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ben Federman article

Hi DGG, thanks so much for your advice on the Ben Federman article. I always appreciate feedback that helps me improve my editing. If you don't mind, I had a few questions.

Question about streamlining

Per your advice, I tried to cut any facts that seemed both off topic and positive. I also tried to cut quotes so it wouldn't seem like it was giving undue weight to the positive. But I'll admit, I'm not so great at streamlining intuitively, which makes your advice about the quotes doubly helpful. My method of contributing usually involves binge research and going crazy with citations. Sometimes I feel I verge on adding too much of what I've discovered, and then get too attached to a first draft to really know what to cut out.

I'm sure you're busy and so I hate to ask, but I could I lure you into returning to the page to remove any information that you feel is extraneous? It would give me a chance to analyze your instinct for inclusion, and hopefully help me learn something I can apply to my future contributions.

Basically when writing a page for an entrepreneur type, I'm not sure where to draw the line on company details. Part of my brain argues that it helps the reader understand why the person is notable, while the other part of my brain argues it seems only tangentially related. For a specific example, I'm not sure if the quote in the Octagon commerce section that says "Instead of using third-party advertising on his sites...rely solely on viral publicity" is too off topic for a biography or not.)

Request for review

After your tags I tried to improve the page as best I could, and am proud to say I think it meets all the Misplaced Pages guidelines at least I'm aware of (proper third-party citations, neutral and original wording, all standard sections, infobox, proper lead, etc.)

However, I don't feel comfortable removing the tags myself because they are largely a critique of my contributions. Do you mind if I ask; could you be the page's angel of sorts and review the entry again? I was hoping you could either find it satisfactory and remove the tags, could make the changes you think will bring it up to par, or could let me know what else you think needs to be done. It's pretty complete already, so I doubt it would take long.

At some point, my goal on Misplaced Pages is to have an article nominated to "good status," so I tried to add the page with that in mind. Having an administrator look it over and actually give it a critical, constructive edit would make me so very happy.

Head ups, I suppose I do have a bias on this topic; I use Federman's website regularly, and I thought he seemed like a neat guy when I was doing research (being a tepid fan counts as a sort of bias, right?). But my goal is honestly to have it 100% neutral, so anything I can do to get it there, I'll do in a heartbeat.

Thanks! Richardo42 (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

One thing you could do to make it look less promotional, is to remove most of the "Friedman" and replace it with "he" or "his"

Another thing, is to look at each sentence and see if there are any words you can eliminate without affecting the meaning. : e.g. replace "Federman is known for frequently interacting with customers via ..." with "He interacts with customers on ..." or, at age 18" with "at 18"

A more general problem is the discussion of what he only plans to do. I read such statements as promotional.

Since he's a businessman, perhaps a different picture would be appropriate: the picture should relate to his primary activity, which is not rowing a boat.

And if you're looking for a GA, you might have more success with his brother Eliyahu Federman, who has a public career. His picture is, btw, an example of what I mean by an appropriate picture: informal, but showing him doing what he's known for. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

After you've done these, I'll take another look. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I went ahead and tried to incorporate what you said. I think it did tone it down a lot. I figure I'll hold off on a picture until I can find one more appropriate. I'll probably consider the brother as my next pet project, his activism seems interesting.

Ben Federman (Revision history / previous edit) Richardo42 (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi DGG, hope you had a good weekend. Sorry to prod, but by chance do you have a minute to look over the new Federman update? Richardo42 (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll get there today. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It needed some cutting. If you don't see the purpose of my cuts, ask me. I may do some more--it still sounds too much like an inspirational biography. But, looking at it, you might as well put back the picture. I give no guarantee the article will stay in Misplaced Pages, of course; I'm not going to nominate it for deletion, but anyone else can & I won't be the one who decides. DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, understood. I looked through the changes and see why you did each one; I agree with them. Thanks for taking the time to help me understand. While I'm not quite sure how to scrub out the facts to seem less inspirational, I guess if I find some well-sourced dirt on him I'll add a controversy section or something. I'll keep my eyes open. At some point I'd still like to try this one for GA, so I hope you don't mind if I removed the maintenance tags. Now that you've given it your knowing eye, I feel pretty confident it's squeaky awesome :D Richardo42 (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(also, I hope you don't mind if I archive this conversation on my talk page as well - but I'll consider this the place for conversation) 01:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

it's not a question of adding negative information, but of general tone. The one specific sentence I have remaining doubts about is the Facebook page; this is pretty standard for many businesses. But it's ok to remove the tags. Now, I have no actual authority here on smatters of content beyond that of any other editor, and if anyone is unhappy with the result, they can add the tags back--if they do, please don't remove them unilaterally. They can also make what changes they see fit, and if they do , consider whether they might have merit. It's hard to judge one's own work, and that also applies to my ability to judge the adequacy of my editing. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding confrontation on two articles.

I have a favor to ask, if you can, please look at two articles, Roc Nation singles discography and Roc Nation albums discography. I have several concerns about the articles, but in particular, the article creator has created text boxes with colors matching the logo of the company, and when I have attempted to discuss this with the individual, it is easy to see they are rapidly becoming confrontational (talk pages). Dealing with controntational people is not something I am good at. The editor in question, User:MarkMysoe has only been here a month (although he has been quite busy) so may not be as familiar with MOS issues. It's obvious the guy wants to contribute and most of his work is quite good (refs, etc), but it would be more helpful if he did so in a consistent way. Again, I'm aware that I can appear confrontational at times, so this would best be handled by someone like yourself with a more balanced way of expressing themselves. If you can, please do. If you would rather not, I understand. Just let me know and I will ask another admin. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

if I need to re-visit, let me know. I consider it pure promotionalism, which we do not tolerate. DGG ( talk ) 12:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, will do. I appreciate you taking the time. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Follow up issue - He has come around on the articles (and I believe in acting in good faith), and has done some of the work (the info box is still red and black), but now he believes that the template can still be in the black and red because other templates also use bold colors. (I changed, he reverted, I've left it alone.) I'm not an expert on WP:ACCESS or promotional colors, etc. Your input on the input boxes and the template would be helpful. WP:ACCESS is the primary policy issue, but I agree with you that it appears to be promotional when you do that, for a team or a company. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

we standardize template colors. I will revert. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Barbette Spaeth

I wonder if Barbette Spaeth, associate professor of classics at William and Mary College, is notable enough for inclusion per WP:PROF. I have created a user sandbox space for a potential article. Her name links to dozens of WP articles. Her treatise on Ceres has been cited copiously. What do you think? Bearian (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

borderline: it's her only book, and was based on her doctoral thesis. , However, she does seem a specialist on that particular subject. There are probably multiple reviews of her book, which would help. If any of them specifically called her an expert it would surely help. . DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, exactly the input I needed. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wojciech Nawrocki

FYI, since you were involved in removing the prod on it in the recent past. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Stubs

You contributed to a recent discussion about an editor who was creating many stubs. The conclusion was that this was just a case of a prolific editor, with no violation of policy. There remains a question about whether very small stubs are useful, regardless of how they are created. You may want to contribute to the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Stub#Minimum size. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The making of stubs should be actively encouraged, The principles are building the web, and that Misplaced Pages is supposed to be an encyclopedia --even incomplete information is useful, as long as it is verifiable. (I would not go so far as to say that is must be actually required, since we are all volunteers. I myself make them when occasion offers, though it is not what choose to primarily do--though I sometimes think I should be doing otherwise, and making as many as possible on people whom I know to be notable where I have the sources., such as the many thousands of members of national academies who do not yet have articles. If I did not have to patrol speedy and prod to rescue new editors from unwarranted deletions of fixable articles, I would do this.)

I do not consider it needs discussion. (though I nonetheless did join the discussion) Anyone opposed to it does not believe in the principle of a comprehensive encyclopedia & we are therefore not working on the same project. I might want to persuade them to work on Misplaced Pages rather than on their own concept of what we should instead be doing, but I know it to be hopeless. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Up for deletion, again.

Social impact of thong underwear is up for deletion (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Social impact of thong underwear) again. Will you take a look? Aditya 05:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Without specific reference to anyone, there can be discomfort with discussion of sexual topics in a formal setting, even by those who are perfectly comfortable with such material in other settings. It;s an understandable attitude, but not appropriate here. DGG ( talk ) 14:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Barica Marentič Požarnik

She is a retired (emer.?) Slovenian professor, whom I think passes WP:PROFESSOR, but not editors agree with this new article. After having you wikislap me a couple of times over the years at AFD for professors (deservedly, I might add), I've learned a little about the criteria. Her publications have been cited over 100 times, (106 hits for her name in quotes at scholar.google.com but it isn't in English, and even if it was, I'm not an academic so it is a bit over my head. This looks right up your alley. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

unfortunately, the page is an exact copy of her English cv at http://baricamarentic.wordpress.com/cv/english/ , so I had to delete it as a copyvio. I willl make some suggestions for what would be needed to rewrite it at User talk:Qrof. The books are more likely to prove notability than the articles. DGG ( talk ) 15:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good catch. I figured since she had been cited so many times, and had such a long career, there had to be some notability there. I didn't think to check for copy vio, guess I learned something today. Thanks for following up. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

anything written in a format that might be a CV is worth checking for copyvio, because most of the time it is, and for academics, they are almost always on line. DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted File Request

Dear DGG,

Thank you for your advice regarding the deletion of my submission, "Mathew D. McCubbins." I would like to request that the deletion be returned to my personal userspace so that I may revise and improve it along the guidelines you have suggested.

Andrea.colleen.francis (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)andrea.colleen.francis

Dear DGG,

I have resubmitted the revised article entitled "Mathew D. McCubbins" for your review with guidelines given. Thank you for the advice. Andrea.colleen.francis (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Andrea.colleen.francis

Deletion Spammer

There is a guy who keeps marking the page i made about a movie editor as not an important person for deletion. In the source it links to the IMDB page for the person. Any idea how to go about fighting this? Alan McCurdy is the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EaglesX63 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

discuss it at the .AfD DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

  — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarence Ridgeby Greathouse

Hey! I saw you declined the G12 at this article. I'm confused about the false positive and don't want to make the mistake again. I checked around for any kind of licensing before nominating but don't see anything besides, "Copyright of original material remains with greathousecousins.com and the contributors." found here. Any guidance you can give me would be greatly appreciated. OlYeller21 03:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It's actually very simple: this article is based on the text of an article published by Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography, which was issued between 1887 and 1901. Some family members can come along later and put the information on a family website, and that is fine. They can copyright their copyrighted family website, but that copyright does not apply to material originally published in the United States before 1923. DGG, let us know if I've got anything wrong here. Hope this helps. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

right. They copied their material from the 19th century Appleton's American Biography (and in fact attributed it at the bottom of their page). Our article was also copied from Appleton's, and says it was, and is in the characteristic style of that old fashioned and not very reliable work. So in a sense they were telling the truth: they own the copyright for whatever material on their page is original. But this part isn't. It's absolutely routine for people to place a general copyright notice in such cases, or even in cases where they add nothing original of their own at all. there is, oddly, no penalty for even deliberately claiming copyright in what is in the public domain in the hope that someone will think they need to pay you for it. In a slightly different situation, museums do that all the time when the post illustrations on the web, even when they have no copyright in the underlying work, and, in US law at least, no copyright in the reproduction (because faithful reproductions of flat art are not subject to US copyright).

What we ought to be doing is completely rewriting all the old article content taken from all the pre-1923 PD sources--the old Brittanica and Catholic Ency and Jewish Ency the worst; the old DNB is a little better, depending on when the article was written. The tone is generally unsuitable and the facts and interpretation often unreliable. So I freely say, though I've almost never taken a hand in it myself.

In this case, the two attribution statements gave it away, for they were quite frank about it. I would probably have deleted it had I not noticed them, without investigation. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have enough information to judge your assessment of the reliability of those old 19th and early 20th century encyclopedias, but since I know that you are a librarian, I will defer to your expertise. That being said, I think that we should keep articles referenced only to those sources, because there is a clear potential to expand and improve these articles. I spent some time a year or so ago working on an article about a real 19th century "character", Harry Yount. It took a lot of in-depth online searches, refining my search terms and developing techniques to separate the wheat from the chaff. But I was able to uncover lots of reliable source material in a week or two of effort. I think the same can be said of an article like this one. An editor could take this on as a personal project, as I did with Mr. Yount, and a much better article could result. If we delete the article, the chances for that outcome are greatly reduced. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

of course we should keep them--but we should rewrite them with modern sources added--just as you did. That one of these encyclopedias has an article is considered not just as an indication, but a definitive proof of notability , because we include everything in other general encyclopedias. It's just that they is essentially no subject whatsoever where additional knowledge, and very often more accurate knowledge, is not available--just as you found in the one you worked on. You're doing what we should all of us be doing. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks DGG. I'll try to be sharper about catching such attributions in the future. OlYeller21 17:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's Try This Again

Dear ],

Thanks for being cool. I thought that a bunch of reference to the Hypnos label, easily one of the top five "ambient music" labels... Hearts of Space, maybe 1-2 more... would be reference enough. That's OK. I'll just copy over refs from the Hypnos page, and more. It's an important indie label, and M. Griffin created it, still runs it, and is the most-released artist on it (which makes sense, since it's his label, after all.)

So I will _improve_ the article. That's reasonable. And I want to do anyway. Can I just have a couple of days respite to get it done? I have a life, and a couple of jobs... make it a couple weeks? Not much in the scheme of things. Unlike Wikipedians, I don't have much time to sit around and get all anal about things, y'know? No offense intended. If it gets deleted, whatever. I can get paid for work; Misplaced Pages doesn't pay me. So what-ever. — WinkJunior (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've left some additional help on your user talk page. It is a little confusing to leave the same message in multiple places. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Guide to information sources

This seems a bit strange to me. The one reference that I can access does not even mention the term "Guide to information sources". Perhaps it should be moved or redirected to a more suitable article? --Crusio (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

it's an appropriate article; I'm not sure there is a really standard term. The one I used in teaching was guides to the literature. The most common beginning words of the titles of such books is however, A guide to information sources in (subject), In any case, it can be much expanded, and I will do so: I know of over a hundred, many in multiple editions. Perhaps it should be List of guides to information sources, because dozens of them are notable individually--there will be substantial reviews for most of them; or perhaps not, because there are some that should be included but may not be, and, more important, I don't immediately want to write all the articles. DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

COINAPO

Wanna take a look at the EU project article yourself? I think Crusio is pretty tired of dealing with that stuff. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm still following it. The article creator requested some more time to improve the article. He has now written a nice well-sourced piece of text on nanoscience, which unfortunately has nothing directly to do with the "action" (I don't want to call this a project, because COST programs don't provide funding to conduct experiments, only funding for short reciprocal visits and to organize short meetings or summer schools). Once the editor tells me that it is finished, I intend to have another look and then proceed with AfD if I think notability has not been shown (which, frankly, I expect to happen, given the current progress). But it is true that I am tiring of it and I have a lot of meetings/travel coming up, so I may not be able to devote much time to this in the near future. --Crusio (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay then. User:Materialscientist suggested on his talk page that the nanotubes part (pictures etc.) could be merged to another, more closely related article. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
    • So the steps would be first moving that part, and then deciding if there were anything left. What would be left essentially would be the list of meetings. I've no general objection to articles on series of meetings, if they are substantial meetings that lead to a series of specific publications. But how many pf these groups are there? DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Harvey Nikolai Keith

Dear sir, I am utterly confused by your reasoning to remove the article on Harvey Nikolai Keith, all the more that there are links even on[REDACTED] to his work. The biography om IMDB was written by Eric Mittleman -- http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0594167/ an industry veteran who has an extensive profile and is certainly credible. Wether I know him or don't know him, should make absolutely no difference to the validity of the article.

the term hoax is improper and invalid. Harvey Keith has a profile on IMDB and his bio confirms the information, moreover I linked to the publisher which has information on his books. I would also note thatFfr people's whose career began long before the internet age, to expects a slew of links on the internet is impossible. I spent considerable time writing this first article, as Harvey deserves a profile here- his movie Mondo New York has it's own page, yet he doesn't. very logical you'll agree.

It would have been nice to receive a head's up before erasing what was hours worth of work for me. AnatoliusTrigger (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I see you have reinserted the article. I have sent it to our articles for deletion process, at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Harvey Nikolai Keith where you will be welcome to comment, and some other administrator will judge. I probably should not have simply said hoax, for which I apologize, but the fact is, I could verify very little of what was in the IMdB biography. Everything I can find otherwise says there is such a person as the director of the films. The bio there refers to Mondo New York as having a review in Variety, but I can not find it. I can find no evidence whatsoever for his authorship of one of the two novels,"The Eagle and the Sword "; there is a novel by that title published in 1997: it was written by another person.A. A. Attanasio and published by Harper. Are you asserting that this is the same person? The second novel "the Tsar's Engraver" is published by what appears to be a vanity publisher, Firefall Media-- none of the books published under that imprint is in more than 6 libraries--most are not even in worldcat. This book, though published in 2010, is in a total of only one library according to worldcat . DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Railway switching networks

Nominated @ AfD. Archolman User talk:Archolman 22:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Testing those alternate templates you made

Hey, just a heads up we prepared the user warnings you made. See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject user warnings/Testing#Suggestions at the end. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Charles Scriven for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charles Scriven is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Charles Scriven until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. noq (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eraoihp (talk • contribs)

Love Fungus

Lower priority, but this is a new article, borderline notability, issue is ext. links. The band has an official website, user is arguing that the facebook page is also the official site, adding to the article. I don't want to get in 3RR territory. Am I wrong in saying if they already have an official website, then the FB, Twitter, Myspace links are generally considered spam when used only as external links? Same with putting their link in both the info box and in external links (thus, twice). Talk:Love Fungus is where it is being argued if you care to jump in. I'm just tired of the overly promotional stuff on so many pages, want to be sure I have the right interpretation. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You have the right interpretation, but, frankly, I don't think it matters all that much. Text usually concerns me more, & I removed a sentence. DGG ( talk ) 19:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

“I'd far rather be happy than right any day.” ― Douglas Adams - Point taken, text matters more than one extra link. Tried to source it better, move it from weak to solid sources, not much luck, so will leave alone as a borderline article for now. Thanks again. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

PixelMEDIA article (and my other contributions)

Dear DGG, Thank you very much for the comments on my PixelMedia article that you posted at my Talk page. I have revised that article according to your comments and will also revise my previous articles soon using those same comments as a guide. I would appreciate it if you could review the PixelMedia article at your earliest convenience and let me know if it looks okay or if further changes are necessary. I will also inform you as I alter my previous articles so that you can review those as well.

I do have a question: Can you please clarify, or provide an example of, what you were referring to when you mentioned your concern about "the practice of inserting back references in the articles on these application to the products you are discussing"?

Thank you again for your feedback. I greatly appreciate it!Michael Leeman (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

replied on your user talk page. DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful advice, tips, and revisions! I hope to begin reworking my articles this week. Please know how grateful I am for your help.Michael Leeman (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear DGG, I have revised two of my contributions - the PixelMEDIA and Widen Enterprises articles - per your recent comments. If you could please let me know how they look, I would be most grateful! I plan to then revise my other contributions accordinglyMichael Leeman (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear DGG, I'm sorry to bother you, but when you have a chance can you please look over my revised PixelMEDIA and Widen Enterprises articles? I revised them per your recent comments and would like to know if they look okay to you. Thanks!Michael Leeman (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear DGG, I revised the PixelMEDIA article to address all comments on its Discussion Page as well as the issues raised by the three tags. I've removed any promotional phrasing as well as any text passages that may have resembled the text of others. Could you please review and let me know how it looks? Thank you as always!Michael Leeman (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) based on the editor's cleanup, I have removed the maintenance templates from the pixelMedia page. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Dude, You Rock

Thanks for the kind, helpful info about "speedy deletion". I can get refs in the page in 9 days... over this weekend. YOU ROCK!! :D Thanks again, WinkJunior (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Noel Ashman

Significant content was added to Noel Ashman? Really? The whole article is about 3 short paragraphs.....the old article was about 3 short paragraphs. There is hardly any difference in actual content. All this new one has is a list of sources where Ashman was named. But at least the CSD was denied immediately. Whatever. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It added information about other clubs, at the very least, and additional references. AfD is available to decide the issue . I'm not sure what, if anything, I will say there about actual notability. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• The additional "references" that aren't even cited? I'll let someone else nmominated the AfD.

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 85

DGG, I'm sorry to bother you if you've already seen this and decided not to comment, but if you have not, I wonder if you'd mind taking a look? Thanks.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and this too, if you have the chance: User_talk:Cardiffchestnut#Papyri— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Elder Thaddeus of Vitovnica

Hello sir!

Thank you for changing the status of the article I made today. I've been adding more sources. Do you maybe have a suggestion as to how many more I should add (i.e. how many are sufficient)?

All the best and thanks again!

Tempo21 (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

it's not the number of sources, but their nature. What is needed is not more sources quoting him, but more explicitly 3rd party sources ,that discuss him and his work-- preferably from academic historians or philosophers. Is the book mentioned the only published work? Has anyone referred to it in subsequent work? That's what is needed to show actual notability. The present article was fully enough to pass the weak standard necessary for speedy deletion, but you'll need this sort of material to meet the higher standards of the general guideline, WP:GNG or the one for writers, WP:AUTHOR DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Rich Tosi

Thanks, good tip. I've actually nominated a fair number of copy-vios, but missed this one. The article is back, and tagged as a G12. The editor involved may be worth a further look - he has been regularly creating inappropriate articles and removing speedy deletion tags despite multiple warnings. Seems to be sailing close to a block for disruption? Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words - our messages crossed in the ether, I think. Don't worry, I am not disheartened by any of the talk page stuff. Thanks for the good advise. Best, Sparthorse (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

as for that editor, I was about to go there. Your judgment is perfectly right, they indeed do need watching. DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Image tagging for deletion

While trying to take care of some of the files at Category:Publicity photographs with missing fair-use rationale just now, I found this: File:Adanlaserpente.jpg and see that the original uploader seems not to have been notified of the problem. Looking further at the tagging user's contributions, it looks like he/she has been tagging files for deletion for a few days, but not notifying the uploader of the problem.

No idea what the solution is for this, as I know there will be plenty of upset people if the files are deleted and they weren't notified. TIA for any help you can provide. We hope (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Instead of sending him email, put an object on the person's talk page where others can see it. I find public "reminders" can do wonders. There is currently no requirement that anyone be notified of any deletion: the correct place to argue to make it a requirement is WT:CSD, where , unfortunately, one or two arch-deletionists will object and block consensus-- because, to the extent our procedures have any degree of fairness or equity, it will make their anti=constructive work more difficult.

such people are even more prevalent at discussions of images than they are of articles, which is one of the reasons I do not work on images here.

while we are waiting on such things, notify them yourselves, or even better, fix the deletion rationales. My own view is that any reasonable attempt to fix the rationale justifies removal of the tag. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Was in the middle of a page merge but can't move the page without an admin. Could you please move Jo + Broadway to Swingin' Down Broadway while I start letting people know about the deletion tagging? Thanks again, We hope (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

done; I also updated the image rationale. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

but fwiw, please warn me when what seems like a simple request, like your previous oneat the start of this section , will get me involved in a long-standing discussion ; I will usually check first, but it helps me avoid errors to be specifically told, and also clarifies things for anyone seeing the talk page here or trying to follow things regarding the original dispute. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry--will do in future. Was just amazed at how many were tagged for deletion for one reason or another and no notification for it. I went through a week's worth of contributions for the user looking for files and notified everyone who appeared not to have received deletion notices. AFAIK, all whose photos were tagged are now notified of it. Thanks for moving the page and for putting up with me! :-) We hope (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

May I bother you again about this as the lack of notification continues. We hope (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Ileft what I hope is a tactful note. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks-I notified someone who wasn't notified in this round and think there will be notice given from this point on. BTW--I've never seen you be less than tactful. ;-) We hope (talk) 05:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory was reopened after a review at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence.

I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence. to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI closures by involved admins

Given your earlier comments about involved admins closing ANI discussions, I wondered if you have any comments on this: AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think his closing it the second time is in any way justifiable. But I will not take the same action twice. There's a very strict rule against wheel-warring, enforced with the same degree of common sense as the laws in The Mikado. True, closing an an/i is not really an admin action, but it's too close to one for my comfort. However, you may not be the best person to carry this further--you are too involved and it will only lead to trouble for you. I left him a comment. If he does not take my advice, undoubtedly someone not previously active in this will notice. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm far too involved to do anything myself (which is rather the point) - I'm glad to see you agree that it was inappropriate though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You asked for my comment at User talk:EdJohnston#AN/I problem. Looks moot. Let me know on my talk page if there is still an issue. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is moot as the ed. in question reverted. I hope someone else will close it though, as the original AfD has been closed again, in what I consider a very satisfactory manner. DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: speedies

Thank you for your detailed explanation on the differences between A7 and G11. Will help me in future patrolling. Thank you. -EmadIV (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Max Kaur (Jermakov)

DGG, I've left you a question at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Max Kaur (Jermakov). Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 05:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

replied. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Foster Natural Gas Report

Hello David! I hope you can assist with finding some information concerning the Foster Natural Gas Report. There are two claims which are probably true but needs some sources. The first one is that the Foster Natural Gas Report was previously named Foster Associates Report. The second claim is that it was founded on March 23, 1956 by economist dr. J. Rhoades Foster. Unfortunately there are no online sources on these claims, but I hope you are able to assist with your knowledge on traditional librarian searches. Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

that;s trivial, and not really needed, though I'll try to find it. What is actually needed for the article and the AfD is a database review, and that is not as easy to find, though I'll start looking. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward

As a participant at Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4 and subsequent XfDs, would you take a look at Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

We're testing your template :)

Hi DGG,

Just wanted to let you know we're testing your level 1 vandal warning template in Huggle now. First instance here. You can monitor who gets your message by going to the tracking template, {{Z86}} and clicking on "What links here" :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:UWTEST members update

Hi, you're getting this message because you signed up to receive updates at WP:UWTEST, the task force on testing of user warnings and other notifications.

Here's what we're up to lately:

• Huggle: There are tests still running in Huggle of level 1 templates, including a new template written by DGG. A full list is available here
• SDPatrolBot: There is a new test running on the talk page messages of SDPatrolBot, which warns people who remove CSD templates. (Documentation of the test is here.)
• Twinkle: We've proposed a test of AFD and PROD notifications delivered via Twinkle, which has been positively received. (See: 1, 2) This test should start this week.
• Shared and dynamic IPs: Maryana's proposal to test the effect of regularly archiving shared/dynamic IP talk pages is in its final stages. There are also two relevant bot flag requests: 1, 2
• XLinkBot: the herders of XLinkBot have approved a test of its warning messages concerning external links. Test templates are being written and help is most welcome.

Thanks for your help and support, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 02:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The Network for Better Futures

Hi. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to revise my attempt at a page for The Network for Better Futures. I followed your instructions and posted revised copy on the page you set up for me to do so. Please let me know if I can proceed with creating the page. JDBurget/The Network for Better Futures Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDBurget (talk • contribs) 19:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest rewriting the first two lists into paragraphs, and making another check for the use of stock phrases and unnecessary words. I check in a day or two and move to mainspace. I cannot guarantee that someone will not put it up for regular deletion, nor have I any particular influence on the result. DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I rewrote the lists as paragraphs and did one last sweep for stock phrases and unnecessary words. Also, I linked in with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Misplaced Pages page so it would not be an orphan. Please let me know when you move into the mainspace. I appreciate your willingness to work with me on this. Thanks. JDBurget (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)JDBurget

Hello - noticed that the JDBurget version of this article is now live - can you change the title so that it doesn't include the JDBurget portion? So that it's just 'The Network for Better Futures'....Thanks.

JDBurget (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)JDBurget

Changes Made

Thanks for the feedback. I rewrote the lists as paragraphs and did one last sweep for stock phrases and unnecessary words. Also, I linked in with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Misplaced Pages page so it would not be an orphan. Please let me know when you move into the mainspace. I appreciate your willingness to work with me on this.

Thanks.

JDBurget (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)JDBurget

bibliographic boo-boo (perhaps by me)

Something slightly macabre has happened: either the publisher of a 2008 book of Ismo Hölttö's works has made a boo-boo, or it hasn't and this is yet more piece of evidence to suggest that people who (like me) aren't trained librarians shouldn't attempt to write up this kind of thing.

(I haven't seen "no. 24" for myself; does your library happen to possess a copy?) -- Hoary (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Novelguide

I am reaching out for help to revive the article that I wrote some time ago about an educational website - Novelguide.com. As of today, there are 549 articles here on[REDACTED] that site this website for its content. I used the google search box under the[REDACTED] search results to find this number. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Novelguide User:AbbyWaters —Preceding undated comment added 15:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC).

Do you have 3rd party substantial references? DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Your user page :o)

I just read it - you're fascinating! There is just so much ... stuff ... in your life and background. I would love to have access to the kind of academic content you have access to - I would have trouble ever stopping reading. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Question about GNG

Hi DGG

I wrote these comments in a current AfD discussion.

I would be very interested in your views on two questions:

1. . Does the nature of the source of significant coverage (i.e., the prominence, reputation, scope, readership, etc.)—beyond likelihood of factual accuracy—in fact bear on GNG-based outcomes at AfD discussions?
2. . Do you think that such factors should bear on whether a subject is said to pass GNG?

Thank you, _matic 01:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

of course the differences matter; both for justification for facts and for notability, sources are not in a reliable | non-reliable dichotomy, they're in a spectrum of reliability. We usually do in practice take account of this. More at the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't see your comments—did you save the page? _matic 04:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It should be there now. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciate your taking the time. _matic 05:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

And just to chime in... I fully agree that the GNG is a valuable tool by which we measure notability. But I also see that the SNGs are themselves valuable tools we are encouraged to consider when sigcov is lacking. I am in full agreement that both require verifiability in reliable sources, and such suitability of a source is dependent upon what is being sourced. I see GNG and SNGs as two related keys that open the same lock. Where's the argument? Schmidt, 06:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

in general, yes, but it varies by subject. Sometimes the SNGs are there as a shortcut so we don't have to evaluate details of sourcing; sometimes they're there as a further limitation, often together with WP:NOT ; sometimes they're there because conventional sourcing yields paradoxical or useless results ( A good example is the standards for athletes, which does all 3: first, if they've major accomplishments, we don't have to worry about souring details beyond WP:V, because we know they'll be there; second, because it eliminates people from lower levels of the sport, even though local news sources may cover them; third, because for some early Olympians all we can really do is find WP:V in the records & it would be weird to eliminate them while including those of a slightly later period. In some cases, the relationship is unclear: for Politicians, it remains debated to what extent minor officials with local coverage count. Anyway, I've described what I think is the general view--as I did at that AfD.

My own view of what ought to be done is a little different. I would discard the GNG except as a backup if nothing will work, and judge by actual importance, measured if possible by something objective, (Such as the charting requirement for popular music--perhaps it lets in too much, but better that than continual debating about individual songs.) Unlike what the guideline seems to say, importance does make for notability--I consider them synonyms. Popularity also makes for notability, but it's not a synonym, because the unpopular can also be important and therefore notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

George Ho (formerly Gh87)'s bad editing

I've seen you criticize George Ho about his deletion nominations. You weren't the first to do so, as seen in this section, for example. And I criticized different types of his editing in this section. No matter that he tagged it as WP:Wikihounding, my points were valid, as others have echoed my sentiments. I must ask why he is still allowed to nominate and/or propose articles for deletion when it is clear that he doesn't understand the deletion process, as recently as this incident? As that link shows, he still doesn't fully even understand WP:Notability. It was already suggested that he stop nominating articles for deletion because he doesn't know what he's doing (see that first link). Yet he's still doing it. He doesn't seem to listen at all, another example being that he continues to start sockpuppet investigations about IPs despite having been told more than once that such investigations are not done. Further, he is hell bent on wiping away all All My Children character articles, more so because it is a cancelled show than having anything to do with the state of the articles themselves. Some of these articles can provide notability and/or be fixed up, and he just ignores that, judging these articles on their current state. He recently proposed that two soap opera writer articles be deleted, Margaret DePriest and Lorraine Broderick. I'd never heard of the former (who has also written for prime time), but the latter is a well-known, Emmy-winning soap opera writer. And some books on Google Books confirm this. But, no, this user does not check thoroughly; he just glosses over things, and if he doesn't see notability instantly, he nominates for deletion. He looked right over Tina Cole, and rather focused on these soap opera writers. Only after I pointed this out, did he tag Tina Cole for something.

I am so tired of this user fouling up Misplaced Pages. Is there nothing that can be done? I bring this to you because not only do you care about soap opera articles, you have also criticized his editing. 78.155.208.9 (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I see this address is a blocked proxy. I am more likely to take complaints about an editor seriously if they come from a named account I know to be a responsible editor.

However, since I have talked with him about some of these matters before, I'll take a look at what he's doing sooner or later, as part of my normal follow up which I always try to remember DGG ( talk ) 20:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

George Ho has been irritating me too with his deletions of public domain Argentine cinema images. Any thoughts on the AFD of Resignation of Silvio Berlusconi? I have no objections to merging but think its a pretty important event in Italian politics given the looming crisis.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking at his editing and Afds, I disagree with him a good deal, but I don't think the AfD work justifies banning from the field. That's a very drastic remedy; we have very rarely used it, and only when it amounts to disruption, not just error. Something like this would have to be proposed at AN/I, and I very strongly advise anyone against going there except with an extremely strong case. It suffices to oppose the AfDs. It would help even more to strengthen articles--the surest defense against AfD deletion is sufficient really substantial & really reliable references. Most soap opera articles, perhaps even more than many other subjects, could use considerable improvement in this--and other--regards. Most people, myself included, are reluctant to defend an article in any field that may technically meet the requirements, but is not a reasonably good article. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

May I have your input, please?

I've just come up with this essay on civility, in the hope that it might be a useful link from various places. Could I please have your comments on it? Many thanks, Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

A favour

David, if you have a moment I wonder if you could please take a very quick look at this for me? It's only stub I've drafted, but it's way off my normal area for referencing and I don't think I can assert it's notability. If I'm wasting my time with it, don't hesitate to let me know and I'll delete it. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not exactly an academic journal, but a literary magazine published from a university. I changed the stub & category to fit, and added some information. There is no special criterion for such magazines, but it is included in JSTOR and that should be sufficient for notability. It's probably indexed in a few places also, but I didn't check. If you can find the earlier editors, they should be added, because all of them are almost certainly notable. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Future of the US Education Program and the Ambassador Project

There is a discussion about the future and the growth of the US education program along with the future of the Misplaced Pages Ambassador Project here. Voceditenore (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Department of Sociology, University of Karachi REPLY

--Faizanalivarya (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

A tool for you!

Hi DGG! I've just come across one of your edits (or that you have been patrolling new pages), and noticed that you might appreciate some help with references.

I case you're not aware, you might consider using this tool – it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script:

// Add ] launcher in the toolbox on left
addOnloadHook(function () {
 addPortletLink(
  "p-tb",     // toolbox portlet
  "http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py/" + wgPageName 
   + "?client=script&citeweb=on&overwrite=&limit=30&lang=" + wgContentLanguage,
  "Reflinks"  // link label
)});

onto Special:MyPage/skin.js, then paste the bare URL between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for PDF documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well. You may consider taking on Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup. So long! --Sp33dyphil © • © 07:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion II: Academy of Achievement

Thanks. I just found your name in the article history. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Quick question

I am getting the new Huggle test ready today, and I was wondering... some of the short versions have a link to the diff, while others do not. It might be interesting to test overall whether referring to the diff or pagename is better. Do you mind if I standardize them, and if I do, would rather they all include a reference to the diff or not? My instinct is to remove it and see if that has an effect. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree--omit the diff & we'll check that later; DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the quick response. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Grandma's Gifts

Hi, I saw you deleted this under G8, but must admit I'm confused – I don't see that the page when deleted was a redirect at all? Do you mind if I move the user's subpage there and undelete to merge histories? It Is Me Here 02:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I had deleted and then realized my error and restored the article, but forgot to restore the talk page also. (that's what G8 is also for) I've now done that. My apologies for any confusion. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

G4 on Muttahida Tehrik-e-Khatm-e-Nabuwat Raabta Committee

Apologies, I forgot to list the previous delete discussion when tagging with {{db-g4}}. I added it now. By the way, if you look at the block logs you see the discussion there, on the 4 May deletion, that's how I knew about it. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

sorry, I should have found it myself. I've deleted it. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

List of important publications in law

DGG, can you expand on your decision about Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Science pearls/List of important publications in law? I'm not sure what you mean by "the problems are related". RockMagnetist (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You had marked it for speedy as uncontroversial maintenance. Nothing about the "Lists of publications" is uncontroversial. I commented that the problems of reconstructing a proper article are related to the problems with the others articles in that group. If you take it to MfD, I shall argue that the page ought to be developed, not removed, and then restored to mainspace under one or another title. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

In principle, I agree that this article should be developed. However, in its existing form it is an abortion. Curb Chain created this stub instead of userfying List of publications in law or putting it in the incubator. I would like to see it done right, and done by someone who cares about the content. The entry in WikiProject Science pearls is an embarrassment and may actually interfere with a proper revival of the list. If you see a better way of dealing with this mess, I'm open to suggestions. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

DGG - Oh sage master of dilemma resolution. I suggested that Rock tag this article for G6CSD. In October it was nominated for deletion, deleted, and went through DRV which upheld the deletion. You restored the article for the DRV (temporaily per your edit summary). During the DRV or shortly after the DRV, User:Curb Chain moved it to his user space. Then subsequently moved it twice with new names into the Science Pearls project where it resides at present. Curb Chain has no intention on working on the article (stated in a edit summary) and apparently no one in the Science Pearls task force is interested either. There's not much (an never was much) in the list in its current state. If someone was starting this from scratch, it would probably be significantly different than it is now. So here's our dilemma. If someone moves this article out of the Science Pearls project to the mainspace, they would just be recreating a deleted article verbatim without any discussion. If it remains in the Science Pearls project space, the likelyhood that anyone will know its there and work on it is slim. And until someone really spends some time improving it, it really can't be moved into the mainspace over the deletion decision. All the parties here really believe in these types of lists, so this isn't a deletion/inclusion issue, but merely situation where we have an orphaned article unilaterally moved into a project where no one is really interested in it. What do you suggest? Leave it isolated in the Science Pearls project, delete it, or more it to the mainspace had hope no one notices? --Mike Cline (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Nobody can reasonably want to move it to mainspace now (& to hope no one notices in this case would be absurd.). We could certainly move it to my user space, except that it is not really one of the articles I want most to work on, though I have been known to work on articles I don't really want to just to show off my abilities to do the unlikely. But if we remove it altogether, it is even less likely to be worked on than with any of the alternatives. The solution then is to find someone to adopt it. One of the intrinsic limitations at Misplaced Pages is there is no way to get anybody to do anything unles it amuses them. Perhaps someone will see this and volunteer; otherwise, I'll go look for someone. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll be delighted, but amazed, if you find someone. It's a curious fact that many of these bibliographies get a lot of traffic but little editorial support. I revived two deleted lists, Bibliography of biology and Bibliography of sociology, that could easily have been protected from deletion by a few good references - but no one did. A few other lists may owe their survival of the recent AfDs to members of this project who provided the references. However, all of these bibliographies had plenty of good content already. The idea of starting a list from scratch, for a field that I know little about, does not attract me. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

DGG, Thanks. Your on the case and things will work out. You taught me patience on WP so I will be (at least on some things)! --Mike Cline (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Userspace req

Could you please userspace Pool TV to User:SMcCandlish/Incubator/Pool TV? I'm sure it can be worked on a bit and restored. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 03:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Done -- and it was only prodded, so feel free to move it to mainspace whenever you think it can pass an AfD if there should be one. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding entries from Marketing Metrics book on Misplaced Pages

After reviewing your comments, I would like to fill you in our proposed changes:

(1) We have worked directly with the authors (including Dr. Paul Farris, Darden School of Business, and Dr. David Reibstein, Wharton School of Business) to obtain the rights to use the Marketing Metrics book on Misplaced Pages, and the publisher of the book (Pearson Education, Inc.) has agreed to this usage. Would you please let us know exactly what documentation we need to send to you or Misplaced Pages? Once we get the information, we will forward the resulting document(s) to you as soon as possible.

(2) We will review each of the existing entries to ensure quotation marks on all information quoted directly from the Marketing Metrics book and add additional sources where possible.

(3) We would like to work with you to properly construct the MASB information at the end of the reference to reflect the intent of the project (described below).

(4) Finally, we would also like to work with you directly to avoid or resolve any questions or issues that may arise as we work to increase the understanding of marketing by improving marketing entries on Misplaced Pages.

Our Misplaced Pages participation is on behalf of the MASB Common Language Project led by Dr. Paul Farris (University of Virginia Darden School of Business), Carl Spaulding (Nielsen Catalina Ventures), and Dr. David Reibstein (Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania). The objective of the project is to eliminate ambiguity in marketing terminology and definitional differences among marketing, C-suite management, and finance within organizations and across businesses and industries by establishing MASB-endorsed common language for marketing activities and metrics.

Our ultimate goal is to encourage marketing academics and practitioners to write and revise Misplaced Pages entries so that Misplaced Pages becomes the repository of “common language” for marketers and becomes a preferred source for definitions of marketing activities and metrics, much as the Association for Psychological Science “Misplaced Pages Initiative” is attempting to do for psychology. To this end, we are discussing with the American Marketing Association how to engage their members in our effort.

The Marketing Accountability Foundation and its Marketing Accountability Standards Board is the independent, private sector, self-governing body authorized by its membership constituency to establish marketing measurement and accountability standards across industry and domain, for continuous improvement in financial performance and for the guidance and education of business decision makers and users of performance and financial information. The body is operated exclusively for charitable, educational, scientific, & literary purposes within the meaning of Section 501 (c) (3) of Internal Revenue Code and its members include academics and practitioners from the marketing and finance disciplines.

Karenmharvey (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I would be delighted if we could have this material; I have frequently expressed the dismay at out lack of coverage on these subjects. There are, as you have noticed, some problems:

Licensing is relatively straightforward, but you must do more than just permit the work to be used in Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages content must be free--free for anyone in the world to use and reuse as they see fit. Therefore, you must explicitly license the rights to the material according to our licensing, using the WP:CC-BY-SA and the GFDL licenses, as explained in WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:Donating copyrighted materials; be aware that these licenses give everyone in the world an irrevocable license to reuse and alter the material, even for commercial purposes. in any manner they choose, provided they attribute the content. The necessary licenses must be sent from the copyright owner of the material as prescribed at WP:DCM to our OTRS system.

But you need to understand that Misplaced Pages is free for anyone to edit--anyone who wishes to change or add to your material can do so, provided they have a source for their changes. Contributors here have no right of WP:OWNership. The actual quotations can of course not be tampered with, but any person, qualified or not, can remove or replace them or write something else entirely-- Misplaced Pages entries are not stable, and there is no person or group here with actual authority to decide what is the best version. There is nothing here that corresponds to the roles of a conventional editor-in-chief, or conventional referees. Changes do need to be discussed if challenged, but the result is decided by the consensus of whomever appears. We do not accept arguments from authority: if someone is a true expert in the subject they will need to show it not by formal qualifications, but by being able to make the most convincing arguments.

This is very much a different form of publication. So Misplaced Pages is not actually suitable for an actual standard: if you have a standard you want to control and make it available, you should host it on your own site. If you want other people to freely use it, including anyone who may want to write here, place the two licenses specified above on each web page.

I hope the psychology project you mention goes well; concern has been expressed about whether the self-confident amateurs and those out to prove a pet theory who abound in that field, often with fixed political or religious or cultural positions, will interfere with the entries so much as to make it unsatisfactory for their proper purposes. Some previous contributions in that subject area from true experts have been challenged and even rejected by those with a particular point of view. Those who, like myself, have an academic background and are devoted to honest science as much as to free content, try to help as much as possible, but we cannot guarantee to succeed, and we can act only as individuals. The projects which have gone well are those in subjects like dermatology or chemistry, where the unknowledgable or biased are not very likely to sound convincing. But I think the odds are very much in your favor: marketing and accounting and other such areas of business should be fields where this too can be accomplished--unlike some other areas of applied and theoretical economics.

As another point, Misplaced Pages is international, covering the whole world, not just English-speaking countries. You will presumably be presenting material according to the usual practice in the United States. You need to be sure to explicitly say so, and write in such a way that others can add corresponding sections explaining the meaning in their own country. You do not of course have to do it yourself, though if you do know the differences , it would be good to explain them to some extent. If the US practice is worldwide also, by all means say so, but do not write it such as way that the reader will assume it if it is not the case.

References should be not just to the works of your own group. The way of showing their degree of acceptance is to give references from other works. works clearly of authority in the subject such as standard textbooks. Make sure all schools of thought are represented, or at least indicated, if there should be differences.

It would be good to write an article on the MASB Common Language Project. There are obvious problems of WP:Conflict of Interest, but there is no reason not to write the article, explain the COI on the talk p; others will check it. If you tell me at a suitable point, I for one will do so. This of course also applies to the other organizations mentioned; it probably should also apply to the senior academics leading the group as individuals. Remember that the general reader is not concerned withthe details of internal organization, and outside references to the group or individual are needed also.

There are special problems in articles where the terms are used; do not make direct references to your group in every likely article. The internal links will lead to the main article on the term in question.

Remember we need more than definitions--what would help is context--the historical development and social implications of the particular terminology. Please be aware of our sister project, WP:Wiktionary, which is explicitly a dictionary and does want definitions--you might want to add material there also. They have their own rules, but they too fare free content in the same sense we are.

Now, I must give you a caveat: I speak here for myself only. (and, though I have some experience at Misplaced Pages, I am not in any sense a professional in your subject and have no relevant academic training or practical experience-. Actually, I have worked extensively with the publishers an academic librarian buys from, with whom I have many good relationships, and have learned much about their marketing perspectives.) Anyone else here who wants to differ from me, can do so. I have tried my best, however, to give you what I believe to be the standard policy and practices here, at least as I understand it. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Request

Any comments on my newest article would be appreciated. I want to learn from the best. I am actually amazed what I was able to do with Google searches, and actually reading what Google returned to me :-) Everything there is in the article is through Google which is why I left nothing unreferenced. I moved first to establish notability, and then whatever i could find on the career and personal life. I am somewhat content however i am sure there is more that can be done. Any guidance would be appreciated. Standard2211 (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It's getting there. The key problem remains, to what extent does showing that someone is frequently quoted by the media show they are notable? Decisions have gone both ways, but it's hard to justify notability by using just a list of such quotes as the primary source for notability; it helps when he's quoted specifically as being an authority by the NYT or similar. You can include a key sentence as a quote in the footnote. I made some formatting suggestions on the talk page also. But what is really needed is references about him.

Yes, a surprising amount can be gotten from Google; the trick is to scan through the entire list of results, no matter if it's in the hundreds. DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC) A of search results is not a reference. You have to give each one separately, DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Issue with RFC listing

Hi, I followed up to your talk page from RFC feedback board. I requested an RFC on Talk:Taliban using {{rfc|pol}}, its been a few hours but the bot seems to not have listed it in the appropriate section. Can you help? Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Iam interested, but i consider the situation beyond my abilities; if you miraculously come up with a usable proposal, let me know and I'll comment then. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

User:George Ho

Our friend George Ho has decided to go no holds barred on Argentine movies with AFDs like El Hijo del crack. He does not appear to be aware that articles can be expanded.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

another admin has given him an indef block. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what it is you are upset about by asking me to retract my comments. I'd like to add that's something I'll never do on[REDACTED] is retract what I say. I don't say things unless I mean them and I don't think I've said anything out of order. I have been perfectly fair with him at ANI by proposing he works with me and unless he drops the attitude and mass targetting of images and articles then I'm unlikely to be cooperative.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

(lurker) i'm with you, but you lost me at "When you mess with something I've uploaded or created you are messing with me"..."Believe you me I will make things bitterly difficult for you". the alarming thing is how he is symptomatic: vindictive deletions are tolerated; better not to stoop to that level; if following policy should make disruptive difficult, that is a bonus; let Nemesis do the work. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 18:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

yes, thats the point I was trying to make: over-prersonalized language always makes the situation worse, and , on a purely practical level, gives the other party an opening to complain. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

patrolling

Hi, Thanks for the heads up and will take more care in patrolling.

Ford Theaters

I Did not create the article, I was cleaning it up and in the process realized its duplicity and made the same suggestion that you offered to the articles author.Questionable pulse (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, but when I thought it was you who inserted the copyvio, it's one thing to remove the comment from you page; it's another to mark it as vandalism. Vandalism implies a deliberate attempt to harm the encyclopedia Is that what you thought of what I said there? DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Bundle (software distribution) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bundle (software distribution) is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bundle (software distribution) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Pnm (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

205.208.160.5

Time to remove talk page access.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

done DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Kindly give opinion

Please give your opinion on regarding merging some articles at Talk:VIT University. Alokprasad84 (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

AfD of Mark Rippetoe

I fixed up the Mark Rippetoe article after it got speedy deleted, but it now is going through the AfD process. I really think this article is firmly within the notability guidelines and not just because I authored it. I responded to the complaints on its AfD page by adding some additional sources and I just wondered if you wouldn't mind taking a look at it and letting me know what is lacking in terms of demonstrating notability. If you'd rather not, or you think it that it's truly not notable, that's fine too.

I'm just new at this and I'm hoping you can sum up the guidelines for me a little better. If this really doesn't belong on WP I'll let it go, but I'd hate to see this article get banished just because I was unable to conform or articulate the guidelines correctly.

Thanks friend. —Manicjedi (talk) (contribs) (templates) 21:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the guidelines are interpreted according to the way people want to interpret them. There are enough ambiguous terms in them to give a very wide range of flexibility. The article would have had no problems 3 years ago, but what will happen now, I cannot predict. The best approach is just as you say, to try to support it (the best support at this point would be 4rd party reviews of his books) but if it does not succeed, let it take its chances, and go on to other articles. I lost some too in the beginning. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

MichaelQSchmidt

David, in you co-nomination you refer to comments that I should have made, but (unless that was somewhere else) I have hardly ever participated in RFA debates, so perhaps you're mixing me up with someone else? --Guillaume233 (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

As this and the preceding comments show, I was working a little too fast last night. I changed to the name I should have used all along. my co-nom, Spartaz DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for 2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Victor Victoria (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Was your use of an asterisk (*) instead of a pound sign (#) here intentional? (b/c your waiting for candidate to answer your question)? Tofutwitch11 02:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

fixed to the standard # . I suppose it may well have been influenced as you said, but not consciously. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

I have a question about your question for me Guerillero | My Talk 04:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Cox wasan

Hi DGG, maybe I'm wrong, but please take a look at Special:Contributions/Cox_wasan: I don't know if he is a sockpuppet, someone who loves disrupt someone else's work, or someone who didn't understand how AfD works, but it seems the main (if not exclusive) activity on WP of this user is partecipating at deletion-discussions (on all subjects) and supporting the nom's rationale with a "Delete" vote and a two-three-four word-statement (usually "Fails notability for GNG" or just "Fails notability"). I checked dozens of his contribs but he doesn't seem have ever voted for "Keep", "Urserfy", "Merge" or at least "Weak Delete" an article, nor he seems have ever commented his "Delete" votes with real arguments or reasons in support, also when the discussions required that. He also started some really bad AfD, like (last ones:) Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Herbert Blitzstein and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Thomas DeSimone. Sadly, despite an AfD isn't a voting process, often this kind of lame, in-bad-faith users could influence the final result.--Cavarrone (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

only if admins take his !vote as supporting a seriously made notability or GNG argument. % of effect depends how cynical you are about admin care in closing. You must understand that as a reputed inclusionist I am not in the best of positions to complain. The usual way of dealing with this is first at every AfD he enters wgere he makes a poor argument, and second, perhaps, but only as a last recourse, if he does not get discouraged, after a while at an/i. Many good faith users come to Misplaced Pages to delete or keep everything in a particular field, but nobody across all fields irregardless. Suggested comment at a future stupid AfD he might bring, would be some variation on if this is the sort of AfD you bring, perhaps you should learn about deletion policy before bringing any more. '

However, many of the articles where he is !voting delete, do deserve to be deleted, and I've closed two of them as deletes myself just now. If you just say "insufficient sources to meet GNG" at AfD, just going at random, you will chance to be right about half the time. DGG' ( talk ) 20:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Conceptions of Library and Information Science

Ran across this while new page patrolling on the back part of the list. It would be good to have another set of eyes just look at it, and maybe another sentence or two in the intro. I can't think of anyone better for this than you. If you get the time. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I made some comments about library holdings on the talk p: the only really widely held one was the issue distributed as part of a very well known general series, but, given the a small no. of library schools in the world, how much can be expected? I had heard of the first vol, but never realised it was going to become a series. The problem I have with Misplaced Pages articles on subjects like this is not that they're barely notable, but that there are so many much more notable ones we don't have. To some extent it's inevitable in a encyclopedia where individual interest defines what gets written. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Alpha_Quadrant 01:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Undeletion request

As I wrote in the talk page of the page you deleted, Khirbet Kerak ware, the information was taken from a wiki called ArchaeoWiki, whose content is available under the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike. Therefore I am not in breech of copyright. I merely forgot to add that point in the edit.--Coin945 (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Our license, however, permits commercial use, and we therefore cannot accept material which is licensed under a non-commercial restriction. I am explaining this in more detail on your talk p., and will complete my note in a few minutes. Unfortunately, I must tell you that the distinction is one of our fundamental principles -- WP:Copyright-- and one of the things where we do not make exceptions. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Hi, could you perhaps have a look at this section on the Hindawi talk page? Is that blog indeed a reliable source? Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

commented there. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Inherent notability for elementary schools which have been "Blue Ribbon Schools"

I am contacting you because you participated in either the AFD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kennedy Middle School (Cupertino, California) which resulted in a redirect or the deletion review Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#Kennedy Middle School (Cupertino, California) which resulted in restoration of the article because it was once a "Blue Ribbon School". I have opened a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#US elementary schools: Inherent notability: for "Blue Ribbon Schools" as to whether the 5200 schools which have been found awarded the "Blue Ribbon" seal of approval get inherent notability, or if they each have to satisfy WP:ORG via significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Your input is welcome. Thanks! Edison (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Should I have made this a "RFC?" I rarely get involved in such general policy forums. Edison (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

the way we've been doing it recently, it would best be to be made an RfC. But it should not be worded "inherent notability " but "presumption of notability", and, personally, though I care relatively little for these articles one way or another, I do care to maintain the existing compromise, because it protects the high school articles, about which I do care: I don't care about the articles per se, but on having topics for new editors. It is not realistic for most elementary school pupils to be able to handle Misplaced Pages editing well, but ti is realistic for high school students. These days I care moe about helping new editors get started than I care about any article. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Notability

Hi David. I seem to recall that we may once have possibly been in disagreement over the notability of schools. Without prejudice to you opinion (and I can't really remember exactly what it was), there is a discussion taking place at this project that may be of interest. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I've been there. There's such a simple rule to follow: high schools yes, others no, that I can't see why anyone would bother except those who really want to argue the details of sourcing for 50,000 individual articles. I can see Misplaced Pages as a good place for those who like to argue, and sometimes I'm one of them, but there are more interesting things to argue about--some of which even have significant consequences, and a few of which represent the highest goal of human understanding, helping development of one's ethical principles. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, we seem to have been in total agreement after all. I can't understand why anyone would want to drag this peren issue up again, especially so soon after the last one floundered. There is better work to be done than flushing out thousands of high school articles for deletion or even arguing about it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I second your take on the use of images

Hello DGG, I ran into your post on one of the deletion discussions. I found myself browsing these since I have recently experienced a somewhat frustrating image deletion issue, which thanks to a bit of persistence on my part is now being reviewed. Anyways, I would just like to let you know that I really appreciate your point that "What people look like is a substantial aid to understanding events in which they are involved. It needn't be discussed in the article, because the picture does it better. An event one cannot visualize is not adequately understood.", as well as your stated inclination/initiative that the terms of inclusion of images in WP be relaxed. I am a strong advocate of free content, but I agree with you that in WP the top priority should be to inform and educate. – Miranche 08:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I thank you for your support. When confronting entrenched opinion, it is a good idea to proceed slowly and carefully,making use of strong and uncomplicated cases, making sure that common sense untutored in Wikipedian subtleties supports the suggestion, and judging with great discretion the accepted limits of discourse. The DelRevs you mention are very suitable cases in this regard. Myself, I also think it wise not to seek to change rules, but to suggest the suitability of an exception. We have the peculiar wording that IAR supersedes all other policies, and we might as well make use of it--the actual meaning, though, is that IAR supersedes any other policy if essentially everyone involved thinks it ought to. (If one wishes to overthrow entrenched opinion altogether, it may be appropriate to advocate more radical action for the sake of propaganda, but I doubt that I, you, or anyone here, seriously advocates a basic change in our copyright policy.) DGG ( talk ) 09:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply & your comment on the delrev -- I personally think it's ambiguous whether the wording on the Croatian Parliament site amounts to CC-BY or CC-BY-ND, as I wrote below your comment. In regards to global WP policies, I completely agree that seeking to overturn entrenched opinion is not likely to be fertile, and that the way to go is to make one's position known and argue for a more relaxed of policy in specific cases on the basis of common sense for a naive reader. There are systematic snafu's, however, and one I was sorry to discover is that many uploaders seem to make an honest effort to present a reasoned case why an image should be included under fair use, but that their arguments are typically not addressed, so that the best way to get an actual discussion going is to push the case to a DelRev. Anyways. Glad to meet you. – Miranche 20:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, DelRev should be used more. Most of the regulars there really do care about policy, and think before they respond. It's not practical to carry every error there, but it should be used for those that represent a repeating problem, and where there is a really good case, And what would also help, is if more people particpated there. The group of regulars is a little too small. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:UWTEST update

Hi DGG,

We're currently busy designing some new tests, and we need your feedback/input!

1. ImageTaggingBot - a bot that warns users who upload images but don't provide adequate source or license information (drafts here)
2. CorenSearchBot - a bot that warns users who copy-paste text from external websites or other Misplaced Pages articles (drafts here)

We also have a proposal to test new "accepted," "declined," and "on-hold" templates at Articles for Creation (drafts here). The discussion isn't closed yet, so please weigh in if you're interested.

Thanks for your help! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

NETWORK PROBLEMS

.I expect to continue to have only erratic access for about the next week. If it is urgent, and does not involve me specifically, please ask elsewhere. DGG' ( talk ) 00:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)I

High schools

You may be interested in Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Schools#RfC Mock-up. TerriersFan (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Scholar Indices and Impact

Could you perhaps have a look at this article and the remarks I made at this talk page and tell me what you think? Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

commented there. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for Assistance

DGG, I realize you get requests like this frequently, but I was hoping you could look at the page Augusteum and Lutherhaus. I just translated it from German and I would like some input, as I am not sure that I have done everything correctly. It is the first time I have ever edited a Misplaced Pages page. As you are interested in European history, I thought you might have some valuable advice. I am particularly concerned with the sections titled "Augusteum" and "Lutherhaus Museum Today", since they are quite a bit different from the original German.

Thank you for any advice you can give me on the matter!

DopplerRadioShow (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

What you wrote is a very good article. If you are starting out this well, we can hope for many featured articles from your hands.

the enWP is not a translation of the deWP, but an independent encyclopedia with its own appropriate emphases, though we use whatever parts of each others articles we find helpful. It's reasonable that the interest outside Germany should be more on the Luther associations & museum than the miscellaneous functions of the University in the Augusteum; your change in emphasis was very appropriate, and the material you added very suitable. You needn't be concerned at departing from the German; it would be more concerning if you did not depart from it. But it should be titled Lutherhaus and Augusteum--it matches the article better, and the Luther part is the older. It's also a little hard to follow from the present lede paragraph where the Augusteum fits into things.

There's only one significant point: you need to ascribe the text you translated to the version of the deWP article you used, copying the html from the edit history. If you used a range , specify that. The place to put it is either in the edit history on on the article talk p.

Expect me to be asking you for assistance with the articles I adapt from German. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your advice. It was extremely helpful and made me excited to do more edits. I have made all of the changes you suggested, and have put in a request to change the title (I didn't trust myself to do it properly).

I would be more than happy to help you with any German articles that you are dealing with. Leave me a message on my talk page or e-mail me at nathanconder@yahoo.de. Thanks again for your help! DopplerRadioShow (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you and Merry Christmas

Hi, I just wanted to say thank you for taking a look at the Grantham Institute's site, I'm trying to learn from the best way to present the material so that I can work on subject matter that won't be a conflict of interest!

Thank you again, much appreciated. Merry Christmas from the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjfibsb2 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Dan Littman

You know the guidelines better than anyone else I know when it comes to academics. Please take a looks when you can. I had just tagged for notability, original creator thinks it doesn't need it. Rather than debate, I would leave it in your experienced hands if you have the time. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

certainly notable, as is generally the case for full professors at a leading world-famous research university like NYU (I used the word "generally," which I think vague enough to accommodate the various views: there is considerable disagreement about whether it is "always the case,", ""almost always the case" or 'very often the case" -- my own view, as I think is well-known, is that it is always the case, and the problem is only in deciding which universities it applies to. However, not everyone working on these articles agrees with me, including some of my most trusted friends here, so I am not sure "always" would be the consensus position at this time. My argument is similar to that on many other topics--we have much to gain by not having debates about every one of the tens of thousands of articles involved. We hare more harmed by inappropriate promotional articles about academics --just as about everything else--than we are by slight variations in the standard of notability. Time spent at AfD on determining borderline notability is time that should be better spent in patrolling new articles (and re-patrolling the older ones). Much better to have a simple standard, and concern ourselves with content. But in any case, this particular full professor is notable, but, as is often the case, the article needs a little rewriting isn't done in quite the best way to show it, and I will either do some rewriting or at least offer some advice for doing it. I apologize for not going into the details here, but they'll be clear in the finished articles, where the citations will show him an expert in his subject. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

(and for over 100 earlier discussions on this & closely related issues from my talk p, see my topic archive, User talk:DGG/Academic Things and People talk ). DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited New Amsterdam judicial system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page States General (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Stuartyeates

This user is a good candidate for autopatrolled rights, I think. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

done. Perhaps it will encourage him to create more of his high quality articles and spend less time pasting identical AfD !deletes. DGG ( talk ) 11:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Cmach/24.209.139.161

Hi DGG. This is a difficult case -- at least for me -- because I think he's a good faith, but very young and marginally competent editor. By the way he's currently evading a block: see my messages here: User talk:24.209.139.161 and his previous contribs. I didn't have the heart to block him again since he probably doesn't know any better.

Some of what he does is good faith, including starting the one-sentence stubs on composers; he does, however, insert invented birth and death dates. Curiously, even these are probably good faith in that he thinks he's helping us by giving his own best guess. I've been unable to get him to respond (see his previous talk page). Some of his edits I've reverted as untrustworthy, but many have been formatting improvements to the List of Medieval composers and List of Renaissance composers. -- Let me know what you think. Antandrus (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Just what we need. One of the few people available in a under-covered field like this, and messing it up. I think at least some of the birth and death dates are from Google books entries, but not necessarily using the actual text just whatever date appears in the G Books search page, which the way they do it, may be someone else entirely.

I do not think the block is wrong, as we need to prevent adding additional problems; the one article I fixed, I am not at all sure of. My access to Groves is not working right, and I do not see entires in WorldCat, so I am not sure if there are in fact any known works for many of these people, or just a listing--if only the name and century is known, it will be very hard to make articles. If there are documented or even attributed works, it is of course another matter. I doubt I can follow up any later tonight.

I haven't answered the real question you had in mind, which is do we just remove them all, or try to fix them. If he's careless, things can be explained; if he's working in ignorance of what the real real sources are, he can be taught--if he can get access to them. But when someone will not listen, there's nothing that can be done. Young untutored enthusiasts can be real assets here, if they are willing to learn a little. But it's harder to talk sense into them when they're not a captive audience in a classroom. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I re-did one of his entries last night -- Mikołaj z Chrzanowa (partially translating from the Polish wiki, and also using the few references in Grove, where he didn't have an article). I may try another tonight. The one-sentence non-articles -- easy delete or fix; but I'm dreading going through his many edits to the lists to fact-check each date. -- By the way, look at his deleted contribs for his page on himself and his compositions. I remember what it was like being a 13-year-old composer, full of enthusiasm and naivete; maybe that's why I'm not hitting him with the banhammer like some others I know would. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings and happy holidays, DGG. FYI, since I mentioned this thread. He's written Jion de Jordan which is either the most amazingly executed hoax by a 13-year-old I've ever seen, or is genuinely copied from some book with no trace on the internet. I'm not at home at the moment and don't have my library within reach. Antandrus (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Underhill Society of America

Thanks for your input on Underhill, I always learn something new when you are involved. Could you take a look at the related AFDs? I have !voted delete on a couple, and wondering if I am mistaken on these and don't want to delete stuff that should be here. Many of these have improved since I first got involved as well. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• I have withdrawn my nom on two of them after reading your rationale. It appears I was a bit quick on the draw. Normally, only having a citation for an obit *would* be a reason for AFD, but not if it is an unpaid obit from an institution as large as the NYT. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Not size exactly, but selectivity. The only other newspaper obits that are routinely accepted here this way for obit is the London Times. There are probably others that are suitable in other countries, but I' not familiar with them. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I walked away for a couple of days because my confidence was really shaken in Misplaced Pages and the motivation of some editors. I must admit that you and Dennis Brown helped to restore my confidence again. Considering the fact that David Harris Underhill, Estelle Skidmore Doremus, and William Wilson Underhill all have editorial obits from the New York Times, can we lift the RFD from these pages as has already been done with John Torboss Underhill? At a minimum it might be sensible to include the NYT editorial obit comment on the talk pages with a note to "Keep." This will help to alert the administrator responsible for closing the discussion about the importance of keeping the page. Let me know your thoughts on the best way to proceed with this. Thanks again DGG. I can't tell you how appreciative I am for your efforts. Placepromo (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

before the article can be speedy kept, the people who asked for deletion of the article must first withdraw the afd. Ask them. And then someone else must close the discussion--not anyone who has joined in it, like you or me. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I've been having a lot of trouble with Toddst1. Seems to me like he has a vendetta against everyone named Underhill (which I find bizarre), and won't be satisfied until at least one page has been deleted. This is what he wrote on the Francis Jay Underhill AFD discussion page: "Delete: and transwiki to Underhillpedia. DGG is wrong about the obit satisfying GNG per MelanieN. Toddst1 (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)." Also, with respect to your comment about the Speedy Keep, the Underhill Society of America article has consensus on Keep, though was also put up for more discussion. The William Wilson Underhill has consensus on Keep as well, though no one has come along to remove the AFD. Any further help or insights you can provide would be more than welcome. IDKremer (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Academy of Achievement

Hi there DGG, you were recently involved, briefly, on the discussion page about an organization called Academy of Achievement. Prior to November, it was much too promotional; at present, I think the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, as I've explained in a note on the article's discussion page—and as I see you warned in your previous note on the same page. I think I endorse your viewpoint that an EduCap article could be created to address its controversies, but the treatment it is given here represents a clear case of coatracking.

It's worth noting that I've been engaged by the Academy to help resolve the matter; in hopes of doing so efficiently, I've prepared a proposed replacement (in my user space here) that I hope presents an acceptable compromise, or a workable starting point. Hope you can join in discussion on that Talk page. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

In popular culture

The ones I chainsawed were full of things like " has an episode , an obvious shout-out", which is original research, or " mentioned this in very faint passing". I fail to see how one line of throwaway dialogue in a 22-minute episode warrants a relevant mention. Something more obvious, like "The creator of cites as a primary influence" is fine on both Show Y and Show X's articles, as long as the claim is verified. But I just don't think we need every tangential little mention, especially in list form, which looks ugly. Ten Pound Hammer • 16:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

first of all, I would never say that everything in these sections was good, but you deleted the entire sections, the good and bad indiscriminately. (What I consider bad is analogies that are not documented or obvious, and of uses in non-notable works or unimportant contexts.) So are you telling me you had examined every item there and found that there was nothing useable in them according to your standards? I don't think so, because you consistently cite the worst, and use it as the justification for everything.

Second, your standard is wrong--At the very least there's certainly a general consensus that it is fully sufficient for the item to be significant in the work, not only if it is the primary theme or influence of it. But below even being important, even the little details are significant, for they are what show the cultural influence of a prior work , or natural or human-made object, or theme. This is how the cultural network is built. The significance of something is that it becomes a standard example that others will recognize. Entire art forms are constructed around this principle: parody, mash-up, collage, sampling. But even in ordinary work, its important what is shown: this is the sort of thing people study in not just literature and cultural studies, but history. There are books and articles, both scholarly and popular, written on , for example, the specific naval references in Jane Austen. or the geographic elements used by Shakespeare,the drinks people drink in a fictional work, the legendary characters or historical events they assume the audience will know about. This sort of information should be part of the content of a comprehensive encyclopedia like ours, which is not limited except by what people want to include.

Third, with respect to documentation, that something is the main theme or important or occurs in a work can be sourced from the work itself. It's one of the standard exceptions for the use of primary sources.

Finally, the wholesale elimination of the dozens of sections , some of them from major articles, in the course of a few days, done without discussion--and especially the reverts when people restored them-- were unconstructive. Even from your point of view, indiscriminate over-hasty zeal diminishes the value of what you were doing. You use the word "chainsawed." It was an accurate description, but perhaps you didn't mean to use it, for that word has the implications of vandalism. Had you instead taken out the worst of the junk, it would have been a positive contribution. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Karaoke, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The X Factor, The Voice and Fever (song) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject The Twilight Zone

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject The Twilight Zone. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year, DGG. I have responded, and I am still waiting for your reply there. See you soon. --George Ho (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

(this is about notability of characters and episodes) DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:EJ DiMera

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:EJ DiMera. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

replied there--the question is whether character articles are sustainable. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Destruction of Israeli tanks in the Second Intifada

I'm pretty sure this falls into a category of what Misplaced Pages is not (among other things), but would like a more experienced editor to look at it before sending it to AFD. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• I figured you were too busy, but just to let you know I took it to AFD WP:Articles for deletion/Destruction of Israeli tanks in the Second Intifada. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm never too busy to look (I'll comment on this one at the AfD); I am often too busy to look immediately -- not just too busy doing other things here -- I also might be elsewhere on the net than WP, or even somewhere in the RW. Some people here leave WP or their email or both open continuously--I find that distracting. I also sometimes think about something a day or so before I respond; people who write without thinking are prone to foolish errors. And when I do write my reply, I often wait a few hours before I send it--I want to make sure I really mean what I say. In general, allow a 24 to 48 hour turn around time, not guaranteed. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Mechademia

If you have a moment, could you perhaps have a lok at this article? There are a few small problems here. There's a list of issues "sourced" to Amazon.com. There's also an extensive "reception" section with some cherry-picked quotes. And some editors (see talk) vehemently oppose inclusion of links to the journal page at Project MUSE (because that is apparently spam for a paysite, whereas the Amazon links are sources...) Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll comment there. But it's good to see a journal article that does have reviews of the journal. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

School AfDs

Of the 120 or so primary schools that were suddenly mass proposed for deletion over the holiday period, roughly half are being redirected and half are being deleted, and some are apparently being deleted without properly evaluating the consensus. Not only is it contrary to any effort to adhere to consistency in the way policies, guidelines, or precedents are applied throughout the encyclopedia, but such arbitrary voting and closing by those who are not aware of the policies, guidelines, and precedents, does not accord equal debate treatment for similar or near identical articles. The situation is now getting ridiculous and a ruling is urgently required one way or another that we can all follow and save unnecessary bureaucracy. Personally, I very strongly support the redirection of nn schools and its clearly established precedent, but if policy does get changed, I'd kowtow to whichever way the cookie crumbles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this is basically an extreme illustration of the usual impossibility of getting valid decisions out of the AfD process relying on a volunteer jury system with few participants except for the sensational cases, and judges who are equally likely to ignore what the consensus says and decide on their own account, and follow the consensus even when it had no basis in policy. Difficulty in making decisions is an inescapable byproduct of anarchy, but I think we're committed here to seeing how good an encyclopedia we can produce with ordinary people under non-authority-regulated conditions, even if only as an experiment. That the experiment does as well as it does proves for the resilience of Kropotkin's ideas. I was raised on Trotsky's, but soon came to realize, as did the Trotskyists, what if the other guys were the ones in power. You either rebel & get shot, hoping to be rehabilitated in the eventual revolution, or, like most people, join the winning side and pretend it is't evil. Perhaps it is sufficient that the internet has changed the structure of human life, by making obsolete the old slogan, that freedom of the press is for the man who owns one. I'd much rather talk about this than the immediate problem, about which look here in a few hours. DGG ( talk ) 15:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Help for "Marketing Metrics" book

The authors of this book are interested in making it open source. Can you let me know what licensing will need to be filled out to make this possible? Also, could you provide me with an example of a Misplaced Pages entry for a textbook? Thanks so much for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenmharvey (talk • contribs) 21:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

to make it open source, it must be published on the web with a CC-BY-ATT or CC-BY license or the equivalent, or better; a print only book could be published open source, letting people copy & redistribute as much as they want by scanning or photocopy, but if the purpose is widespread use, doing it that way doesn't help all that much; if the purpose is only letting people freely reuse pieces of it, it's a conceivable method. Examples of opens source books are Misplaced Pages: The Missing Manual by John Broughton in print) online at our own site  ; an example near your subject is at and their print price list. Note that their book are CC3.0-ATT-NC-SA, and would thus not be considered open source for Misplaced Pages purposes) There's a good discussion at opensourcetext.org; see also opentextbook.org DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Futurama (season 6)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Futurama (season 6). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Mechademia edits

You made some comments about the scholarly journal Mechademia, which deals with manga and anime. The full text and all tables of contents for Mechademia are available for free at http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/mechademia/ and all articles can be downloaded for free. I added the link on the talk page, but not in the article itself. Check the link yourself and then, if you want, add it to the article. Timothy Perper (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If you go to the page, you'll find vol 4 of Mechademia is available. That wasn't clear in what I just said -- sorry about that. Hope this is clearer. Timothy Perper (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not the case. Only sample issues can--at present, vol.4. If you see more than that, you are working within the domain of a college or library that has a subscription. I'll forward you a screen shot if necessary. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I can get the ToCs from the link I gave, not only for Vol. 4 but for the others too. Except for Vol. 4, downloading costs money, but the ToCs are on the link. Let me go back and check them all. I'll be right back. Timothy Perper (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, all the ToCs are available -- I just checked. Timothy Perper (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is what most journals do: the TOCs at least are readable, and there is a sample issue or volume available free. A great many, including all or most of the journal backfiles at JSTOR, have abstracts free also. A very few don't even let you see the TOC, which is f rather silly--free TOCs and abstracts help sell article access. Usually we do not give the specifics of this in the article, because it;s fairly standard and subject to change. We certainly don't let any journal doing this imply they have free access. Now, if we could persuade the publishers to make everything free except the most recent issue or two, it would be a small step forward--though that of course is not open access, which requires the final version to be free to read and otherwise use upon publication, which, from the point of view of disseminating ideas, is the only acceptable solution. I sort of know this by heart, having spent the last 10 years of my professional career on negotiating and arranging for e-journal access for a university (and have kept up since then), and been since 1999 an active advocate of true open access. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

True, true... I too have spent many years on the editorial boards of several scholarly journals but have mixed feelings about open access. Until we can find free money to pay the printer, journals will not be free to readers. In an ideal world -- well, in an ideal world, there would be world peace, clean air, no crime -- we don't live in an ideal world. So we have paid subscribers, who provide the cash we need to pay the printer. But I agree that ideally open and free access would be wonderful. Timothy Perper (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

=Chris Sweeting

Thank uou for your kind assistance and for the helpful advice given in your note of yesterday. With all good wishes for 2012 6 Januaary 2012Clive sweeting (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Clive Sweeting

Please comment on Talk:Night of the Living Dead

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Night of the Living Dead. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Delete request for Baotou–Lanzhou Passenger Railway

Hi DGG,

Recently I requested a speedy delete for Baotou–Lanzhou Passenger Railway. I created the page by mistake, and it redirects to the Baoji–Lanzhou High-Speed Railway. Note that these are two different railways, with different termini (Baotou vs. Baoji). Can you please reconsider the speedy deletion? Thanks.  –Nav  00:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not instead make a proper article on Baotou–Lanzhou Passenger Railway, since you have the information? DGG ( talk ) 08:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

declined speedy on Archangel Ancient Tree Archive`

I think your decline rational was inappropriate and insufficient. The a7 criteria make no reference to BEFORE, and further you have no evidence that I did not do such a search (which I did, and which comes up either empty (gnews), or unreliable blog/interrelated org links (regular google). In fact, the a7 criteria clearly states that this is a lesser bar than the notability/verifiability rationale for justification. This article does not make a claim to notability and so qualifies. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

anyone except the original contributor can decline a speedy for any reason, including a hunch, or a desire that the community look at it. You have prodded it, which was exactly the right thing to do if you disagreed, and is better than arguing with me. DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject Cooperation

I just recently started Wikiproject Cooperation and I thought you would be interested. Thanks for your time. Silverseren 01:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

certainly I'm interest, but I think we should try for a more specific name--more specific, but that won't scare people away, like the notorious ARS. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you

Hi David. Sorry to bother you but once again I need your expert advice. The situation with the mass AfDs of school articles has now gone critical and complex. Something needs to be done urgently, but I don't particularly wish for my talk page to become the venue for the inevitable dramafest, and we need to know where best to take it. You'll need to read this thread and this thread. Thanks in advance your advice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Metro Walk

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Metro Walk. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 3#WP:Articles for deletion/Fictional women of Passions, volume 1

This discussion has been re-opened, and your votes have been recoved. You can go there now until official closing. --George Ho (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of historical works

Looks like you instigated the deletion of historical important works of Kewill. At first glance Kewill page could look like commercial promotion. But did you actually read the document thoroughly, or give an inkling to wondering why the document existed on Misplaced Pages for close to ten years? It must be great using your power without any notion of hubris to snub out history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boul22435 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I am always willing to reconsider; since I am human, I make errors. I also have the emotions of a human being, and I prefer to discuss matters with people who treat me politely, but having volunteered to be an admin here, I accept the responsibility of helping even those who address me as you do with as much grace as I can muster. I think if you'll check on my talk page you'll find I am considered among the most sympathetic of all admins to articles on such subjects, but that does not mean I tolerate articles such as this, be they old or new. I never said that Kewall was necessarily an inappropriate subject for an article, though that needs to be shown by references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases--the data pages from Reuters, etc. are usable as references for the financial data, but do not show notability. I deleted the article because it was so promotional it was unacceptable without more than routine rewriting. That the article has been here a long time can be simply an indication that nobody has sufficiently looked at it; our standards having risen, we are much more likely to deal critically with new articles than older ones. Examining the edit history, I see no regular editor except yourself has ever dealt substantially with it.

If you are willing to work on it according to our standards, I will restore the article to your user space for a limited time. I had examined it sufficiently to make the problems unmistakably clear; I have now re-examined it sentence by sentence. As a guide, among the elements that I consider promotional are: the emphasis upon the great constructive role of the current ceo; the inclusion of the dates of tenure of multiple officers other than the ceo--we include this only for much larger companies; the description of the overall field of business rather than the company specifically, the use of jargon; the repetition; the failure to describe specifically what the products are; the use of vague adjective of quality and praise; and the greatly excessive use of the corporate name--the words to use are "the firm", "the company", or, even better , "it". I also note the absence of basic data on numbers of staff, financial turnover, and, if possible, market share--this is important for all companies and sources are available.

When you have finished, let me know, and I will look at it and restore it to mainspace if suitable. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring Kewill page to my space. Apologize for not giving grace, I have had a succession of quality articles unnecessarily deleted from Misplaced Pages. In one severe case Suksma Ratri page a women from Asia Pacific who's addressed the UN general assembly on criminalization of vulnerable HIV sex workers garnering the support from Annie Lennox, OBE. Opening Speech by Suksma Ratri on Youtube. Compare to PARC/Google friend who advises the Wikimedia main board on HCI and another who's annually donated 20,000 USD gain new pages without suffering the dreaded fast delete flag. My sense is Misplaced Pages has become unbalanced with too much power concentrated in some admin's hands (thank you for reconsidering and advising). In other digital social networks concentrated power in one group of editors or contributors seems to have lead to a rapid fail from grace at MySpace, HI5, Digg. Putting up with some messy imperfect democratic contributions to Misplaced Pages seems to be a healthy design. A la: Facebook, Twitter, Google+ dmode (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking for your advice

Hi, DGG. I came across a G7 speedy tag at James E. Wise, Jr. and declined it as the subject looked notable at a cursory glance. G7 makes no mention of notability and I don't understand why. Are we to ignore notability if the other conditions of G7 are met? I may be overlooking something basic, but I don't see the utility in deleting aticles about notable subjects because the creator requests deletion. (In this specific instance it wasn't a request so much as it was acquiescence). Anyway, thanks for your time...I hope things are well with you. Tiderolls 05:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC) I considered posting this at WT:CSD but was sure the subject had, most likely been discussed there previously and I was too lazy to search the archives. Mea culpa.

1. The rule for speedy is that the article will be deleted in the subject shows no indication of importance of significance, which I think of as meaning that nobody in good faith who understood the purpose of Misplaced Pages would think there should be an article. Notability is more than this. Any subject that is notable will certainly be important or significant, while a great many things that may have some good-faith importance will still not be notable. When I first came here, I asked the same question you are asking, and suggested clarifying this by saying importance or significance or notability. The answer I was given by those of more experience is that it is better to avoid using the word "notable" entirely in defining A7, because it will inevitably lead to people asking an article be deleted because of no demonstration of notability, which is asking too much--only the community can decide notability, whether passively at WP:PROD or actively at AfD. Admins have views on this that are too diverse for them alone to be trusted, and notability can in many cases be pretty nebulous. But if something is totally insignificant, we pretty much all agree, and speedy A7 is therefore limited to the types of things we all normally agree on.
2. Personally, I think we should never have ever adopted the word "notability". It operationally has a meaning peculiar to us, what is called a "term of art", meaning only the question whether there should be a separate Misplaced Pages article; I think we should be deciding how much coverage to give the subjects that are of different grades of importance: varying from none at all, to a complex set of related articles. But people here like what might appear to be simple yes-no distinctions——but then they find themselves quarreling endlessly about everything anywhere near what they thought was a clear the borderline.
3. As for deletion by request of the author of the article, although Misplaced Pages contributions are licensed irrevocably, sometime people change their mind, and it is good practice to show understanding.. Very often though it makes sense, and we don't want to embarrass people by a public discussion. If the reason is not immediately obvious to me, I ignore such requests or ask for a reason. Sometimes it's because the author realizes the difficulty of writing an adequate article, and doesn't want an inadequate one to stand. Sometimes, the author is not convinced it will hold up at AfD, and would rather avoid a very public process about it--our AfD process is apt to make a mountain out a a molehill. (In this case, guessing from the author's talk p., I think both reasons apply.)
4. As for the article in question, he's an author of multiple books that have been published by a reputable publisher and are fairly widely held in libraries-- see WorldCat Identities; if they have substantial reviews, he meets WP:AUTHOR. However, depending on the extent of the reviews, the books seem rather routine, and that publisher, while often publishing books of very high quality and significance, also sometimes publishes works of quite minor importance. If someone brought it to AfD, there are others things I'd think better worth the effort of defending. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Query

Hi DGG. I PRODed a 1-sentence, zero-ref article on a small shopping mall that, to me, appeared to meet our PROD requirements. You declined the PROD, writing "merge available--its at least a good redirect". But you didn't merge it or redirect it yourself.

The creator then deleted your merger suggestion, with the edit summary: "added a basic citation, but everyone knows that merge templates never involve discussions (that's why i actually created it in the first place".

Now, the creator has a point about merges -- If I'm to believe what I read on the internet: "There are currently around 16,000 articles tagged with merge tags. Only about 5% have any discussion and only about 1% of the tags actually link to the discussion. Merges routinely languish for years, with several unresolved merges over three years old."

But what we've just done has been a complete circle (j...), and used up three editors' time, leaving us much where we were before it all started.

I believe that the mall is non-notable under our notability standards, and that deletion is the best course -- we don't, under our standards as I understand them, keep (or even merge or redirect) every mall in the world. The process has simply resulted in the expenditure of time, returning us to square one. How would you suggest I proceed, as I believe the article lacks notability sufficient to meet GNG, and though one might redirect or merge it and I would accept that I don't believe that the better course given its lack of notability?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Your concern about using up three editors' time gives me pause; have you stopped to consider how much editor time your recent Schools AfD spree caused? At a rough estimate, about 80 hours. 10 of them were mine. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll simply say: a) those AfDs brought about results (mostly deletes and redirects, that brought the articles in line with our policies), whereas this did not advance the ball at all -- which is a primary point I was making above; and b) your comment does nothing to aid my discourse with DGG on the above. We could of course have a longer conversation on the points you may wish to discuss--I would be happy to, but perhaps this is not the place -- this is a thread I opened about the above issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

epeefleche, I was about to write to you, that I agree one =hundred percent with you that these small and medium size shopping malls are not notable. About three years ago I made a major such to try to get a guideline where we would require 1 million square feet as a general guideline for notability of such falls, what amounted to la=super0regional or very large regional status (I'd guess the proper size cut off has gone up a little since then). =--and merge the others; usually not with the town, but articles like school district articles: shopping malls in Bergen country, or like groups of schools under single ownership: the chain of shopping malls . Consensus failed, as it usually does for such general compromises, because one or two people insisted they were all notable,, and one or two people insisted they were none of them notable at any size, and there was a good deal of squabbling among the others at what size to make the cutoff. But most mall AfDs since then have gone as the failed guideline suggested, at about one million square feet.

I consider them much worse than elementary schools, because of the opportunities for promotionalism, with the usual contents being long lists of all the secondary tenants.

What I urde=ge you to do here is to redirect. I will support you very strongly in any reasonable merge/redirect for articles in this subjetin any forum here , if you will let me know which ones are being questioned. In one of the AfDs I commented on yesterday, I see that your AfD was necessary, because having a separate article was strongly defended. Most of the time it will not be: that's why I changed your prods to suggested merges--that;s what you should have done all along.

But you raise the true issue, you will accept a merge, but you do not believe in it. I will call you on that as long and hard as I can,for what you are saying is disruptive both to established policy and my concept of Misplaced Pages. With respect to established policy Deletion Policy is unambiguous that any alternative to deletion is preferable to deletion, especially a merge or a redirect. This policy was established before I came here five years ago, and it is the basis of my own view, the extension and understanding of that, that the true issue is not keeping or deleting articles, but how much space to devote to subjects. And to the general policy idea behind Misplaced Pages, that we operate by consensus, again well established 45 years ago and the basis for extension and understanding of that, which is that consensus means compromise. Consensus is the only way a cooperative project not based on authority can operate, except for the development of less formal lines of power that amount in the end to authority, and which are just as destructive to true cooperation as elected or appointed formal authority. This is the real danger to Misplaced Pages Five years ago there were such informal power groups, and as a newcomer I was outside them. Though sheer survival, I am less totally outside them now, but I never wanted to be in them. I'm a teacher fundamentally, and I want less to have do my own work in my own was, but to show other people how to work constructively, with my own way as just one of the possible examples , and then encourage them to do so, developing their own way. The success of a teacher is not the students who become followers, but the students who become independent. (And, though a little off the topic, the informal groups of 5 years ago are being now superseded by additional formal organization, acting through the Foundation, and I think nothing more important to our long term survival than to resist them--even in the rare occasion they do something which happens to be right, for they destroy our initiative, without which our principles will not survive. It's not that I would rather be right than be President, but that if I became President, I know the temptations, and I can predict that I would no longer be right.

as for the schools AfDs, the ones that resulted in deletions were not in accord with our policies, in particular the WP:Deletion policy on alternatives to deletion, and the main question there , which I am considering, and probably Kudpung is also, is whether to make new merged articles and redirects, or challenge every one of the deletions at deletion review. I don't like spending time in the very arcane style of deletion review discussions, especially with my usual colleague Spartaz not very active (reliable not in that he usually agrees with me, but that between what he says and what I say, we can generally make the issue clear). The first choice will take another large amount of timer, the second, possibly more, though they may settle the issue after the first few of them. At the moment you have the advantage that I and Kudpung had ha=work to do which we think even more important than dealing with individual deleted articles, while you are clearly focussing on deletion.(for me, its building up the proper content in articles on organizations, and removing the long existent spam from them) For me, every thingI have to argue with you is something I'd rather not be doing. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your usual thoughtful response, DGG. Some thoughts ...

I'm glad we are in accord that these small/medium malls that lack indicia of notability are non-notable. Too bad that your proposed guideline failed -- it sounds reasonable. I think that generally the way to go -- if there is a consensus -- is to reflect it in a guideline. That smooths the process. Please alert me if you re-suggest your guideline, with the added support that you can no doubt muster by pointing to the last 3 years of experience.

If we can't get consensus for a guideline, as reasonable as the guideline might be, that forces us to the unpleasant task of considering alternatives. I recognize that some editors, in such circumstances, will encourage others to act BOLDly, and unilaterally take action such as a redirect or merge. I, personally, could save myself much time if I were to do so.

My hesitation is that -- especially where I know that there may well be a lack of consensus, or have reason to believe that may be the case -- I am hesitant to take action that lacks transparency, and that relies solely on my view, without even having another editor agree with my view, and results in the dramatic impact that a redirect (for example) has. I would be much more comfortable if we had a speedy-like process, in which a sysop (or even another editor) confirmed my view. But I'm not keen on unilateral action (by me, at least) that redirects an article where I have reason to believe that if it were listed at AfD the result might be delete, or keep, or merge. I care more about the action being taken being in accord with consensus than I do about the result being the one I propose -- and I'm happy to accept whatever the consensus is. My focus is driven by an effort to apply consensus-driven rules, or seek consensus where we appear to lack it.

To my mind, the main issue (the true issue, as you put it) is whether or not a stand-alone article should exist. AfD calls for articles to be nominated for deletion, but as the possible alternatives closes at AfD suggests, it often turns into a 2-step process: a) should there be a stand-alone article (a keep); and b) if not, should it be deleted, redirected, merged, or the like. My focus is on "a", and to my mind that is the most important issue.

To some, it appears to be very important whether the article that they agree should not be stand-alone should be redirected. To me, that's not the world-beater of issues, and the impact is far, far lesser than whether the article text is removed from mainspace. If we were to discuss it at length, I could no doubt build a strong case for suggesting that redirecting "Mall X" to "New York City" does little to inform our readers of anything of moment. But it does little harm, at the same time, and if editors feel strongly that every mall (no matter how small), and every nursery school (no matter how insignificant), and every person (no matter how non-notable) should be redirected to "New York City" and the like, my general view is that there is little harm in them engaging in that activity. Even if it adds -- IMHO -- little or nothing to the goals of the Project. But, as I said -- what you view as the main issue is one that IMHO has little impact, compared to the issue of whether the stand-alone article is excised. At the same time, I view it as of such low importance that I don't see much value in spending time arguing it either way, and I generally don't argue against a redirect these days ... it accomplishes 99% of what a delete does, w/regard to a non-notable article.

As to merges -- see my initial comments above. It appears to be, as the editor in that post indicated, a "catastrophically failing merge process". Plus, I don't see much benefit in merging content on a non-notable mall into another article. And I certainly question the merging of text that is not referenced at all, and which has been challenged, into another article -- that violates our core policy of verifiability.

As to the school AfDs, let me give some thought to my response before posting it. Both to allow your page to breathe, and to fashion a more thoughtful one. I'm interested in exploring ways in which we might improve/streamline the process, whether through additions to our notability guideline or otherwise.

Oh, lest I forget. The circumstances here. I (and you) believe the mall is non-notable. I prod it. You delete the prod, but tag it for a merge discussion. The article creator deletes your merge tag. ... Now, I still think it non-notable, and am in favor of deletion (still) though I would be fine w/redirect or merge (my main point being it does not meet our notability requirements, and thus should not be a stand-alone article). I agree with the creator that adding the delete tag likely -- per his comment and the above -- would simply add it to a 16,000-odd merge-suggested backlog, which seems unhelpful as those seem to languish (again, per the above) for 3+ years. What is your suggestion? Should I now, given my thinking, take it to AfD?

Best, as always. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

We have those streamlined ways already. If anything positive has come out of your AfD spree for schools, it is that where the 'redirect' closures far outnumber the 'delete', it serves once more to reinforce the long standing precedent that is followed by those who know about it. Non notable schools do not a toxic redirect make, and I am surprised that after ten years and 5,000 pages of policies guidelines, and essays, some information pages, such as those that state in an accepted banner "While this essay is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy", that these exceptions are still disputed. It is not logical that an AfD can be closed on a consensus that conflicts with policy, but it happens. Precedents, like the uncodified common law of Britain, should be respected. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

However, there is a unsolved question, which is how to handle a disputed merge., both in case where there is a real objection to the merge, and in cases like these, where nobody can seriously object. I have repeated suggested changing Articles for Deletion into Articles for Discussion, where these would go, and a request for a merge would be as legitimate as a request for a deletion. It was passed once or twice, but not impleeted due to the difficulty of changing all the templates & my own failure to follow up promptly enough. It remains the best solution. The alternative I prefer is to bring them there anyway, either following the fundamental rule of IAR, which is another way of stating WP is NOT A BUREAUCRACY, or my preferred alternative of evading the need to use IAR in most cases, by using NOT BUREAUCRACY creatively, by asking for "merge, or alternatively, delete" instead of the more usual way, delete, with alternative of merging. The other is the traditional article talk page discussion. notified not as a policy RfC, which is always asking for anywahere from 3 to ∞ months of discussion usually getting nowhere, but a discussion on a particular group of merges--say, 5 shopping malls in New zealand. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There is of course the possibility of simply applying a merge template to any individual article. If the merge proposal has not received any response after a reasonable time (and many won't because such articles are mainly created by SPA who never return) the proposer can BRD and go ahead with his/her merge & redirect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course, for the ones that are not defended. But this is a technique capable of great abuse, and I will not use it in a controversial situation--or one that might become controversial if attention were called to it. It's been the technique of those trying to destroy content about fiction: first merge the articles, then reduce the content in the merged articles into a single short paragraph, then turn it into a bare list, then remove the redirect on the basis it does not link to anything substantial. But I do not consider elementary school merges as controversial, and I do place such merge tags. I've tried it with shopping malls, but it seems they get watched.

More generally, it is more important that we not remove information someone may find of value, than that we keep out everything that is valueless. The only material necessary to remove is that which contributes negative value. The only valid objection against our becoming a directory is that it degrades the worth of what is important; my feeling is that if it avoids the negative effects of promotionalism and nonsense, it's much less of a priority than removing the pervading promotionalism and out of date information in the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Evening...

Evening. I sent you an email. Kind regards. Wifione 08:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

replied, more tomorrow DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI

It may well be that someone has already had the courtesy of notifying you of this, but just in case. I've no idea what it is about, or whether it has significance, but I thought you ought to be aware of it.--Scott Mac 01:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) New link seems to be this. PamD 09:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw it myself a little earlier this evening. KW seems to be doing his utmost to show himself in as bad a light as possible. It's perfectly consistent with his general behavior there that he didn't inform me. As far as I am concerned, I don't think what he said about me is significant enough to respond to. I took the same view as others did. If he holds a grudge, that's his lookout.

As for my position on NPA, it's been stated elsewhere: that people at a responsible public site behave like they do no longer amazes me; what continues to puzzle me is why the site tolerate them. Perhaps I have a responsibility to say this there, but people will see it here also. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

That, I think, is the nub of the whole arbcom case. We've managed to get some sort of American free-speech, citizen's-rights, ethos, which tolerates children being childish, and really has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. Sadly, it is unlikely to change.--Scott Mac 04:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's better to avoid nationalities--to many Americans like myself the offensive style here is more like British pub speech, or more exactly, the constant back and forth of insult in British comedy sketches, rather than random use of occasional bad words that characterizes American adolescents. When people work together, deliberate and repeated use of what others in the group clearly consider insult always has the implication that the others do not matter. Whether everyone considers it insult is irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 15:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've not made myself clear (and foolishly appeared to insult Americans). The style here is certainly British (and the whole "cunt is not sexist in Britain" meme is slight of hand, because although not generally used to refer to women in the UK, it is not a term anyone would use in any open social space - because it is clearly anti-social pubic language, only tolerated in certain - generally male - in-groups). No, my reference to the US was not that Americans are less civil, it is that there seems to me a Wikipedian reluctance to clamp down on certain types of speech. Go into most British public spaces and use the word "cunt", and you'll soon be asked to shut-up or leave. Use it in the hearing of customers in most workplaces - you'll be fired. And if in any particular sub-culture that's not the case, you won't be able to operate within any wider culture unless you learn how to adapt. Misplaced Pages is a wider culture. I may, inadvertently, happen to use a word that's acceptable "where I come from" - but once I am made aware of the wider cultural sensitivities, I must surely desist. The idea those involved here don't realise this is, quite frankly, not tenable.--Scott Mac 16:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Very eloquently put Scott. I concur with you both. Why the site tolerates it is an enigma to me too. But it does. That said, some of the worst insults do not need the use of expletives to be gravely insulting and demeaning - but in the current investigations, that aspect of PA and incivility seems to be unimportant. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Interestingly the word "cunt" appears (final para) in today's Observer newspaper (a "respectable" paper, not a scandal sheet), albeit as a quote quoted from an article in Time Out and used to illustrate incivility woman to woman (and the original speaker was perhaps using it to emphasise her "working class" credentials?) While we wait for their inevitable degeneration, we should try to maintain an even temper, although that is not always possible or even desirable. After Helena Bonham Carter, the great-granddaughter of Herbert Asquith, complained that for all her advantages and beauty directors would not hire her because she was not "trendily working class", an exasperated Kathy Burke found the effort of keeping a civil tongue in her head too much to bear. "As a lifelong member of the non-pretty working classes," she told Time Out, "I would like to say to Helena Bonham Carter: shut up you stupid cunt." Not sure if this adds anything to any discussions, but thought it noteworthy when I saw it this morning. Perhaps it does tend to illustrate that it's not a misogynistically-offensive term over here (UK), just a stronger version of "stupid cow", ie rudeness applied exclusively to a female; male equivalent probably "Stupid prick". (But I spend most of my life in a quiet village looking after an aged Mother, so am no expert on what's said in pubs, on buses or in workplaces at present!) PamD 17:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The quote says it all. Burke "found the effort of keeping a civil tongue in her head too much to bear". Were User:K.Burke on Misplaced Pages, she would, by definition, have breached WP:CIVIL - can could be blocked. Now she might argue that User:Posh-Helena had bated her, but would we buy it?--Scott Mac 18:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I was at first surprised at our emphasis on the wording: I now appreciate it as a good opportunity for discussing bad language. I agree with Scott that the way "cunt" is used in the quote above shows that the use is normally considered offensive in the UK, and that this was newsworthy as an exceptionally crude statement. Its implication depends on the circumstances--it can be used in a positive sense between lovers. But even if the word were uniformly used in the UK as a strong compliment, even among strangers or people working together in offices, referring perhaps to the excellence of women as exemplified by their sexuality, and if nobody at all in the UK, even those of a previous generation, were ever offended, it still is offensive here, because we are not writing for a UK readership only, and it is obviously perceived by many people here as a crude insult. Even were all women uniformly in the English-speaking world to think it a friendly greeting, if any substantial number of men nonetheless considered it an insult to women, it would be offensive. All of these discussions about the intrinsic nature of this word or other words is entirely irrelevant to NPA. If words are perceived by at least some reasonable people here as offensive, that is what matters. I'm Jewish. If I'm called Jewish, I normally consider it a neutral descriptor, or sometimes a word of praise. If it's used to me as an insult, it's insulting because it considers my ethnicity a fit term to be used

Kudpung refers to insult expressed in polite terms. We need to recognize this as improper also--NPA means no personal attacks, not merely no personal attacks using conventional words of insult. When terms normally considered insulting are used, it aggravates the situation; when terms often used to indicate group membership are so used, it aggravates it further. It not the intrinsic use of any particular word that is crucial to NPA--it just makes NPA easier to prove.

There's even more serious aspect: when experienced people in a group can get away with behavior newcomers can not, it implies an hierarchy, a non-welcoming attitude. a sense of exclusiveness. It's a collective version of OWNERSHIP: the longer you're here, the more you own the encyclopedia. If we do welcome newcomers, the longer a person is here, the great should be their politeness. It's the same as an expert trying for OWNership of an article: for a true expert, their edits will prove it. If those of longer standing have the ability to determine our practice, it will be because their experience enables them to best explain it. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the missing link here is not so much NPA as "don't needlessly disrupt Misplaced Pages". What is a personal attack may very well depend on the intention of the writer, and his expectation of how the recipient will understand it. Thus, if we assume good faith, lots of things can be excused as having "friendly" intention, or having been misunderstood. However, it is not enough to have good intention - one also needs not to use language that may predictably give the impression of an intent to give offence (even if none is intended). To give a concrete example: a number of years ago a user was accused of a racist post (I can't remember the details). Of course there was uproar. The user then protested he had no racist intent, and indeed was himself black (sorry if that's the wrong term). The defence was accepted. However, in a virtual community no one knows you are black - so don't use the language that requires that knowledge for context, because it is likely to be misunderstood by some and thus cause disruption. Same here: how one normally uses "cunt" is immaterial, that one doesn't intend a personal attack is good, but also insufficient. If you know that a form of words is likely to be seen as uncivil - just don't use it. We are trying to communicate in a multi-cultural, non-visual community. Sure, people should assume good faith, but you should not (as far as you are able) require them to understand your ethnicity, gender, culture, local linguistic practice, religion, or sexuality in order to understand your words. You should attempt (as you are able) to use language that transcends that - ans so deliberately using language that doesn't is disruption (or even trolling).--Scott Mac 22:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

One of the saddest aspects gained by a reputation of of being unpleasant is that it has deterred some people from wanting to submit articles for promotion to quality status. It's already driven most people away from wanting to help the project through promotion to the use of a set of tools. This is clearly not conducive to a healthy collaboration and growth of the project. In other words, it's disruptive. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"Don't needlessly disrupt Misplaced Pages" can apply to a great many things. In a sense, it's the basis of all offenses--contributing or commenting in such a way as to make trouble for people. It includes persistently submitting unacceptable articles, or persistent attempts to remove acceptable ones. Or copyvio, edit-warrring, or promotionalism--especially non commercial promotion of a cause. All of these take effort to deal with, and interfere with work directed to building the encyclopedia.

Anything can upset people, especially if it's connected with rejecting their work. There is no intervention, however well meant and however careful, that is truly safe--I've had people upset with approaches that essentially amount to , "let me help you make a better article"--especially with autobio, where people tend to think they have written the obviously perfect article. Whatever people take offense with, I apologize for, and apology helps, if perceived as sincere, and if it's more than "I'm sorry it had a bad effect on you" but rather along the lines of "I made an error, and I will fix it."

But the best first line towards improvement is avoiding certain comments that are known to be especially dangerous.These are the expected--any reference to age, or race, or nationality, or sex, or religion; or using words some people thing are taboo. Reflections on people's education are tricky--much more than the others, they may be an actual problem, and, in this encyclopedia, they can be connected sometimes with age and first-language; I've learned to avoid these also. But the basic rule remains, that in a very public setting, where you are interacting with a range of individuals of unknown identity and background, with extremely variable preferences and expectations for formality, and a wide range of expectations, it is necessary to be extremely careful how you say and do things. It might sound like this is asking a lot: but we're all trained in language use and interpersonal interactions from infancy, and even children are aware of the concept of hurting other people's feelings.

(There are some people who unfortunately are not, and may indefinitely require guidance; one special aspect is that people with these difficulties are often attracted to our relatively impersonal setting; though we say WP is not therapy, it can be, or at least can be a safe environment--but just as in society generally, it is very difficult to encourage these individuals while also protecting the others, and we therefore will always need mechanisms of isolation. But never punishment--having social difficulties is not anyone's fault in a moral sense (or at least so I like to say, perhaps excusing those of my own). But we are justified in asking those who can control themselves to do so, and educating those who for whatever reason have not learned the expected standard——and gently removing the others.

The excuse of intellectual brilliance does not apply here: this is a communal setting, though some people may not at first realize that. Even the best of contributors, who can not or will not avoid offending other contributors will need to find a setting where they can work without doing harm. Even those who are most readily to hurt others can very readily take offense themselves——AN/I or RfC/U are good places to observe this; I rather doubt many of those who say it does not matter to them, and that this should be an environment where everyone is expected to be tough and impervious, both taking and giving. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Im confused. Accusation of rudeness may or may not be justified. Dont care. How did the "c" word come up? None of the linked diffs include it? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

the word came up because the use of it has been a prominent example in the manifold recent discussions. To say we should not insult other people by using the word does not mean we should avoid using it frankly when the word itself (or the subject) is the matter being discussed. Accusations of unjustified rudeness are rather common; I said I sometimes receive some after I've deleted an article, no matter what I've actually said. I would never support a rule that we act too strongly on even true rudeness if it's sporadic, but we should act firmly and consistently when it becomes habitual or defiant. DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Persistently persistent

First, my appreciation for your consideration of my recent ANI. That being said, User:Snowded continues to assert his/her intent to delete any 'POV Section Tag" not in compliance with his/her, IMHO, misunderstanding and/or purposeful misrepresentation of WP:POLICY on both POV tagging and WP:NPOV policy. As I would like to renew the talk page discussion towards resolution aided by the hopefully increased breadth of editorial consideration which the POV tag is designed to foster, your indulgence in further clarifying your determination at your earliest convenience is solicited. I have notified User:Snowded of this request. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not normally mediate content disputes, but I will take a look at the article talk page & give an opinion. However,as I said at AN/I, there is no reason to edit war about a tag. Just make your case there for what the contents of the article should be. Then I'll look at what you've said there. DGG ( talk ) 15:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not normally mediate content disputes,...

If I might suggest, this is less a "content dispute" than it is a "presentation dispute" per rather clear WP:NPOV guidance.

Just make your case there for what the contents of the article should be.

As you will, no doubt, quickly discern, that was precisely what I did when I initially established the section to discuss (not dispute) the content in question. As, IMHO, no editor would address the specifics of my POV objection (as you will also, hopefully, discern), upon my elevation of the discussion to formal dispute status, I repeated my objection and rationale to, again, solicit comments specific to my POV objection. As of yet, that objection and its foundation in the SPECIFIC language of WP:NPOV has yet to be addressed...and suppression and diversion rather than discussion appears to be the only reponse thus far. That, hopefully, will be rectified by an infusion of fresh editorial consideration/opinion the POV tag is designed to foster. Thanks again for your time and consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Jarvis hearings and geog context

Hallo David, Thanks for picking up Jarvis hearings. I've added a few tweaks just now.

But it raises an interesting point: you say "court processes in Minnesota". I've added ", United States". I don't think that US state is adequate geographical context for a world-wide encyclopedia. As an educated Brit who's travelled to Canada, I can't always remember whether "Michigan" is US or Canada (the lake is on the border I think), and "Idaho" might look positively Japanese to someone unfamiliar with the US. (On a related point, I find it very difficult when I'm stub-sorting and find a page where I need to choose from groupings like "mid-western states": I don't have this categorisation at my fingertips). I can't find anything which specifies whether a country should be given in the lead - I raised a point at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#.22broader_geographical_area.22.3F_how_about_country.3F, but (a) on re-reading, the MOS talks about what should be linked, not just what should be written in the text, and (b) no-one has commented in two days. I wonder what your views are, and/or where would be the best place to discuss it. PamD 08:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this was discussed elsewhere recently, with the conclusion that the country should always be added. But I haven't time to find it just now. Perhaps someone will remember on the page you mention. In principle, I agree with you. We are an international resource, and the assumptions that hold in the US of what is basic common automatically-presumed knowledge do not hold universally. For London, for Paris, there are other places by that name, so we should in logic always add that even when we are referring to the only universally known one, and by logic similarly we should have the country name in the title of the article. But some names are totally unique. such as New York City, and there is nothing named "Minnesota" outside the US State of Minnesota, Should we do this also? I think yes.

Indeed, I think we should fully qualify every geographic name and every locally based body, not just rely on the principles of avoiding ambiguity within the encyclopedia , or even the principle of avoiding ambiguity worldwide; and I think this should apply to all titles also, though we may not need all the intermediate steps. Harvard University should be Harvard University, United States,but I would even accept Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States. Cambridge, In other swords, I totally disagree with one of the key principles of MOS Titles, by which if there is only one Lakeside School in the Encyclopedia, the title gives no indication of where it is. I do not think our practice here helps any reader. Our rule should be the opposite of what it is. I doubt you are proposing something so radical, but I will support you even for a more limited suggestion. I'll comment there after the blackout.

I'm a life-long US resident, with a block puzzle of the (US) states as a childhood toy, and the game of naming state capital a childhood amusement in the car, so the basic assumptions of US geography are natural to me, and I would find it hard to write otherwise. (and similarly I suppose for Londoners, etc. ) The qualifiers should simply be added by human-assisted bot. And, for that matter, even though second nature, I was aware of this when I was writing, and was taking a shortcut to avoid deletion. I admit I often take such shortcuts in patrolling, because there are so few of us patrolling prod, and I must leave it to others to complete the job. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI - Courtesy Notification

As a courtesy notification for your consideration, your name has been referenced by me in a recent post to User:Atama. Regards. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Thank you for electing to contribute your observations to the article talk page. I intend to fashion a rather in depth and carefully considered response to your observations as I believe it will be productive. However, due to time limitations and a personal desire to step back from this issue for a break and some reflective consideration, I may not post my response before the blackout. Regards. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/PAGG stack

I've closed the AfD and redirected the article to The 4-Hour Body. You commented that there's a possibility for a content merge, feel free to go ahead now. Deryck C. 22:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look after the blackout. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed compromise for Academy of Achievement

Hi DGG, I wanted to see if I could draw your attention back to the Academy of Achievement Talk page once more. I appreciate your removal of the EduCap section, although Ebikeguy disagreed, and I've offered up a possible solution. The short version is I've offered up a new version of the EduCap section that I think would work as a subsection of the new Background section I had proposed in late December. My hope is to restart discussion over there, and would like to have you involved. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

since Misplaced Pages is about to be made inaccessible for 24 hours starting at 5:00 GMT 18 January, this will have to wait till we can resume. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?

An editor has asked for a deletion review of How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. aprock (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Internet service

I know you said back in December you were trying to get your Internet service worked out so you could restore User:Alden Loveshade/Anaphora Literary Press. Any luck with that? Alden Loveshade (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Advice

If you read the findings on David.Kane in WP:ARBR&I, there are specific references with diffs to the reception of the paper of Jensen, "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?" If you have any substantial reasons for my topic ban to be reinstated after arbcom withdrew it on their own initiative, please make your case either at WP:AE or at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

First, I realized on waking up this morning that I ought to retract that sentence, and I will do so. It was more than I should have said , and I apologize for saying it. I thank you for the specific reference. Checking, I see the sentence in the findings on DK that "this editor has placed undue weight on selected research by A. R. Jensen to promote a point of view". I do not think that having an article on this famous paper is undue weight, if treated correctly; but it's not my opinion on that point that matters, but the community , and they expressed it. It is perhaps inappropriate that we do not have an article on many other famous papers, but that is to be dealt with by writing the articles. FWIW, like many people here, I do not consider that arb com has the legitimate authority to make decisions on what subjects a WP article can be written (with the exception of certain BLP situations, and the sort of problem covered by office actions), but that's not at issue here, because they never said an article on this paper could not be written--and that they did not say it indicates either that they too did not think they had any such authority--or that they did not think one could not be written. Though in any case, I do not edit on this subject; it is one of the subjects that I specifically avoid editing to avoid conflict. DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Space Ghost

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Space Ghost. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: new user warning test results available

Hi WP:UWTEST member, we wanted to share a quick update on the status of the project. Here's the skinny:

1. We're happy to say we have a new round of testing results available! Since there are tests on several Wikipedias, we're collecting all results at the project page on Meta. We've also now got some help from Wikimedia Foundation data analyst Ryan Faulkner, and should have more test results in the coming weeks.
2. Last but not least, check out the four tests currently running at the documentation page.

Thanks for your interest, and don't hesitate to drop by the talk page if you have a suggestion or question. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

AfDs

"I will say I am not quite comfortable with arguments that the software is notable based on our judgment of whether the features were innovative or important. We don't make such judgments." I agree which I tried explaining to Czarkoff constantly. I would withdraw the Psi nomination, but it feels like it will give him some sort of satisfaction that his view about software is absolutely correct. It will be kept anyway so I will just let it run. SL93 (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Undeletion of the East Turkistan Government in Exile page

Hello Mr. Goodman. A couple of weeks ago, I posted a request for the unredirection of the "East Turkistan Government in Exile" page. You responded supporting its eligibility to have a page of its own. It has almost been two weeks and no administrator has made a decision on restoring the page. I was just wondering if you know how long it usually takes for a procedure like this to reach a conclusion. Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing from you.Tewpiq (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I cannot close a discussion at Deletion Review in which I have commented. Any other admin can of course do so, & I imagine one of the talk page watchers here will do so. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion

I'm trying to get the above project active again. If you like to participate, please add you name to the project page. Mad Man American (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

commented there: a worthy project, but part of the difficult is that there are so many aspects to it. And I would strongly prefer if we got as far a way as possible from the word "deletion". We need to think of the process as positive: whether or not to include content, and how to arrange it. DGG ( talk ) 10:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I was thinking about this myself this morning, not knowing a prior project existed. I'm definitely with DGG on the naming issue--the overuse of the whole "deletionist vs. inclusionist" paradigm was half the problem in the recent kerfuffle. But I can see a lot of good work for a project like that to do. For example, I recently went through a very narrow category of primary schools in one county in the UK, and redirected all of those that don't meet GNG, per the common outcome for primary schools. That's not deletion (though some people think it is), but it's something that would likely fall under the scope of such a project. Similar things would be taking a serious look at television episodes, individual songs, etc. Much of that information would be (or, in some cases, already is) better focused in collective articles, and likely to be better maintained. One thing that might be worth considering are some issues being raised at WP:VPP#Proposal regarding Article Rescue Squad--specifically, the proposal that ARS have a hierarchy to help keep its members in line. I think it would be good if any such project focused on merging/deleting would also work hard to slap down any member that got over-anxious. It would also be for it to make sure that, as a whole, the group never become too active. One concern that is regularly raised is at ANI is when someone nominates dozens of the same type of article simultaneously, meaning that good faith contributors don't have enough time to attend to all of the issues. It would be bad if such a project suddenly created a really significant increase in the total number of AfDs (even though I think that this encyclopedia could stand a good house cleaning). Lastly, it seems like it would be useful for them to be involved in setting/refining notability guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Bill of Lading

• The copyright violation is clearly seen in the book under the " 5. EDI systems and electronic bills of lading" heading. The sentence, "The use of electronic communication in international commercial transactions has received considerable attention in recent years. The term ELECTRONIC DATA INTERCHANGE is commonly used to designate systems of computer to computer exchange of information in predetermined formats." is directly lifted from the book. I am reinstating the tag, please do not remove it. Gsingh (talk)

thanks for the specification, which you should have given in the first place. . The criterion for G12 is "where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving" Do you assert that? Anyway, someone else seems to have deleted it. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought it was clear but will be more specific next time. Many parts of the article were copied from different sources, if someone is willing to rephrase the entire article it is still available for them. Gsingh (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:CSD. G12 is not supposed to be used for close paraphrasing, or complex cases, but rather they should be listed on WP:copyright problems. Added factors involved here is that one the one hand the material needs more than rephrasing, but considerable reorganization; on the other hand the subject is quite important. This set of added factors usually is what induces me to personally rewrite the article, or at least reduce it to a meaningful stub. (I will do this even when not in my field but where I have sufficient understanding to do a basic article). Tonight, unfortunately, I did not have time tonight to do it. The virtue of copyright problems is that it provides the necessary time to at least stubbify. But you did absolutely right to identify the problem; writing an article in such a pastiche is quite wrong, but beginners often do it. DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of vote at Articles for deletion/Davenport–Hingis rivalry (2nd nomination)

Hello DGG. I am writing because I noticed you deleted my vote at the linked page without apparent reason I have restored my vote, as I cannot see how it would be prohibited. However if it is in some way invalid, please revert my action. Thanks - Cloudz679 07:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

you are absolutely correct, and I apologize. It was a slip of the mouse on my part, and I've explained further on your talk page. DGG ( talk ) 09:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Wanted to be sure! - Cloudz679 11:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of iCarly episodes

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of iCarly episodes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

taking a break

- for a while, David. If there's anything on your mind, you know how to get me. Keep the wheels turning! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

will email you today. DGG ( talk ) 14:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Academic Journals#International Journal of Communication

Hi David, could you give your opinion at this discussion about the selectivity or lack thereof of Ulrich's? Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

SarahStierch (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC).

I replied at m:Research talk:Teahouse, at some length. I appreciate your calling it to my attention, for I rarely have time to look at meta. DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

other things

• Sir, likewise. Sent you an email. Kind regards. Wifione 03:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Courcelles 03:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Secondary school A7

Actually, I had sort of meant it that way originally because it came up via investigating a username vio and it was sort of a commercial post, but you were right to change it ... you know I'm not the sort of editor who questions the notability of secondary schools. I was a little distracted at the time, I seem to recall. Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Storm in a Teacup (film)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Storm in a Teacup (film). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"No consensus to close Template:Rescue as delete"

I noticed here, you claimed there was no consensus for Template:Rescue to be deleted. Of the 80-90 editors, more than twenty more editors said delete than keep...so at least 60% of them said delete. How is that not a consensus, if I may ask? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Even if I were counting votes, i would never decide an xfd on that basis. And in any case it's consensus of the policy based opinion, and you probably know my opinion on that one. Many of the votes for delete were for those who want to increase the already existing bias towards deletion by making it harder to attract people to rescue articles, and all such votes were in blatant contradiction to deletion policy that deletion is the last resort. Most of the other votes for delete were on the basis that there had been a few scattered cases of misuse for canvassing resulting in the keep of articles that should not have been kept, and to consider that more significant than the otherwise improper deletion of many articles is a misjudgment. I regret that I had not gotten involved in the tfd earlier, but I cannot watch everywhere, and, as usual, nobody had canvassed me--and I do not watchlist that page. I cannot quite see the point of continuing the discussion here: my support of this project is consistent and long-standing. My view lost, rightly or wrongly, so why should the winning side try to squelch the remaining opposition? (and that certainly seems to be what they are trying to do to Dream Focus; are you hoping I too can be led into saying something blockable--it's a vain hope--I never yet have come near that.) It's for the losers to appeal if they wish; and I normally wait for someone else to decide to carry on an appeal. DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh, why would I want you blocked? The only thing I had a problem with is that you said that something with 60% support for deletion should have been kept (and that you call it "few scattered"; of the dozen or so times I've seen the template used, all were used poorly). I disagree with you that the rescue template's deletion was motivated solely because people want to delete articles, or that that's necessarily a 100% bad thing. And I do wish you'd divorce DF's block from his inclusionism...the people who want him blocked (me included, though only for the one week) want him blocked because he repeatedly says snarky things, not because he's an inclusionist Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Well , why would anyone have wanted Dream focus blocked either, except they didn't agree with him, and he expressed himself a little unreasonably, in what I consider understandable annoyance. It is appropriate to extend tolerance to people who have just lost debates; a certain amount of what you called snarkiness is understandable. (For example, people sometimes lose their temper their article gets justly deleted, but why should it bother us? What would blocking them accomplish besides make them even angrier?) I know the block was done by a good person, for what he thought was the good motive of preventing even more inappropriate action, but it was nonetheless an error. As for deletion, I do not know if you are carelessly or deliberately misreading me, but I did not say that the motivation was solely excessive deletionism; I said it was what seemed to motivate "many" of the people , and I stand by that.It is perfectly OK to want to delete articles--at least I sure hope it is, because I have deleted over 10,000 of them myself, mostly in speedy but also in prods and AfDs--my estimate is that this is 5 or 10 tines what I've been able to rescue. There is a lot of junk, and anyone who says otherwise is over-reacting to the deletionists. The basic reason for deleting something is that including it would be harmful to the standing of Misplaced Pages. Advertising is harmful. BLP abuse is harmful. Nonsense is harmful. Utter non-notable things are harmful. Marginally notable things may not be ideal, but they are not harmful. At the least, efforts spent in deleting the marginally notable are efforts better spent in improving articles: the yield isn't worth it. And, therefore, the established deletion policy is when it doubt, include, which is reasonable considering the wide range of people's interests, and feasible in the era of NOT PAPER. I answer you on the basis I often will answer here, to convince those who will come and see it. Experience has shown me its the most effective contribution I can make, to explain things to people so they can construct good arguments. I'm sure we will find many places to continue this , elsewhere. But I thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my feelings about these actions. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I ran across this conversation when I came to this page for another purpose. My comment is that I think that you have done an excellent job describing your opinion on this matter, DGG, and my philosophy on this is very close to yours. Purplebackpack, you are a very good contributor here, and you would be even better if you kept the drama to a minimum. Cullen Let's discuss it 23:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"...efforts spent in deleting the marginally notable are efforts better spent in improving articles..." Well said. ˜danjel 05:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Self published books

Hi DGG, seeming as you have previously commented on some books that I am trying to establish whether or not are reliable, would you be able to drop by RSN where I started a discussion? Thanks SmartSE (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

commented, but the problem with the article in question, Criticism of Meher Baba is more pervasive. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"Adoption and Language Development" on my talk page

Hello David,

I am helping a new user who is interested in library matters. I mentioned you on my talk page, and suggested that she may want to ask you a question of two. I just wanted to give you a heads up, and thanks for all that you do here. Take care. Cullen Let's discuss it 23:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Cullen Let's discuss it 01:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Special Collections Libraries

Hi DGG,

Thank you so much for the advice. As a future librarian I really enjoy hearing from current librarians. I would love to expand into a separate article just on University of Arizona libraries. I will work on the outside research. Do you think that publications such as Arizona Newspapers could work? Also, I work at the libraries. Is it looked down upon to edit or make an article about the place that you personally work at? Another idea I had was editing the Archive page. I was especially interested in the fact that it links to List of film archives and was thinking about trying to make a list for each of the types of archives listed in the article such as corporate, church, non-proft, etc. Again, thank you for the help and I'm excited to contribute to this field. Semccraw (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Disclose any conflict of interest that you may have, make neutral improvement of the encyclopedia your highest priority, and defer to the judgment of disinterested editors. If you follow that guidance, you can work on topics related to your employment. I think that you could work to improve our article on the Center for Creative Photography on your campus. As an Ansel Adams buff, I would love to see that article expanded. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Merriweather Post Pavilion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Merriweather Post Pavilion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV

A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Gundred, Countess of Surrey

Would you please look a the above mentioned page? There is a discussion there over a reference. It is at the lowest part of the Section entitled: Request for Comment II. It is not a formal RFC, just a section that was given that name. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Dr. for your comments and advice. I have removed the comment as a "reference" and will leave it up to others as to whether or not they wish to create a "Legends" section. Mugginsx (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

RFA

Many thanks for your nomination, much appreciated! GiantSnowman 15:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Business articles

I appreciate your call for "more text" on business articles - I have to say that this is not my "primary topic", and I have a long backlog already of articles to write on other things..

I have some issues with the style of a lot of the business articles. for example Business requirements - I am not complaining that it is badly written - but it is almost completely inaccessible to the non-expert, unreferenced - and frankly - I am not convinced it it not WP:OR (even if it is good "OR"), or a personal viewpoint essay. The term "business requirements" is clearly and obviously a term that turns up often in business related discussions - however I don't see that the article presents any information that it is more than a "two word pair" or that it has a defined meaning worthy of an encyclopedia, or that the term is not self explanatory.

I will propose this article for deletion discussion - please comment.Mddkpp (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

If it is not adequately accessible, there is certainly a good case for improvement. If something is a term that frequently crops up in discussions, and the article is too technical for understanding, then it certainly is a very good subject for improving. If what we did with inadequate articles was delete them, then the encyclopedia would never have developed--almost all articles were pretty low quality when they got started. If sources are available, then an article is not OR, or need not be--it is considered acceptable in technical articles to use numerical examples: its a way of writing prose. Business is a poorly covered area here, and you seem determined to make it yet worse. To do this in a field which is not your primary subject, and where you admit that you do not understand the articles, is one of the most unproductive things a person could do here. DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)