User talk:DGG/Archive 55 Aug. 2011

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but fortunately (for me, if not for WP), many have no references and only a link to a (sometimes non-functional or outdated) homepage.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Bgwhite's talk page.
Message added 20:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm hoping for some options. First, Cantor asks me a direct question, by name[4], then he quickly deletes my response[5]. While not at all surprising, this seems marginally uncivil. I don't see a way to respond visibly to his question that wouldn't be cited as evidence for some "vendetta"[6]. If he doesn't want an answer, he should at least retract the question. Could I trouble you for your thoughts? BitterGrey (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

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

He's still asking a direct question to me, by name, on his talk page[7]. (For contrast, I'll point out a recent example where an issue involving me was discussed there: I took it elsewhere because there weren't open, specifically addressed questions to me there[8].) Per AGF I won't ask for speculations about why he is doing this if he doesn't want a response, nor will I ask for speculations about why he posted the letter for all to see if he minded the contents at all. He seems capable of removing an attachment. Does it still count as harassment if he publishes it himself? You might want to give some thought to why he would do these things before rewarding such behavior again.

As for confirming the contents of the letter, I can only confirm that I sent an email, and have not yet received a reply.

By the way, thanks for synchronizing your language between locations. BitterGrey (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Hi. Regarding the emails, I have hidden them in a hide-show box at BLPN, as at least an interim measure (I'm editing via iPhone today which means I make more mistakes and do things slower). I am not intimately familiar with pertinent policies regarding disclosure of these emails, and I would not object if someone more familiar with policy redacts some info (such as email addresses), and/or submits an oversight request.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

good first step. I'm no longer acting as an intermediary or neutral party in this area. DGG ( talk ) 23:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi DGG!
David, you had a quiet word to me about (1) how WP:A3 tags should and should not be used, and (2) requested I withdraw this AfD on my talkpage.

• First of all, thank you for not giving me a very stern reprimand about my blatant misuse of WP:A3 tags on the Eliiva article series. Please go ahead and do so - I thoroughly deserve it. I should have known better.
• As for the AfD, yes I could have worded the nomination better, but without questioning your judgement in any way, I still stand by my nomination.

Pete--Shirt58 (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

it's not my style to give stern reprimands, and I never get bothered by people making errors, just by those persisting in them. As you say, we continue to disagree on some of the issues. BTW, I made just now a comment at the AfD on how to work with translating the sources. DGG ( talk ) 15:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

You recently deleted a redirect from their name to Domain Slamming on the grounds it was for defamation. However, the history of the subject here (now gone?) suggests otherwise. The company had their own extensive entry detailing the controversies and other facts, the domain slamming part then moved to domian slamming (removing it from the article), then the article is gone, then the redirect. I understand the rationale behind the last one when seen by itself, but it looks, at least to me, like a systematic roundabout blanking of reasonable information that brings up the question of good faith on one or more editors. Or is it unintentional coincidence? Any insight into this or suggestions about a possible revert to the original article? Ken JP Stuczynski (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

even if company X has engaged in disreputable practice YT, redirecting their name to the subject Y is prejudicial. They are presumably not the only party who has engaged in that practice. If this were the primary thing the company was known for, and also if they should have been the only significant company known for the practice, and if it were documented very reliably in the article, only then might there conceivably be reason to have a redirect, though I still would be very reluctant to do it. The argument would have to be over these factors--without all three it would clearly be excessive weight. Without the inclusion of information about them in the article, it amounts to unsourced defamation. As you suggest, I will check the original articles, including the deleted one. . DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've checked. It is clear they were not the only company involved, so the redirect is inappropriate. It's like redirecting a particular non-notable fraudster to Fraud, or even a particular non-notable murderer to Murder. For a living person it of course is absolutely wrong, for but even for a deceased person or for a company it's not acceptable. I see the article on the company was deleted only once, and only under WP:Speedy A7, no indication of notability, which was correct with respect to the article at the time. I do not see the claimed consensus for the redirect on the now deleted article talk page. The bare redirect is inadmissible, so I shall restore the article, after User:Hm2k has an opportunity to comment. DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I concur with your thinking. The redirect by itself was improper, though I think the intention was to maintain continuity with leftover content from the original article after it had been moved. As for notoriety, the litigation and public exposure across national boudaries makes a case for inclusion not overly tenuous I think. Ken JP Stuczynski (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have commented on your !vote in this AfD and am curious as to you opinion. --Crusio (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• There's a follow-up comment now. --Crusio (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

I like your formulation in the context. Once the AfD closes if no one beats me to to it, ill do it. I also thought about "Battle for Bitlis", a descriptor rather than a title, like what "Battle Of" tend to be in milhist.--Cerejota (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi DGG. Some time ago, you were very helpful with regard to Confluence (journal). Well, there's another journal I'd like you take a look at. Here [9] I added as much as I can, but as your essay states, the GNG here at WP seems to hinge on loose views of many. Hopefully, this journal, which I think fulfills notability and is established, makes the cut. The article probably needs to be wikified to, requiring someone with more proficiency than me (not saying much) but in the meantime...thanks! Jimsteele9999 (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

This obviously notable Spanish ceramics firm was deleted from wikipedia. Can you restore it. I can't believe it was an "advert". If this is actually the case please restore it to my user space and I'll sort it. It should not have been speedied.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

you ideally should first ask Fastily, the deleting admin. Though not exactly an advertisement, it needs much work. DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

You declined the "CSD on A7 grounds", which I am not questioning, but I do ask you reconsider, and perhaps speedy delete as per A7, as there are three editors saying the same thing at the AfD, and the COI circumstance I think passes the duckie on the left hand side for a non-notable advert. In fact, a google search of the text reveals strong copy-vio issues, but not enough for CSD under that. I think it would be wise to send a signal to COI editors that there is no problem with them trying to make their notability be reflected in the encyclopedia, but they need to make the effort to at least meet our minimum standards for content.--Cerejota (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I understand your intentions, and I do appreciate the problem, as does anyone who works at CSD or Prod patrolling. However, I judge whether we should delete an article by the possibility of improving it to acceptable standards, not by who submits it or the need to send a message to contributors. If you wish to propose such a radical change in policy, that we should use different standards for those who do or do not have COI, propose it. My preferred technique for teaching editors is teaching, at least until I run out of patience with an editor. From the article history, the contributor did seem to respond to criticism, and I would not have given up on them after just one day of it, in which no attempt was made to explain the specific defects of the actual article. Anyone who will persevere in a positive way after receiving our standard unpleasant notices deserves more consideration. At the AfD you offered to rewrite the article if you were surer of notability; that's a way of going about things I agree with and follow also. To verify notability I checked the related organization articles, and have rewritten the parent National Board for Certified Counselors, which dates from 2007, and I intend o try to continue down the chain. DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

J. T. Alley. Notable?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

police chief: I think so, but it was deleted DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Cherrybrook Kitchen. Any thoughts?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

yes; I made some cuts of commercialism. DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

You participated in the discussion about deleting PARSIFAL Project EU, now on that articles talk. Perhaps you can answer questions I asked the one who closed - no response - and the one who suggested (moving). For the moment - unpleasantly surprised on a Saturday afternoon after days of no progress in the discussion - I redirected the link to the FP7 projects. What else could I do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

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, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

WP:Schmidt's Primer (shortcut WP:MQSP) Whatcha think before I go live? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

"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)Reply

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)Reply

I see that Jon Othar has been recreated after a deletion discussion over a year ago here. In that AfD you mentioned that someone might want to start over on the article. Since I have not seen the original version I do not know if this is a valid G4, though it does look like a cut and paste recreation. The user name of the creating editor also suggests that this might be another autobiography. Can you have a look and let me know your opinion? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's a somewhat improved version. The last ref. is new, and the extensive promotionalism about diet in the original article was removed. However, I continue to be unable to identify the claimed academic papers. Nothing in worldcat, and the Icelandic National library catalog is not accessible at the moment. The original article was deleted as a combination of not notable and promotional , after I admitted I was unable to improve it. Still holds, so I will G4. If the papers can be documented so citations can be looked at, it will be worth reconsideration. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi DGG. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurudwara Dashmesh Darbar Sahib (New Jersey), you wrote:

First of all, the deletion nomination is incorrect: our standard is notability, which is much much less than fame.

Just so you know, the comment about "famous" was made by User:Shroffameen, a relatively new editor who is still learning how to use Wikipedia properly. I'm having to clean up after him a lot. The original nominator's statement (User:CapMan07008) was above that. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

thanks, I adjusted my comment accordingly DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dear DGG, I noticed you (re-)deleted the little article on Elizabeth Rauscher. I think this might be a bit unfortunate. She is very mentioned briefly in Hugh Gusterson, Nature 476, 278–279 (18 August 2011) doi:10.1038/476278a Published online 17 August 2011 [10] the review of the book How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival David Kaiser W. W. Norton: 2011. 372 pp. $26.95, £19.99. and although many of us would find her later stuff fringe (to say the least) and the article was a bit over promotional, I suspect there might be enough to be found for notability. This quote seems to me to suggest there might be something there."This meant that some of the key work in quantum mechanics in the 1970s and 1980s was done by a motley crew of young physicists, who worked largely outside universities and published in obscure journals such as Epistemological Letters — “a hand-typed, mimeographed newsletter”. They included Elizabeth Rauscher, Jack Sarfatti, Fred Alan Wolf, Saul-Paul Sirag, John Clauser and Fritjof Capra. The centre of their intellectual universe was the San Francisco Bay area. Many were associated with the Fundamental Fysiks Group, an open discussion group about quantum mechanics that started meeting in 1975 at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California." Anyway just wanted to register my concern - but best wishes anyway (Msrasnw (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC))Reply

there might be something there. I'll userify it again. to you, if you can follow up, by first removing the promotionalism and then looking for similar discussions (and by checking if the others mentioned are notable). those were certainly the days for mimeographed newsletters, and for good people at Berkeley going on to do odd things there and afterwards. Is the group conceivably notable? We could do a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Might be best not to userfy it to me as I have add a run in with one of its authors. I'll perhaps start a new one if I can get access to the book at some time in the future. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)) PS: The Group is here Fundamental_Fysiks_Group#Fundamental_Physics_GroupReply

I feel stupid for not looking. I will now make a protected redirect. If you ever want to work on it, I'll unprotect on request DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Splendid - and best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC))Reply

See below--with two requests from people I respect, it seems simpler to reopen and also allow editing. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi DGG, would you mind undeleting this, and re-opening Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Rauscher (2nd nomination)? Rauscher is actually quite a central figure within her community, and I was intending to expand the article based on David Kaiser's How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival, which has just been published. He mentions her quite a bit. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I reverted, as you requested. If you make major additions to the article, I'll relist if asked to accomodate the necessary time for discussion if it seems it would be helpful. (I changed her position at LBL to match what her own CV says) DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I wasn't intending to expand the article immediately, though. I'd prefer to do it once I've read the Kaiser book, rather than cherry-picking. It seems notable enough for inclusion with the material already there, in my view; certainly having Kaiser write about the physics group she founded has underlined the notability. He gives a very interesting lecture about it (not about her, but about the group) if you ever have a spare hour. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I know and you're right. But I have already done several rewrites for this editor and was getting a bit tired of it... Sorry about that. --Crusio (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• We will teach him--I hope. I'll give it a try also. Even if we don't, they only publish a few journals. I need to check out whether these are actually the main canadian journals, as I 've never heard of the publisher. DGG ( talk ) 13:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• In other articles of this editor, I have removed claims like "most important Canadian journal" and such. Unless there are independent sources for such a claim (which we know all-too-well hardly ever exist), we should just keep it neutral. --Crusio (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

actually, its fairly easy to show from either circulation figures, IF, or Worldcat , or in more detail from the full JCTR data tables, because there aren't many of them. I left them it under the assumption I will soon get to it. (I suspect they may be the only significant national journals in the subjects), There's a developing patten in specialties where the various previous national journals in a country consolidate to have one research jl with a hope of international standing, leaving others as local professional magazines. I'm pretty sure this is true in Canada specifically. This isthe sort of exercise I've sometimes assigned library school students.

But some of these are pretty specialized and probably the only Canadian journals on this subject, making "most important Canadian journal" pretty meaningless... --Crusio (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Exactly, and when I determine that, I will change the wording. I tend to work incrementally, despite the danger of forgetting to come back and do something. Crusio, I think you should know I do it right. The only real difference we have with journals is I'm more likely to want to include all the various journals from a society, which I think helps avoid confusion. And I'm a little more flexible with indexing services and stuff on the web only. DGG ( talk ) 14:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, formulated clumsily, I know you do things right! I was just giving my opinion about these specific journals. --Crusio (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm leaving you a message regarding your comment at the AFD entry of Archana Sharma where you said that my comment was an "irrelevant reason" and "Google and Yahoo was not sufficient enough for a AFD". How is a search engine not sufficient to search for a biography? Scientists may be needed for their work and not for their biography but because those sources that are cited in the article aren't clarifying which sentence they're the source of, it's hard to tell what is citing what. SwisterTwister talk 01:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Jsfouche's talk page.
Message added 01:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply

jsfouche ☽☾Talk 01:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Can I start a new chat re my page you deleted? --southwiki —Preceding undated comment added 08:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC).Reply

At your request there, I have moved the page to User:Southwiki/Itec Group for rewriting. Ask me to take a look at it in a day or two. If you decide that the article cannot presently meet our standards, you can facilitate matters by placing at the top a line reading : {{db-author}} & it will be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Since you commented in the AfD, I wanted to ask if you know of a way to userfy without losing hsitory, while still keeping the original article (basically to fork the content without a move). I feel there is a lot of material here than can be rescued for an article on the History of Science in Puerto Rico and perhaps even History of invention in Puerto Rico, besides the list stuff, but I want to work with attribution. Any help would be much appreciated.--Cerejota (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

If the article is kept, this is done by copying and pasting, while maintaining attribution: the directions are at [11] if the article is not kept, this is done by undeleting userifying and editing. If you want to try this while the article is under consideration, copy and past, and then it can be merged later if the article is kept with a proviso of being repurposed, or, much easier, the kept article edited to conform to your draft. As all the changes would be by you, they wouldn't have to maintain attribution if you duplicated them. I'll make a proposal at the AfD which may be what you have in mind. DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:

• Working closely with the instructor and Campus Ambassadors, providing advice and perspective as an experienced Wikipedian
• Helping students who ask for it (or helping them to find the help they need)
• Watching out for the class as a whole
• Helping students to get community feedback on their work

This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.

You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.

Once you've found a class that you want to work with—especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area—you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.

If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

PS: There are still a lot of student articles from the last term that haven't been rated. Please rate a few and update the list!

Hello DGG: Would you please review a page I have drafted? Full disclosure: I tried to post this page previously and it was deleted by another administrator. After I get it in shape I'll run it by him for approval. The page is in my sandbox on my user page. The page in question is one of a series of three related pages. When this page was originally deleted I worked on the second page, which was ultimately posted as Animal People; I have reduced the original (deleted) page by about 25%, added many internal links, and otherwise improved it and I believe it's ready to go. I would appreciate your comments and help. Thanks. Woodlandpath (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

comments on your talk page. In brief: consider combining the two articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Reply and a request at very bottom of my talk page. Thanks, Woodlandpath (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/La goutte de pluie.
Message added 05:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OpenInfoForAll (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi DGG:  You're on the history for this protected double redirect so I'll have to ask you to fix it (if someone else doesn't beat you to it).  Currently: Ethnic Macedonians of Greece → Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia → Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia
If you wouldn't mind, could you remove the hyphen "-" from the protected redirect of Ethnic Macedonians of Greece so that it points directly to (un−hyphenated) Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia.  Thx — Who R you? (talk) 09:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

someone else seems to have already done it.

thanks for the guidance Mlevandowsky (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Since I have been away for the last two weeks I'm just dropping you a note to let you know I have now responded to your comment on my talk page - in case you have stopped watching for the reply. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

responded. DGG ( talk ) 15:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Noformation's talk page.
Message added 00:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply

This was a while ago so I wasn't sure if you're still watching my page, anyway, just responded to your message. N^oformation ^Talk 00:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I know the article makes it look like this topic is primarily about a marketing organization, but it's really notable as a cultural trend. The org is secondary. I've added new references to the article, so if you could take a look at perhaps reconsider your !vote on the AFD that would be greatly appreciated. Hope you're well, Steven Walling • talk 05:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I remain of the same opinion: fails WP:LOCAL and will continue to fail it if no-body outsides the area writes about it. With respect to local events, I've never been an inclusionist. DGG ( talk ) 15:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

What part of WP:LOCAL actually applies in this case? Did that redirect get moved, am I missing something that's there, or is the content not what you remember it being? Jclemens (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

We've been here before. Yes, it's about local institutions, not local events, but i think the spirit of WP:RS and WP:LOCAL requires sources from outside the immediate region. I do not trust newspapers in their coverage of local events to be discriminating. People may agree with me or not , but that's the way I interpret it. I'm quite used to people disagreeing with my interpretation of the intent of our rules--I think people will always differ in such interpretations. DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey DGG, thanks for the reply. Not sure if it matters, but among the sources I added was coverage from Frommer's and a national travel magazine. There was also a U.S. in general travel guide from Frommer's that mentioned it, though I figured adding another was a little redundant. Maybe it's not enough to meet significance for you in the context of WP:LOCAL, but I think it's important to point out there is coverage that isn't just local media. Steven Walling • talk 23:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK, I will look again. it would make a difference. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

And so it does. I changed to a keep. Inadequate evaluation of the refs on my part. As always, I appreciate being corrected. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

And I appreciate you being calm and open minded, as usual. :) Steven Walling • talk 02:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Closed as a delete? Does that seem fair? To me it looks clearly like a no consensus.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

yes, the close may not have been correct, but it's a borderline article. Borderline articles do not make strong cases at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

In AFD discussions where one editor might repeatedly WP:BLUDGEON the heck out of anyone else with whom he disagrees, just when does such become actionable under WP:POINT or Wikipedia:Etiquette? Or is it easier to simply ignore such? Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Never mind. I think it best when realizing such behavior is occuring, to recognize it as such and know when to walk away... thus discouraging more such and any of its accompanying drama. New behavioral essay WP:BRICK coming up, as one must be able to recognize a brick wall when one meets it and acknowledge the fruitlessness of trying to speak to it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

my guess is that this is about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT characters in film, radio, and TV fiction and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. I agree that further discussion is not really likely to clarify things. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Good guess. I suppose a check of my edit history and seeing my involvement in that discussion were clues. I had to leave it, as continuation of reasonable dialogue was becoming impossible. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

and I was already involved in both of them DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, DGG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

DGG - Last year you voted on this article but it was ultimately kept with "no consensus." It is being re-considered again and I wanted let you know of the new AfD. I do not want to influence you one way or anther. FYI, to jog your memory, here were your comments from the original Afd:

DeleteThe reason the trial is cited is a very narrow technical issue, over what must be sent to the jury rather than decided by the judge, and not in any clear way related to the merits of the case. The actual issue is very local, and very unimportant. There is no substantial coverage of the actual contents of the article. If kept, I will rewrite to remove the 95% that is purely local-interest material. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 27 September 2010 UTC{)

The new AfD page is HERE Thanks for talking a look. Austex • Talk 00:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

In the other article, I'm concerned that Casliber approved this for the main page. The lead presents Singapore as a perennial eugenics society. A quick search found that the most incriminated program was highly unpopular and lasted only a year (and its main proponent only about as long in office). [12]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am also concerned about the same issues. Punishing COI accounts? .. the user seems clearly "upset" - that should not be allowed to reveal itself through content contributions. Off2riorob (talk) 04:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ummm...the main proponent of that policy was Goh Keng Swee, a man I highly respect for his economic genius as one of the architects of Singapore's unique economic system. In fact, his legacy was suppressed by an increasingly jealous Lee Kuan Yew. Without GKS, there would be no Singapore. GKS resigned as a result of the leadership transition that was already preplanned. LKY was the only guy that remained of the Old Guard after 1985 in the Central Executive Committee, of course. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 05:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Okay, maybe your history of Singapore differs from the one recorded in this book, which seems pretty WP:RS to me. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Google scholar "leadership transition in Singapore" (without quotes). Look at what you find, and pay attention to activity before the 1984 elections, stuff that happened in 1983, and aftereffects in 1985. And also take a look at all the "Old Guard" politicians -- Devan Nair, Goh Keng Swee, S. Rajaratnam, Ong Teng Cheong (all greatly respected PAP politicians), forced to resign from positions of power by LKY's leadership transition scheme into relatively ceremonial posts. Of course, it did not all happen in 1985, but look at the two sources I gave at Tony Tan Keng Yam (citations 9 and 10), for the leadership transition. Those are pretty reliable and respected sources too. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I asked Stemonitis if the editor had any idea about how I should italicize the name of this bacteria. It was recommended that I ask someone from WikiProject Microbiology. I created an article on Ehrlichia Wisconsin HM543746 which was discovered in 2009 and the results of an investigation where published in an academic journal in 2011. My problem is that in the two years of the study, there was no actual name given to this bacteria. Since the genus Ehrlichia is in the title and the rest just looks like a code name to separate it from the other bacteria in the genus, I don't know if or what part of it should be italicized. I know that the template italictitle can italicize the title, but I do not know if it is possible to italicize a part of the name for the article title. Joe Chill (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm pretty sure the correct format is "Ehrlichia Wisconsin HM543746". And it's done easiest with the DISPLAYTITLE magicword--I adjusted the article appropriately; you can see from the wikicode how it works. DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC) .Reply

Thanks for the help and also thanks for fixing a few editing problems. Joe Chill (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am rewriting this article and could definitely use some pointers. Once I get it in better shape would you mind taking a look at it? Morning-glory-1170 (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

From my brief review of news sources and the references supplied, this article appears almost certain to be deleted if it makes its way to main space. None of the citations provided appears to be independent of the topic, nor do there appear to be others. ^Bongo_matic 15:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

agreed. I doubt actual notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

This company is already mentioned in Alternative Risk Transfer. In addition to this, this entry Mercer (consulting firm) appears to mostly cite references from that company's site. The references here come from industry sites and publications. What constitutes topic independence in light when you compare these two entries? Just trying to get a feel of what to aim for.

Morning-glory-1170 (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

True, the ART article mentioned a number of companies without Wikipedia pages as examples of leading players--but it does not do so now, for I just removed them, & left a warning against adding any. That;s our usual standard for such content. Articles like this need checking from time to time. When someone compares their small niche company with a very large firm that is a market leader in a broad field, and asks why that has an article & the other doesn't, I take this as pretty much an admission of promotional intent. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

With all due respect, I have to disagree. My reason for the comparison is to try to understand the concept of notability better, and to fathom just how independent of topic sources would be. Capstone is a historically interesting company in an emerging field, and I believe this is notable. My concern was, in looking at Mercer (consulting firm), that the majority of sources cited there aren't independent at all. So I'm confused. Does this criterion not get applied to larger companies? Just trying to understand.

Morning-glory-1170 (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

It is not necessary that the majority of sources be independent, but that there be independent sources. The independent sources are needed to show notability--I think they are present in the Mercer article but if you think it needs additional, look for them. The company's own sources are reliable for the routine facts of company history and business lines, but not for notability The only immediately relevant matter that seems not to be documented is whether Mercer should be included in the listing of the major companies in this particular field in the ART article, as their corporate focus is otherwise; I'm thinking of removing that if I can not find a source for it. DGG ( talk ) 14:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi DGG. I was wondering how long it would be before someone picked me up on this - the truth is I simply started closing AfDs too high up the list. I'm well aware of the seven day limit and the importance of doing everything by the book and so on. Thanks, however, for picking up on this; at least someone is watching. Ta. — Joseph Fox 22:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

sure,it's easy to do by accident. We need a notice like for prods. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

That would be incredibly handy. Something to pester a script maker about! :) — Joseph Fox 23:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is still pending Jarry1250's response to me, but I felt it would be better to inform you about it sooner rather than later. Please see this discussion. I sincerely hope you are up to it, because god knows you are a far better writer than me and i'm not very good at Op-Ed style writing anyways. And I would like this to make as much of an impact as possible. Silverseren^C 09:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Jarry responded affirmatively, so I really hope you're up to it. If not, do you know of anyone else who would want to write it? Silverseren^C 10:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I shall do it; see the page linked to. DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

DGG, would you mind userfying this article to the author's userspace? I've been discussing the situation with him in at COIN and think he's willing to work on it to make it acceptable in mainspace. OlYeller^Talktome 20:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Someone else took care of it. Thanks though. OlYeller^Talktome 21:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

DGG, I replied to your remarks on the discussion page of the article but started to doubt whether that was the appropriate place for it, I'll repost it here but please let me know what is the best place!

DGG, thank you for your constructive remarks! I will try to improve the article in the coming week.

I have a question about using the CV as a source; since all sources should be published, how does this work with the CV? I doubt that it is publicly available. If I understand you correctly, I can still use the Bio from the universities website as a source of information, right? I will have to reword or quote it. Do you have a suggestion for a good article about a professor where I can get some further inspiration? Kind regards, HJPB (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

CVs and bios from an official site are usable for the routine uncontroversial facts of a person's career. Especially in the academic world, it is extremely rare to see them not authentic--I can recall only one here is 4+ years, They are in fact much more likely to be accurate than most secondary sources for the material. Lying there is a certain way to get oneself out a a job. The only caution is that sometimes people on the fringes of the academic world will not differentiate between peer-reviewed and other publications. Since the basis of an academic CV is one's publications, that's pretty easy. (I verify a publication record as a matter of course if anything looks at all dubious, and I normally simply remove minor publications) Be aware its the custom on formal CVs to list absolutely everything--they're used as evaluation for promotion, and If other things are challenged, which usually occurs here for academics only when they are working in fields involving public controversy, what can be checked should be checked--but in my experience here, most such challenges are not in good faith, but an attempt to remove as many bios of people opposed to one's POV. (Sometimes the opposite occurs, an attempt to add bios on semi-notable people with things in their career that would negatively affect their credibility, by people opposed to their POV, almost always in equally bad faith.) DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

DGG, I have re-written the Anne van den Ban article. And although I realize that an article is never finished, could you have a look to see whether it is good for now? Regards, HJPB (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Finemann's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you for your commentary on my talk page regarding your decision to speedy delete the article for Africa World Airlines. You have cited the reason that "it amounted to an advertisement for a company not yet active". This is not accurate. Africa World Airlines is a licensed airline holding Air Carrier License #222 issued by Ghana Civil Aviation Authority. Furthermore, the same criterion could be applied to three other Ghanaian airlines viz. Starbow Airlines, Johnsons Air and Aerogem Aviation, none of which are presently actually operating flight services. Indeed, the article for Starbow (specifically the section about branding) reads far more like an advertisement than anything on the Africa World Airlines page did. Africa World Airlines, and indeed the page created about it, meets all the requisite criteria regarding neutrality, notability and verifiability. Finally, while I admit I have no specific evidence about this, I find it highly suspicious that an anonymous user makes their first and only contributions on a brand new Wikipedia page that went live barely 24 hours ago. This does not seem consistent with an assumption of good faith. I would therefore request that you kindly review your deletion of the page and reinstate if possible. Thank you. SM105 (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Further to the above, please see comments by the anonymous user at User_talk:41.210.6.240 as possible evidence of malafide intent and bad faith. Thanks. SM105 (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

replied further on your talk p. "Active" means actual flights, just as we don't write on a new member of a national sports team until they actually take the field in a regular season game. DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Folkdirect.com&action=edit&redlink=1

I was directed here by the notes for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Folkdirect.com - this website has significant links on the internet and a full deletion is inappropriate. Can you please reinstate the page and the relevant new article links will be added. Encoderops (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I see another admin restored it; indeed, since it was last deleted via Prod, you had the right to get it restored. But I see that every reference you have is just a mention, not significant coverage. If you cannot improve it within a few days, it will be surely nominated for deletion, and probably deleted. The same goes for the article on Fondomat, with only one source for notability, and that one of dubious independence. I would be glad to be proved wrong, but the only thing that will do it is reliable references. For there to be a Wikipedia article, it has to be more than a good idea, it has to be a good idea the world has noticed. Until that happens, it's promotionalism. My advice is that if you can not source it to our standard now, that you withdraw it until you can; it will be easier to reintroduce the article when it eventually becomes notable , than if it were deleted again. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

DGG, I am unfit to edit "Indrani (photographer)"; I'm insufficiently beautiful. Can you think of any suitably "chiseled", coiffed, manicured, and perfumed editor? I notice that much of this flatus is sourced to the "reliable" "popphoto", a glance at which was enough to remind me why I'm mentally and sartorially inadequate to popphoto and instead must limit myself to un-pop photos. -- Hoary (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC) PS this page, improbably listed as an external link, tells me what I need to know. -- Hoary (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Link, please, for that comment--I can not find it. . Perhaps I'm naïve, but I rather thought Popular Photography/pophoto, while not the most technical or highbrow of photo magazines, a reasonably good source for what it covers. And it seems a not unperceptive story The LA Times is often rather on the nasty side. Together they do give a good view on the subject, and in a sense, confirm each other. As usual, I think it wise to Just include all the references, if they're better than blog posts. Both of these are. Somewhat. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Erm, I don't mean that anybody else told me that I was unsuited. I just know that I am unsuited. (My idea of clothing: Choose whatever's closest to hand and doesn't need washing. My idea of hairstyling: Let it go wherever it seems to want to go; if it's long enough to need contrary persuasion, go to the barber and when he asks "Same as usual" answer "Yup".) -- Hoary (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

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 Wikipedia/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)Reply

Did you look at the actual article? [13] Overly polemic citation from a critic prominently displayed. I have no idea what the mainstream scholarly view is on the legality of NATO bombings of Yugoslavia, but I do feel his bio is being COATRACKed. The entire section was added by La Goute. And if you feel like helping with another mess see Eugenics in Singapore. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

nothing justifies such a comment. Subjects editing their articles with COI, can be reverted and if necessary even blocked, but they cannot be insulted. There have been indeed many problems with the bio--you are certainly right about that) I've mentioned on this at the ongoing RfC, at [14]; as you apparently disagree, you may want to say so there. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've only seen your RfC statement now. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

By the way, Chesterman is a prof. in Singapore. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, explains the involvement. Thanks, I had missed it. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

And by "Did you look at the actual article?" what I meant was that her talk page comment was not the end of her involvement there. She heavily edited the article supposedly to "punish COI", which entailed adding some polemic quotes from the guys critics, which are more prominent than his own positions, which appear poorly presented. If were to ABF a lot, I would say: classic propaganda technique--never let your enemies speak for themselves. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

You can discuss all these concerns on the talk page, you know. I'll be glad to address all your concerns, if you bring them up in the open rather than WP:CANVASSING allies in the dark. I merely searched for what other contemporaries said about Chesterman; a key part of the scientific process is peer review. This is a core tenet. Please note: Chesterman cited primary sources from his own work -- that is, using non-neutral self-published sources. I added mainly secondary sources from peer-reviewed journals; Chesterman appeared to delight in self-citation of books that did not even have a pre-publication peer review process. If you want, you can add secondary sources of your own when you have the time. Chesterman is clearly out to promote himself or boost his PageRank, furthermore, he arrogantly inserted himself into tons of other articles, and included himself in the List of Rhodes Scholars. My edits were but mild compensation to his self-aggrandising edits.

Note my only interest in this is that it's WP:COI. I only came across this because he did have a tangential issue with Singaporean politics. As it is said in WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, people who create articles about themselves should not be surprised if they are dismayed by the final result. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Of course an article on a writer should have quotations from the writers work: they are the best sources for the views he expresses in them, it's an appropriate use of first-party sources, and whether the subject added them is irrelevant, if they were added fairly and not excessively (And of course it's because such additions are often excessive is why we have and need to have rules about discouraging COI--if you look at my contributions this week you should see what I've been doing with some of the more outrageous COI articles--it can get a lot worse than this article ever was. What his works are not a source for is the importance of his views, and any use that way is improper COI editing. My current view might even be that people with COI should be encouraged to start an article--and then leave it alone--what we need is a mechanism not to let them pass unrevised, & I think we do a lot better here than we did a few years ago. DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

In the original revision, the books merely cited his importance and basically did field-dropping. I did not in fact know what his views were until I looked them up. Then I looked at what other people said about his views. Citing only his importance and not his views puzzles me -- because if he's an academic I'm not sure why he has to behave like he's running some sort of citation mill. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 18:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

for most articles about people we are dependent on someone with COI, and who also does not understand Wikipedia, That's why we need to catch articles and fix them. Too many people act as if there is only a choice between deleting and keeping as it stands.

There's by now a chance we may have drifted from the original issue, so I have re-analyzed the version you sent for AfD on april 11 [15]], in terms of what I do when I rewrite academic bios, and I've rewritten many hundred. I see nothing radically wrong on the face of it, except for it not matching our style. (There's the often seen peculiarity of not stating the basic facts of his background--some people do that, while others tend to over-expand on them). References to his works are entirely proper, since his notability is derived from them. It is not usual to list them as references, but to list them in a separate "publications " section. He listed them on the publisher's sites, instead of linking to WorldCat or the equivalent. I consider this not good practice, and I generally change it in order to give standardized reliable information. What is very odd is that he does not list all his published books. As for excess articles on them, I see a link to only one of then, and going by the present consensus of the AfD on it, it will be kept. He cites a few of his other publications; this is justified also .

It's not inappropriate to list editorships--I prefer that we don't list editorial board memberships but many articles have them. Again he does them as references, not as a list; its a reasonable alternative here. I think a list is more readable; some people think a list is too CV-like, and a text is more encyclopedic. His discussions of the book summarize briefly what they are about. This can be done in several ways: quoting from the books is one, quoting from the reviews is another. Quoting praise from the reviews is appropriate, though the quotes he gave should have been shorter; I normally reduce them to a short sentence giving the gist of it; some people put them in the footnotes. He omitted negative criticism. This must of course go in for a controversial author, but only the most sophisticated and self-assured add it themselves, and people who like an author without having direct COI normally omit it also. In this case, the article gives no indication that what he says might be controversial, by not mentioning his most controversial work, which does show a degree of bias and a desire to have a favorable article--and that is the main problem; you are completely correct about that. It is a problem that needed to be fixed by someone who realized it, and you were very right to do so. But I continue to regard nothing he did in the article as spamming. It is very difficult to trace what links to himself there may have earlier been in other articles, but the few there at present are all reasonable. Since Google does not follow our links for their pagerank algorithm, it does not increase his prominence there. The Wikipedia article on someone will almost always be one of the top hits in google--that's a deliberate choice of their's, to adjust the algorithm so it emphasises the importance and reach of our web site.

I then re-read the comment I mentioned at the RfC. I consider it justified. First, he is not a spammer. Second, if what he did had been scamming, it is possible to refer to it as strongly as necessary while still wording it impersonally. I don't want to break the continuity of the rfc, but otherwise, I would ask for someone else to do rev del.--I don't think its sufficient for oversight. I think that when this is settled, you might want to do that yourself; you might say now, that you intend to do so.

However, I think your your asking for an rfc yourself to pre-empt a more hostile one, and get it out of the battleground that is ANI, was good judgment. I think going to arb com to deal with the other people involved may possibly be a good idea, but I agree with the majority of arbs commenting so far that its premature. Elen drew a parallel to Scientology, but this is not a pervasive. Your accepting recall was also a very good way of defusing the situation. I might have modified my remark at the RfC had I realized this at the time, and I shall say so. I do not want to quarrel with you. We have different approaches on several general issues, but I have worked together successfully with people whose approaches differ from mine much more strongly. DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you were working with this user and might want to weigh in on the block... Dreadstar ☥ 22:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I unblocked, & I hope the results will justify it. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Looks like Wifione (talk · contribs) beat you to closing this one by 3 minutes, and you ended up creating a nested closure, so to speak. I would have undone your edit but I wasn't sure what you wanted done with the closure comment you left. I leave it up to your discretion. Cheers! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

thanks, I removed my duplicate close; we said essentially the same thing. DGG ( talk ) 13:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply