User talk:DGG

“ I am very gratified to have learned that so many people seem to like me, but even more gratified that they understand and like (or at least tolerate) the work I'm trying to do. ” —  at my RfA

Reminders:Reminders
Topical Archives: Deletion reform, Speedies, Notability , IPC & Fiction, WP:Academic things & people, Journals
Sourcing
General Archives: Sept-Dec06, Jan-Feb07, Mar-Apr07, May07, Jun07, Jul 7, Aug07, Sep07, Oct 07; Nov 07, Dec07, Jan08, Feb08, Mar08, Apr08, May08, Jun08, Jul08, Aug08, Sep08, Oct08, Nov08, Dec08, Jan09, Feb09, Mar09, Apr09, May09

(some still current material from these pages is below:) :

Please post messages at the bottom of the page - I will reply on this page, unless you ask otherwise

---

If your article is in danger of deletion, possibly some of the following messages may be of help to you:

• If you can fix the article, I'd advise you to do so very quickly, before it gets nominated for regular deletion
• We're an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. You have to become famous first, then someone will write an article about you. In the meantime, there's lots of things to do here -- so welcome.
• An article must have 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases)
• To use material from your web site, you must release the content under a GFDL license, which permits reuse and modification of the material by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and is not revokable.
• For articles about a commercial or non-commercial organization, see our Business FAQ (a wonderful page written by Durova, from whom I learned a lot of my approach to people writing articles with COI.

---

Has this account been compromised?

Evidence: You just agreed with me. This is unprecendented. Please relinquish control of this account to the real DGG immediately. Someguy1221 00:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

if you'll look at my deletion log, you'll see my dark side shows itself itself every day, generally when I start editing. After I get that expressed, I go on in the way you normally think of me. DGG (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Not only did he agree with me earlier today, he even voted 'Delete' on an AfD (admittedly on one of Billy's articles, but even so...). I agree this pattern of events is most peculiar and warrants a full investigation. — iridescent 01:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN post about you

Sorry on behalf of all involved for not notifying you, that was a terrible oversight on all of our parts. If it helps, the conversation, as you likely read, focused not on you but rather on Zscout's block of the editor(vandal?) who complained about you. Good luck with your vandals...--CastAStone/^/(talk) 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this [1] as I was out of town and off line. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha

Ever been accused of being a deletionist before?--Kubigula (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

See [2]. And once or twice before. Makes my day each time, as the saying goes. DGG (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"Hive mentality"? That's a good one. I'll have to remember that. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That is priceless. Both the accusation and the phrase. You must be doing something right, David. Thanks Kubigula, that made my day also. — Becksguy (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well said

		The Wiki Wiffle Bat
		For the most clear-headed statement I've read on Wikipedia in a long time, I award you a wifflebat in thanks. Nealparr (talk to me) 06:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding [3], well said. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User:DGG/LG

In December I gave a presentation to librarians in Pittsburgh area. Would you like me to send you my presentation slides? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

After a day of fighting with my email and then Wikimedia, I finally gave up and uploaded a file to rapidshare. At least it works :) Download. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

magazines...

...and creative works in general cannot be deleted under speedy A7, per WP:CSD In any case, I think Railfan and Railroad might be one of the two leading magazines in its subject. did you check that? Please do not use speedy when not strictly within the specifications.'

Magazines are businesses, not creative works, and therefore fall squarely under {{db-corp}} guidelines -- which also explicitly refer to articles which make no assertion of notability, which this article doesn't. Your vague recollection doesn't qualify either as an assertion of notability nor a reliable source. Please do not wikilawyer about obvious failures of speedy standards and specifications. --Calton | Talk 16:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it will quite possibly be deleted at afd, unless I or someone finds more material. Relative rank is capable of objective determination via Ulrich's. But as for speedy, WP:CSD: "A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. " if you want to change the rules, discuss it there. I think you will find the consensus is clear about magazines. A book publisher is a company. A book is not. A record distributor is a company. A recording is not. A series of recordings is not. A boxed set of recordings is not. A magazine publisher is a company. A magazine is not. Speedy is not stretchable. What you call wikilawering I call following the rules. " There is no consensus to speedily delete articles of types not specifically listed in A7 under that criterion." DGG (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Noticeboards, noticeboards, noticeboards!

I think I remember you chiming in when the No Original Research noticeboard was created as it being just an extra page to watch. We've now got the Fringe Theories, Fiction, NOR, and NPOV. I'm wondering if we're not spreading ourselves too thin over too many boards. Any ideas? MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We also have COI, and BLP, and RS, and the duplicative pair (ANB and AN/I), and BONB, and a number of similarly functioning pages, such as WT:SPAM, CP and its family, the various VPs and RfCs, WQA if it survives, the widely ignored RM and PM, and those I dont even know about). And the XfDs, the Ref Desks and the Help Desks, and AIV, 3RR and their relatives. And the talk pages for every policy and guideline prominent and obscure. And user talk pages where interesting stuff tends to be found. I organize what I do with bookmarks: I've got a group I call WPck (wikipedia check), and how far I get down the list of 30 or so 51, now that I've actually counted-- each day is variable--but I've never gotten to the bottom. Some in my opinion in practice tend to serve for POV pushing, such as BLP and FRINGE. (At some I agree more with the trend--like RS, so I don't call it POV pushing)

I forgot the talklists and IRC. I prefer to forget about IRC, and I wish I could really forget about the talklists.

But look at it in a positive way--it's forum shopping which keeps there from being any one WP:LOC.DGG (talk) 04:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Def going on my best of list. MBisanz ^talk 17:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Namecheck

Don't know if you've already been alerted to this? Go and search the text for DGG. Kudos! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion reform study group

Moved to User talk:DGG/Deletion reform -- please continue there. DGG (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You are famous

(Kim Dent-Brown mentioned this above, a little cryptically, on 29 February 2008)
See here, if you have not seen it already.--Filll (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice ! --Hu12 (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No fair! I want my own newspaper article mention. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just vandalize the Signpost.--Father Goose (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

You were mentioned in a book review here Congratulations on it and id like to give you a barnstar but i belive you are the first editor to recive the honor of being in a book review. so id like you to make one........ get back to work now Rankun (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't let all this fame go to your head DGG :) --Pixelface (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fame

seen your NY Book Review usernamecheck? Near the bottom. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Old news I see! Why are they online a three weerks before the publication date, i wonder? Better than another barnstar anyway. I'm incredibly patient too, & hope to see something on the Master of the Playing Cards one day! Johnbod (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: User:Jbmurray/Madness

(Copied over from my talk page:) DGG, many thanks for your comment. I'm glad that my text may be useful for the NYC meet. I'd be pleased to have any feedback or reactions that come out of that. And I do now indeed intend to publish a version of the essay somewhere. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A3 to Prod ?

Do you really think it is necessary to {{Prod}} for process? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I think it necessary to follow the speedy criteria as written. Anything else leads to chaos Some people will delete appropriately, others not. The purpose of process is to prevent misuse, at the cost of going slightly slower. Of all WP process, I think PROD is the cleverest compromise. DGG (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Communist Propaganda AfD

I do think you have missed the point a bit on this one. Did you read my entire !vote? "not a notable scholarly subject, because nothing (or vanishingly little) has been written about what is common to propaganda from various communist countries, parties and communist organisations." I happen to be fairly certain that such sources do not exist - except, maybe, in long-discredited John Birch Society pamphlets. More to the point, none have been produced.

As I said, "Propaganda in the Soviet Union"/"by the Soviet Union" are perfectly acceptable articles, and not under discussion. Please note that the Western propaganda redirect sends us to the Chomsky theory of propaganda in advanced capitalist societies, which makes precisely the above sort of argument - that there is a common thread to the propaganda output in these societies. Note also that it is presented there as a theory, as well. Were any similar theories to be found in reliable sources about propaganda from societies and parties as diverse as Cuba, the Soviet Union, North Korea, the Communist Party of South Africa, the Shining Path, and the Socialist Unity Centre of India, or even any sources that claimed to make that connection, as the Chomsky theory does for other equally diverse societies and organisations, the situation would be different. Otherwise we are left with people using "communist propaganda" as shorthand for particular, different, communist parties. Jumbling them together would be unacceptable synthesis, and get anyone who did so a failing grade in most undergraduate courses.

I was particularly disappointed and dismayed. because if one of our most experienced commenters on deletion debates does not see the danger of "articles titled with weakly-defined referents, which are then used as soapboxes for whatever form of original research people with a bunch of different POVs turn up with a single Google search on the title phrase", then we are indeed in trouble, and it explains the losing battle some of us are fighting trying to keep advocacy swill of various flavours out of the mainspace.

Could you perhaps revisit your vote? --Relata refero (disp.) 08:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

replied on the AfD page: the subjects overlap.

I'm now going to be heretical--I think the best way to deal with some issues is a policy change to permit ideological forking in articles. I think we do it implicitly in some cases already, and that we might as well do it explicitly. Otherwise we end up with uncomfortable attempts at synthesis which if they ever reach a compromise, do it by reducing an article to meaninglessness. Instead of subheadings "criticism" we should have "X views on" and "Y views on." But I'm certainly not arguing the afd on that basis, for such is not the current policy. DGG (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As I spelled out there, I still think you're wrong :)

Anyway, I'm actually thinking very hard about what you just threw out up there. If we can't keep our mainspace free, perhaps we can keep certain articles free. Hmmm. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You've been invoked

In the New York Review of Books, no less: Nicholson Baker mentions you as a "patient librarian". Cheers! Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny that among librarians I am considered to have a noticeable lack of patience -- guess it depends on the surrounding environment. (smile) DGG (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Webisodes" and the like

Nice to see we can occasionally agree on something! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Challenge Award - fame at last?

Have you seen the mention you got in Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science/Newsletter/May 2008? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to mention this. Thanks for starting Gunther Stent!--ragesoss (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Since he was my advisor, I sort of felt guilt not having done it.DGG (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: question

Yes, it's intended to cover all areas, not just homeopathy. Kirill ^(prof) 02:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I had asked Kirill, speaking of the board proposed at ArbCom in the decision on Homeopathy:

--is the expert board in the Homeopathy case meant to deal only with homeopathy? I'm a little puzzled how you can find a board of experts capable of making decisions on all subjects. But at least the decision should say one way or the other.DGG (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(this refers to:

The [Arbitration] Committee shall convene a Sourcing Adjudication Board, consisting of credentialed subject-matter experts insofar as is reasonable, which shall be tasked with examining complaints regarding the inappropriate use of sources on Wikipedia. The Board shall issue findings, directly to the Committee, regarding all questions of source usage, including, but not limited to, the following:

1. Whether an editor has engaged in misrepresentation of sources or their content.
2. Whether an editor has used unreliable or inappropriate sources.
3. Whether an editor has otherwise substantially violated any portion of the sourcing policies and guidelines.

The Board's findings shall not be subject to appeal except to the Board itself. The precise manner in which the Board will be selected and conduct its operations will be determined, with appropriate community participation, no later than one month after the closure of this case.

I have been startled and alarmed at the reply, and have answered him briefly:

you say it is intended to cover all subjects--I think that's a total perversion of the spirit of wikipedia, and I sincerely hope the community is persuaded to reverse you and take back the power. What you are essentially proposing to do is establish a small board of censors with a veto power over the contents of all articles. For it does affect all the content--the sourcing is in practice what determines what content is included. You are in one moment totally reversing the basic power structure here--after years of saying that arb com will not involve itself with content, and that this remains something that needs consensus, you are adopting for the demands of a single case the total opposite, calling for the selection of a small body to do the same, and with the most drastic penalties over anyone who departs from it, and no power of appeal from it. Well, I hope we will consider ourselves left with at least the power to abolish it. Before doing something like this, you need a general discussion with the community. I'm surprised at you.

I can not see how any small group can possibly take such responsibilities and prepare to discharge them honestly. There's nowhere where a small commission has that sort of universal power across all subjects--there are always a large number of editors, divided into subject committees. The only role of the ultimate editor-in-chief or board exercising this function, is to appoint them, and to decide the differences between the different groups.

Even in the organization of Citizendium, this power is delegated to what, even in their small organization, is over a hundred experts, grouped into several dozen disciplinary committees, and a fairly large board to resolve difficulties between them.

I am preparing a longer rebuttal. I am truly surprised at you--I can not believe you have thought out the implications. DGG (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're quite correct here; it's perfectly normal, in my experience, for charges of academic dishonesty to be heard before (or appealed to) a single, cross-disciplinary group. The proposed SAB is essentially intended to be a Wikipedia parallel to such proceedings (minus the imposition of sanctions, which will continue to be done by the Committee based on the recommendations of the SAB); it's not meant to be a body for deciding content, in other words, but a body for ruling on whether some editor has been intellectually dishonest in their use of sources. Kirill ^(prof) 04:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If its intended with that narrow a purpose, you might want to reword it accordingly, for that's not how it reads to me. Authority to examine "complaints regarding the use of sources in Wikipedia" is alarmingly broad. And the 3 numbered circumstances in where it is proposed to be used are quite expansive. They cover a great deal more than dishonesty. At the very least the phrase should be added "when they arise in matters that are before the Arb Com."-- you may think that's implied, but if something can be misinterpreted, so it will be. Anyway, do you think that in the academic world charges of dishonesty are handled all that well in general? The questions that arise in the homeopathy article need a knowledge of how the medical literature work, and others will deal with other questions. To the extent I understand them its not a question of being dishonest, but a question of whether something is being used in somewhat beyond what the source indicates--essentially a matter of proper weight. DGG (talk) 04:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps. But, as the remedy says, "The precise manner in which the Board will... conduct its operations will be determined with appropriate community participation". The remedy is a general statement of intent, not an exhaustive policy regarding how the SAB will operate in practice; that's still to be developed. Kirill ^(prof) 13:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

CDS Global page update, 27 May 2008

The latest version of the CDS Global page includes information regarding "volume of business" and "market share," with external references. Please examine and provide comment. Thanks again for your input. Donny Scott (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Herndon article

Haha...yeah I was preparing to do that since yesterday anyway:-P. I'll go ahead and tag it for expert/other contributions. I just couldn't stand looking at that soapbox any longer...Always good to hear from you:-). Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 19:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey...the soapbox is back at J. Marvin Herndon. I smell an edit war if I go and revert it now. Got a take on the subject? Thanks. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 03:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

J.M. Hayes

There was absolutely no assertion of notability. I'm an author; non-self-published. Do I get an article? No. Nothing in this article gives him any qualifications per WP:CREATIVE. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation of WP:CSD#A7 is that there need only be a reasonable assertion of notability. I did not see that in the above article. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

that someone has published four books is cause to think that person might reasonably be notable. Speedy is not AfD. As the article would almost certainly fail afd, I'm not going to take it to deletion review, unless i find some references. But I am going to discuss this at WT:CSD. If you are misinterpreting the meaning this way, it is time to change the language. I've moved it to User:DGG/Hayes for the purpose of discussion. DGG (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

How is publishing four books cause to infer notability? Multiple publications is a direct assertion of notability? I really would like to see that opinion here on Wikipedia; if it's here, I'll change my interpretation of WP:CREATIVE. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Found two reviews for Plains Crazy mentioned at Amazon.com: one form Publishers Weekly and one from Booklist. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that makes him quite possibly actually notable, thanks. They are both selective. OK to restore to mainspace? Thanks for you cooperation. DGG (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"Selective"? Yeah, go ahead; but we need to include an assertion of notability vis a vie reputable reviewed works" or something that makes another CSD tagging much less valid. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

of course I'll add an explanation, but I did start a discussion at WT:CSD--for this is a poster boy of an indication of why we need less restrictive language. Nothing should be speedied that might be keepable--at least that's what I think. I seriously do appreciate your help. DGG (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Superiority Complex?

Instead of going around Wp tagging pages as "may be not notable" in some sort of superior way, why not put some effort in and improve the articles yourself? Albatross2147 (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

there are 2000 articles a day submitted to Wikipedia. About 1/2 are totally unacceptable. Of the other 1/2, probably about 200 need major improvements. I try to fix up one or two a day. "may not be notable" means that someone has some reason to doubt it. I will add such a tag if , for example, another editor has placed a tag for deletion as hopelessly non-notable, and I don't think its quite as bad as that. But what article or discussion are you referring to--we usually don't work in the same areas, so I'm a little puzzled? DGG (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

AH-HA!!! You're obviously one of them-there evialllllll deletionists, DGG! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And see above , the section "Ha." That's why I haven;t archived this: I want to display my credentials. DGG (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikigender

Dear DGB, thanks for your advice added on my talk page.

For your information, I do precise that I am allowed to edit some articles. It's just what I did by adding some biliographical references to the Maryse Marpsat page that I have created a month ago. But I am not allowed to write the web-link leading to the OECD Wikigender site. This site is only an information sharing platform on gender equity which was officially launched by the OECD Development Centre on 7 March 2008 on the occasion of International Women's Day. If you are sufficiently curious, you can get its web-link in my contribution page (at the date of 11 march 2008), and if you follow it, you would observe that it is difficult to say that this information is a kind of SPAM.

It's one of the reasons justifying my protest. Now, I would like to know whether I'm "definitely blocked" or not. Mr or Mrs Hu12 don't give me any answer, neither to my protest nor to your comment. What can I do? How to get any answer? Wanda007 (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

replied on your talk page. You are not blocked. The link is blocked, I think quite wrongly, as an example of what I call "spam paranoia" DGG (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Does "spam paranoia" include abuse of Wikipedia's electronic messaging system? Additionaly French administrator (fr:Utilisateur:Like_tears_in_rain) even posted on her french talk page "Your additions of external links were not a good idea. While I understand that you want to publicize the site, the only place on a relevant page would suffice, making it five times gives the impression of spam.". --Hu12 (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to know, I emailed the ed. in question to ask point-blank what I do not like to ask openly on Wikipedia, whether the person had used other accounts. I consider this a highly appropriate question, and I always ask this before getting involved in helping someone in a situation like this--if they have in fact used other accounts deliberately, I am very reluctant to defend them. Questions regarding possible sock puppetry are often inquired about confidentially. For the record, it was denied (I do not think I am breaking confidentiality in saying this) and I am prepared to help the user further to edit within the rule and to put in links appropriately.

As for the links, I think they were added in good faith. I agree they were added over-enthusiastically. I have not examined that site in detail about appropriateness. Obviously there can be different opinions on that. I take the French admin's opinion seriously. You and I have disagreed about this sort of thing several times. The community has often supported me. If they think the links are wrong this time, then they will not be added. I have been wrong about various things before, and I have sometimes been in the situation where the community does not agree with what i continue to think the right view. In such cases I do what I have always done, which is follow the community in what I actually do. There are some rules I think wrong, that I enforce nonetheless, and there are some things I think should be prohibited that aren't, and I don't try to act against people doing them.

I agree with our linking policy, but I think the enforcement is sometimes over-harsh, both with respect to the links and the individuals. Too many usable links are on the spam blacklist and if one of them catches my attention, I sometimes try to do something about it if I think I will have support, though I do not have time to do as much of this as I would like. I spend more time removing them; about 200 of my watched pages are for possible spam, and yesterday I removed about a dozen links of that sort. I also blocked someone earlier this week for persistently adding unsuitable links, but that was after multiple warnings. DGG (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Flagged articles

Hello again ...

Would you please take a look at User talk:Matthewedwards#Category:Flagged articles, and then add your comments on the cats I have created to compliment the templates?

Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) _{07:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)}

Category:Flagged editors

Hello again ... {{Flag-editor}} now has an optional assist parameter that makes a friendly offer to help, for those thus inclined, instead of defaulting with making the offer. :-) — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

getting there! I'll check the details later. Next goal, perhaps: making it shorter while still making it friendly. and maybe copyvio should be different --if it's clear it should be db-copyvio, if not, suspected copyvio already has the template "copypaste". DGG (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I realized that, but the point is, "I don't have time to check right now, but it's suspicious, so I'll flag it with this generic tag" ... maybe Some Other Editor will check it out in the mean time, and decide that it's {{Db-copyvio}}-able. :-) — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For example, Liliam Cuenca González (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was part of a WP:COI/N and WP:COPYVIO that led to a site being blocked and removed by a bot as WP:LINKSPAM ... it's all the sins in one (unfortunately repeated) case, but it certainly can be improved if editors are aware of the situation ... hence Category:Flagged articles. — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

)

Current project

Your third suggestion: I like. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC) P.S. As this is out of the blue, I am referring to the section on your userpage. "A good faith request by any established editor is sufficient for any administrator, whether or not the deleting administrator, to undelete an article deleted under speedy, except for BLP and copyvio. This should be automatic, and need not involve Deletion Review. it is polite to ask the original administrator first, but not necessary, and, even if s/he refuses, any administrator can undelete it without it being considered wheel warring. The article would normally be immediately sent for AfD. By definition, if an established editor disagrees, it is not uncontroversial and needs community involvement. "

Yes, that's the one. I think it would actually save a lot of drama and free up some wasted time for creators, onlookers & DRV contributors. It might increase the load at AfD, but I'm inclined to think not that much. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

)

WP:Lectures

Hiya David, I see you were scheduled to give a lecture on sourcing in mid-May...did you give the lecture, and is there a "transcript" somewhere, or perhaps you've done an essay on the topic? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont think it has been transcribed yet, but the outline is at User:DGG/LR DGG (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

H.O.P.E. speech

Hey, DGG. This is volt4ire from the NYC meetup. Pharos mentioned that you would be a good person to help (or at least steer me in the right direction) in doing a pro-inclusionist speech. Any suggestions for speakers, arguments, debating-points, etc.? Thanks! volt4ire 02:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

do you think they will want to hear about specific details at Wikipedia? rather, I would aim it at the general roles of web 2.0 information sources, then specialize it to encyclopedias, then us, then to specific problems if people want to hear about them. DGG (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think volt4ire's original idea was for some sort of inclusionist vs. deletionist "debate", and I had recommended you an an inclusionist (I couldn't think of a New York-area deletionist at that moment). Which is an interesting idea, because of all the inside baseball at Wikipedia, the notability issue seems to attract the most outside interest (several articles in Slate, for example).

Which is not to say that this is necessarily what we should do. But I do imagine at a conference like H.O.P.E., we should avoid basic explanations of web 2.0, and focus somewhat more on the issues that are particular to us.--Pharos (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, see Wikipedia talk:Meetup/NYC#H.O.P.E. Conference panel (maybe we should shift this conversation there).--Pharos (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Fringe

In Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee, you wrote but situations of a single person with a completely far fringe view are dealt with fairly well already. There are cases where a real-world minority- or fringe-view is overrepresented on Wikipedia. There are also cases where a majority- or wikipedia-majority-view silences a minority view or reduces their weight well below their real-world due weight. This can happen by one side outmaneuvering the other into a behavior violation or by simply driving them away from the project in frustration. I don't think there is a good solution, other than to have affected articles watched by people who are informed about the article's subject matter but with no emotional stake in the article. This tends to happen more on articles on political or social topics, where way too many editors have a personal agenda, and on articles about people, places, or groups, where fanboys may succeed in turning the article into a virtual press release. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

as I said there, I think that dueling by taunting each other into unacceptable actions is not a really rational approach. . Perhaps it survives because the people who have been here a while tend to know just how far they can safely go & some of them have gotten quite good at it. But perhaps also it works because the people who are for good or less good reasons committed to an agenda with a zeal and devotion and purpose which transcend rational argument tend to be rather easy to lose proportion and descend into unacceptable actions. There is nothing wrong with zealotry when one is right, but it has to be pursued elsewhere--those who care more about their cause than objective editing encyclopedia are a danger to the encyclopedia.

Unfortunately, the attempt to deal with it otherwise tend to amount to an appeal to authority, which does not do much better--one can find authorities for almost anything. And so one argues about the relative merits of the authorities. People both in the right and wrong of it (as if w could tell) are equally likely to what to prevent their opponents from making a fair case. What is necessary is a way to determine what objective editing is, and enforce it. My current thoughts are mandatory mediation with enforceable remedies--not by subject experts necessarily, but by people with common sense and proven impartiality.DGG (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD essay

Greetings, David. I have been playing around recently with the idea of writing an essay on an aspect of AfD you might be interested in. The idea behind the essay (stub version here) is that it would be admirable for inclusionists/eventualists who argue that articles could be improved to an acceptable level to take immediate steps in bringing that article up to scratch. Per this comment, I imagine that you are sympathetic to the notion. Would you be interested in collaborating on the essay or throwing around a few ideas on the subject? Sincerely, Skomorokh 11:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope you do not mean "immediate"--I dont see it in your proposal. --it is many times easier to nominate for deletion than to fix. I fix articles at Afd, yes, but i can only do 1 or 2 a week or so properly (I usually do another 2 or 3, but some of those fixes are minimal & dont really meet my standards for a decent article.) In that week, usually 1000 are nominated, of which probably 200 of the deleted ones could be fixed, and perhaps the same number of the ones that get kept need majpr improvements. But Wikipedia is too large to require fixing to save articles--many articles will not be worked on for long periods,--this is very unfortunate, but until we have more people prepared to work on the less widely interesting topics, it will remain the case. One thing we'll need to get them, is to not delete articles that they might be interested in. them. Incomplete articles are inevitable in a wiki like this.

Lets try to generalize this--that people who nominate for deletion must demonstrate they did at least a minimal search, documenting where they looked.

Maybe it should be a how-to, not an exhortation.

Try a longer draft & I'll look in more detail. DGG (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

NLP

You might consider looking at the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuro-linguistic programming.--Filll (talk | wpc) 11:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

sorry I missed it. I have long felt a considerable degree of sympathy with the noms views, and am delighted to find that others agree at least in part. Of course, as you and others said, deleting the whole batch is ridiculous, but I would certainly hope for a certain amount of condensation. I'll leave it to others t pick out the worst duplications, but I'll support the merges. Dealing with fringe social science is very much harder than science, because the boundaries are not as clear. I think there is real social science, and am convinced that this subject is far outside it, but it's not as easy to make a convincing argument. DGG (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I happened to see this, I came here for another reason, and I'm under voluntary restriction, but .... I assume this won't be controversial and that it will be welcome. I became aware of and studied NLP for a few years (through reading and practice, not with an NLP practitioner.) Structure of Magic and Bandler and Grinder's study of how well-known therapists actually did their work, as distinct from the generally very unscientific theories they often formulated as rationalizations, were pioneering efforts in the field. I wouldn't call it science, exactly, it's more like engineering. There is no doubt that the subject is notable and that there is plenty of reliable source. If it is presented as science, it's problematic, but, then again, lots of stuff is presented as science that actually is very poorly understood, there are peer-reviewed journals in the field of psychiatry and psychotherapy, filled with articles that are basically informed speculation. And, by the way, the techniques worked, and still work, many of them. But it's a very difficult field to do controlled research in. The hot place right now, as far as my own experience would suggest, is Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, which is still quite mysterious as to how it works, but it does work, any my own experience confirms that, and I see it working with others. It works, spectacularly, with PTSD, where traditional therapeutic techniques have be very ineffective, but ... it's brief, unknown mechanism, and could destabilize a whole industry. Current treatment for PTSD without using EMDR might involve a visit a week, at upwards of $100 per visit, for years. EMDR has been known to dramatically reverse PTSD symptoms in one session, the original clinical trials did that. But I haven't followed recent research in the field. The connection with NLP? Well, NLP was largely rooted, when used for therapy, in the inner resources for change that already exist in the patient, and the EMDR techniques are similar in awakening those resources. Whether or not bilateral stimulation is important (other forms of BL stim are now used, perhaps more commonly than eye movement) is controversial, and it's entirely possible that any other hypnotic technique would work, in the hands of a skilled practitioner. Skilled at what? At developing rapport and trust. (Remember the stereotypical hypnotic induction, the hypnotist holding up a pendulum, or moving a finger back and forth in front of the subject?). --Abd (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Please dlete the old Worldview page... I inserted the text into the main and removed any duplicated content but it still needs to be massaged into the main article, see: Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming#proposed_merge_of_Worldview_and_working_model_of_neuro-linguistic_programming

AsI understand GFDL, it has to be kept as a redirect to preserve the edit history. I'll make that change. DGG (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Consistency

BIO has become very nebulous, especially because one can interpret "significant coverage" and NOT NEWS to produce any result whatsoever for many of the articles you have in mind. We need to make up our mind abut what depth of local figures we intend to cover. We need to make up our mind about whether to cover the central figures of human interest stories. And then stick to it, whatever the decision is. You and I would probably disagree on one or both of these in general, I at least would much rather accept almost any stable compromise rather than fight each of them from over-general principles. DGG (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

We'd probably be closer together than you might think. Yes, the community as a whole does need to thrash out local notability-- something that a narrow constructionist can rely on but which would allow some flexibility. Any standard, even one I loathe, would be better than none. As you say, any result is possible the way things are. A dice roll would be less stressful and do as well. This is why I avoid AFD. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Stress

as with any democratic type of process, it works better if the good people stay in. The way I avoid stress is by commenting once or twice, and then not looking back--either my arguments is accepted, or not,and then on to the next. I generally do not look back to see what the result is, or I would get too often angry, or at least disappointed. Not that it's a game for me, but that I can be effective only by keeping detached. DGG (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

CSD vs. AfD

The articles in question don't fall under "local chapters" - that was a slightly different yet related item. The articles concerned consisted of two lines, (name and address), and external link to a page where the name appears in a list of related groups, and/or a link to a dead or non-informative homepage. That does indeed give no indication of importance (no sources), unless something being called "Grand" implies importance (which it shouldn't). I am certain that I had to start 4 AfDs that I really didn't need to because of baseless claims of supposed notability "because of the name" or "because this other thing (which also had no independent sources and thus didn't assert its notability) was important."

I also discovered that some of the articles were informationally wrong, and referred to entirely different groups than what the sources were pointed at. Yet I'm the one supposedly "gaming the system" and with a "personal bias" because I don't think we should have articles that remain unsourced for months at a time with no editorial changes and no reliable sources. MSJapan (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

MSJ - the CSD system is not meant for questionable cases, which is what you've been doing. JASpencer (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If an article is wrong, fix it.

If it is downright vandalism, and the vandalism would be unquestionably clear to anyone even if they knew nothing whatever about the subject, tag it for speedy

If it is downright vandalism, but the vandalism would not be immediately clear to anyone ignorant of the subject ,list it at Prod or AfD

if the article is unsourced, try to source it. The proposal that articles that remain unsourced can be deleted for that reason alone, even at AfD, has been repeatedly and decisively rejected by the community. If you want to challenge it , try the Village Pump. If you nominate for speedy on that reason it is disruptive, because you are deliberately going against established policy and instead following what you think the policy ought to be.

If for a particular article, you think either the facts or the notability is unsourcable, nominated for Prod or AfD. It helps to have a good reason, like the result of a search, because if others can source it, they will probably consider that you have made a careless nomination.

For the minimum requirements to keep an incomplete article, see WP:STUB. Again, by repeated decision of the community , it does not have to be sourced.

It is considered unsuitable and a violation of WP:BITE to nominate within a few minutes after it has been written an incomplete article for not indicating any nobility -- instead place a notability tag. If after a few days it indicates no notability whatever, then place a speedy tag. If it indicated anything that any reasonable person could think might possibly indicate notability, use Prod or AfD--se below for the advantages of doing it that way.

If however, it contains too little content to tell what the subject is even about, it can be nominated for speedy as empty.

The amount of work involved in trying to recover from an improper deletion , or argue about a questionable speedy, is even worse than the tedious mechanism of Afd. Therefore, if you think there will be any opposition, use AfD. It has the additional advantage that the article can be prevented from re-creation. This is especially valuable if someone is deliberately creating bad articles. DGG (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

(This does not imply any view of mine on any of the articles or on the topic. I !vote to delete a lot of things at AfD, and I might well !vote to delete the articles in question. And I do a lot of speedy. We need speedy, and I have no hesitation in using it when it is unquestionable.) But there's no point arguing individual article deletions on personal talk pages. that's what Afd is for. DGG (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

yes, I understood that. DGG (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Question as to your comment at JASpencer's talk page... that "If there is any reason to think the article's deletion would be challenged, even for inappropriate reasons, it is necessary to use AfD."... doesn't that negate the entire concept of speedy deletes? Your approach would allow one disruptive editor to "exempt" an entire topic area from speedy deletes... all because he thinks that anything to do with the topic is notable. Blueboar (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I misworded it there, and have corrected it to even for reasons which would not save the article at AfD. Objectiions that are clearly disruptive should of course be ignored, objections based on good faith are another mater entirely. When I encounter disruptive addition of articles I have no hesitation to warn or even block the person involved. But some of the afd criteria are matters of judgment, and if in any reasonable doubt, I prefer the community's judgment to my own. DGG (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you... that does clarify things significantly. Blueboar (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

And thanks, I am always grateful when people point out if I've gotten something wrong, or worded it too broadly. I know I will make mistakes, and I must rely on others to correct them.. DGG (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael Birawer

We edit conflicted on this speedy delete, saying exactly the same thing (both declining the speedy). Good to know I'm still in line with your thinking every once and a while :-). I'll get in contact with the article creator shortly and see if I can't help him/her out. Keeper ǀ 76 21:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we'd agree with each other 95% of the time, with almost all the others being matters that we both would consider equivocal. Obviously the remaining few are the ones that stick out. All we can really do there is stay polite and let other people judge. If I've pushed you too hard on any of them I apologize, and I certainly never intend to let an argument on one thing carry over onto another. You might be interested in some of my recent comments today at WT:CSD. DGG (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping we agreed more like 99% of the time :-). I read your comments at wt:csd, very well worded. I support them. I personally, with rare exception anyway, have never "speedy deleted" something that was untagged. Probably because I don't do "new page patrol" and rely on others to patrol properly. I wish there was an easy tool to see my ratio of "agree with patroller" versus "remove tag". I think I'm about 1 of 5 that I "decline" for one reason or another, maybe but hopefully not more like 1 of 10 (I spend a lot of time at C:CSD). In the last few months, I think the "speedy taggers" have gotten more careful and less bold, which is a good thing. I attribute it to this: Many "speedy taggers" are doing NPP because they foresee an RFA in their near future. It is well known (and appropriate) that if an editor is sloppy as a speedy tagger, they will be sloppy as a speedy deleter, therefore those taggers with "aspirations" of "finishing the job", which seems to be all of them, are reluctant to tag borderline articles. Encouraging, in an ironic sense. Anyway, I'm not an article builder, never pretended to be one, I'm no good at it. I've asked another editor, who I know to be an excellent article rescuer, to take a look at this specific article that you and I both agree isn't speediable. Seeing as this particular artist lives (purportedly) about 5 miles from my home, I don't quite feel right about doing much more than copyediting myself. Thanks for your input and insight. See you 'round, Keeper ǀ 76 22:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ecclesiastes 12:12

"the assertion that someone has written a non-self published book book in any subject is a clear assertion of importance" - oh, dear Lord, that makes my heart break just to read! I'm an author, book reviewer, bookseller and long-time member of the National Writers Union; do you have any idea how many new books come out every year, even when you screen out the self-publishers? Most of us harmless Grub Street hacks will never be notable; and certainly most of my one- to three-book friends are not, nor would they assert themselves to be. This concept, if accepted, would open up the gates to endless floods of vanispamcruftisement! I cannot accede to your request. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC) (yes, Dave, I know you're a librarian [weren't you a Wombat at one time?]; but librarians aren't subjected to as much of the petty end of the spectrum as booksellers and reviewers are, and see less of the dross and more of the substance)

I never said it was enough to be notable, just avoid speedy, at least in the case of an apparently significant book, and certainly in this case when supported also by published articles. Speedy is deliberately worded very loosely to permit any good faith assertion of notability to pass and be judged by the community. I agree most of the people who have written a single book wouldn't pass notability, but the point is that this is most of the people -- some would, and no one admin should be able to judge that for the same reason we don't speedy books themselves at afd. someone in the field at least should have the opportunity to check for reviews and citations and library holdings and sport things by recognition that need further checking. As for librarians, we get junk enough but of a different sort. I'm not sure I catch the reference to wombats? I invite you to find a suitable wording for what counts as passing speedy, but in this case, since there was material besides the book, I am probably going to Deletion Review, not to support the article particularly, but to establish that your standard of "indication of importance" is too high. DGG (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously we disagree. Ah, well; certainly not the first time! (As to the wombats, that's a Stumpers-L reference.) --Orange Mike | Talk 18:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

DGG - I completely support your position. The point here is not to have an exercise in the use of rhetorics but to operate on the basis of evidence and community feedback to make sure Wikipedia remains true to its purpose of providing useful information written by open and transparent consensus [4]. I'm disappointed to see Orange Mike continue to ignore the feedback from the community. I hope it's not the case for other articles he's been reviewing. Were you able to take the "Deletion Review" action you mentioned?

Alex Omelchenko (talk) 04:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal

Since you have been actively involved in past discussion, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines--SaraNoon (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Matthias Kuhle

Please point me to the bit in the above article that indicates importance/significance. It looks like a massive COI attempt at somesort of self-promotion to me and all I see is resume/C.V. stuff with some books he may have supposedly written. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

saying one is has a position such a significant executive in a major orqanization or professor at a major university or anything of the sort is an assertion or indication of notability enough to pass speedy. Almost any good faith assertion will do--read WP:CSD and the discussions on its talk page. The bar is much lower than WP:N. Given his publications, it's probably going to pass afd,though I have not checked how widely he's cited, which will be the determining factor. You can verify the books at WorldCat. You can do at least a preliminary check at Google scholar--and see the comment I left at the author's talk page. We do not delete for COI!! DGG (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay let me make sure I understand the above. Saying you are the CEO/Chairman of the Board/etc counts as an assertion of notability? Just that? Saying you are a professor at "a major university" automatically counts as an assertion of notability? Forgive me if that makes no sense to me. After looking more deeply into things (including the idential article that existed with a misspelled first name) I did find some stuff that mentioned the name (but, couldn't read any of it). I've got no plans to take to AfD. I'm just trying to find somesort of consistency from the admins on these things. Is it oaky to ask you (and the other admins) to be like really really specific in edit summaries and such on stuff like this? Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

two levels: example 1/ Saying someone is president or chairman of the board at a notable company if it can be shown from the company web site is actual notability,and even if it has not yet been shown, that's only reason to find the reference, not delete the article via speedy or any other process. Most people , not quite all, agree on this, but most such articles are kept at AfD. Further, saying one is chairman of the board at any company that anyone might possibly think notable is an assertion of notability. Saying one is a corporate officer in a lesser position or a lesser company is usually not enough for actual notability except for major officers of really major companies {e.g. CTO of Apple is notable) but that too whether or not actually notable is an assertion of notability enough to defeat a speedy, and almost all admin agree. example 2/ saying someone is a full professor at a major research university is almost always enough for actual notability, and is trivial to verify, althugh not the literal standard of WP::PROF, because almost always enough recgnition of importance in the field can be found, and has been confirmed for almost all cases brought to AfD in the absence of special circumstances; saying someone is professor at any university or college is an assertion of notability--it may or may not be enough to pass AfD, even when verified--it depends on rank, nature of the school, and accomplishments nut it passes speedy. I point out that whether someone has written books is trivial to verify.

The principle is that speedy is only for articles that beyond any reasonable question are not notable. Anything that might, if true, give rise to a good faith debate, is not a speedy--whether about notability or anything else. Even copyvio-- Unquestionable copyvio is a speedy -- probable copyvio is a suspected copyright violation, not a speedy, and can be blanked, but not deleted. Purely promotional articles which cannot reasonable be rewritten are speedy; if it might be possible to rewrite them, they are not, and require afd. "No context" unclear enough enough to literally make it impossible to figure out what the article is about is a speedy, dubious context is an afd. And so forth for all the criteria.

This is not an extreme position. Many, probably about half, of admins say that speedy is not for any article for which there is any good faith doubt at all, even if it is not reasonable in terms of WP standards. I have proposed limiting it to those with a reasonable doubt, and this did not obtain consensus. As it stands, the wording of CSD holds: unquestionable, not even reasonable question.

True, some admins are ignoring the plain language of WP:CSD, and speedy deleting articles that assert but don't support notability, or that they think will not likely pass AfD. Unfortunately, at present if carried to deletion review, the current attitude is that such deletions are sometimes supported if it appears really unlikely. This is an artifact of the limited number of people who bother to show up at deletion review. When 1000 active admins, and no policy on precedent, many decisions will inevitably be wrong. Just find me any group of a selected 1000 people who agree on anything! Humans don't work that way. Admins as a body are not totally consistent, and though we should work towards getting them more consistent, experience shows we won't get all that far. Only a project directed from above with the equivalent of a supreme court can be consistent. If you want consistency, you need a dictator. There are such projects, such as Conservapedia.

The reason behind the principle, is that no one person, admin or otherwise, is qualified to decide on notability if the matter can be disputed, only the community. Similarly , no one admin is qualified to decide on blocking if it is disputable--any other admin can reverse it, and force a discussion at AN/I to see what the community thinks--not just the community of admins, but the entire community, for anyone can give an opinion there. analogously, bureaucrat is a position of very high trust, but no bureaucrat can individually promote a person to admin--it take a community decision at RfAdmin. Arbitrator is a position of the greatest trust we can give, but they too decide as a committee. DGG (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

archiving

I no longer remember how it was done but if someone knows or wants to talk to the bot operator, look at what's done for the museums project. In archiving it creates an index which includes topic and which archive it's in. I don't know if it can be done retroactively. TravellingCari 12:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at documentation, though I can change the names of the archives, the indexing is done as it makes the archive. I would have to remerge everything. What happened of course, is that a/I never imagined at the first they would get so large b/I started with topical archives, and this takes more maintenance than Ive actually done, and , of course 3/ there have been some very long postings here, not all by me,some interesting enough that I want to keep visible. Expect slow improvement. till and maybe a new normal system in January 09 DGG (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Indexes, what indexes?
2. At User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo there is a pointer to User:HBC Archive Indexerbot. I think this is the bot alluded to above by Travellingcari, currently used by WP:MUSEUM. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Fictional (?) book

One of the good example showing how this project is failing is that instead of trying to find out the truth about the book (as you've tried), involved editors are using it to prove bad faith on part of others (see second para). Sad, isn't it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

well, all students learn that it's asking for trouble to add refs relying only on listings on the web but without seeing them. But I'm not perfect here myself.  :) DGG (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Back in 2005 and earlier, it was fairly common to see editors misunderstand what the reference section is for and add stuff that now we all know should be under external links of further reading there. Inline cites helped a lot; before I - just like many, many others - used to lump everything under references, whether we used it or not... it's nice to see how our standards of quality improved. If only that improvement would involve civility and good faith... :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

User:TTN

I understand your frustration, but you really need to stop your ad hominem attacks on him on every AfD he does. It doesn't make you look any better than him, and it also makes you as viable as engaging in WP:POINT as much as he is. If you have a clear problem, initiate a request for comment; maybe ArbCom (you probably know there was already a second look at his conduct, in which they decided no action needed to be taken) will take a third look at his conduct or change Wikipedia's policy on AfDs.

I'm not trying to oppose your takes on things or ride you or like that; we have certainly both agreed on some articles from time to time. I also certainly agree that he is a tad heavy on bringing articles to AfD without exercising other options, but there are other venues for that — AfD, I believe, is not one of them. However, fighting fire with fire doesn't help the situation, either. That's all I want to say. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You are probably right that it's overkill, and that I have called sufficient attention to it, and could advantageously use less detail. (My reason for repeating something on every article is that in the past, those articles on which people have not bothered to add keep comments have gotten deleted). Additionally, I have refrained from the temptation to respond with an identical rationale to his identical rationales, and have reworked each one specifically for the particular situation. I havent even given the same !vote -- some keep, some merge, some redirect. One even delete. They are not ad hominem. I consider what he is doing disruptive, and I am talking about that, not him. I have said nothing about motivation except repeating what he has said himself. I am willing to work with him or anyone in effecting merges and other improvements in these articles.

And I thank you for letting me know the bad effect I am apparently having. It's good to have outside critiques. DGG (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Articles must establish their notability and verifiability clearly and objectively. If someone is creating an article, it is just as in adequate to write the first paragraph of what may become a ten paragraph article as it is to create an article containing nothing more than the reiteration of its title and then reject claims that the subject is not notable. Editors who cannot or will not create articles with substantiating references from the start must be ready to have these articles deleted, or they should create them as userfied articles. Patrollers of the new articles page cannot be expected to check the HTML of all the nonsense articles they see to verify whether or not references were indeed placed and it is only the lack of a reflist markup that keeps them from being revealed. While your intentions may be excellent, your position is essentially defenseless. I therefore respectfully reject your your comments and ask that you instead direct your efforts at informing new editors that new articles must establish their own merit prior to them figuring out how to use Wikipedia, or they risk speedy deletion of what appears to be nonsense, unverified un-notable refuse, hoaxes and vandalism. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, articles must establish their notability and verifiability clearly and objectively to be kept, but they merely have to give some indication of it to pass speedy. Please reread WP:CSD and WP:STUB The first policy that you suggest, that an article must have references to be kept at speedy,. has been suggested from time to time, but repeatedly rejected. If you want to propose it, try the WT:CSD page But first read it's very long archives. That an article must be complete or even tenable at the first edit is also not policy, though I do warn people that they would do well not to make too fragmentary a start, because some admins are a little trigger-happy. What I said on your talk page, that it is not appropriate to speedy an in process article the first few minutes of its existence, is standard practice. You are not currently prevented from placing such a tag, but if you do, be aware that I and others will criticize you for it. What I am saying is not my eccentric way of doing things, but standard here. Please read or reread WP:BITE and WP:Deletion Policy.If an article can be improved by normal editing, it is not a candidate for speedy.

However, we do have a way to accomplish the sort of challenge to an article you have in mind. That is the WP:PROD process. You might want to consider it in the cases of patently incomplete articles.

I know you've been here about one year longer than I have, but I don't think what you have been suggesting has ever been the policy. And I notice your top userbox, so I think we might have some common ground after all. We do have common interests. Perhaps we will meet at one of the NYC meetups. DGG (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Your Comments on my Talk Page

Originally, I started deleting comments on my talk page from rude people that disagreed with some of my outspoken positions. Just don't need to keep reading negative nonsense from people that can't take alturnative or unpopular views.

But with respect to AfD comments, I generally don't see the point of repeating what the nominator has written if it is the same as my thoughts on the issue, which is what "as per nom" means. Do you disagree? Which AfD that I've voted on are you interested in? Perhaps I can expand my comments. But again, if my thoughts are the same as the nominator's, what's the point in a word-for-word copy since "as per nom" says the same thing?

prod

"unreferenced" is not a reason for deletion. Unreferenced and unnotable, maybe."tried but could not find any sources for notability" much more convincing--when you say something like that, I'd probably accept your view. But of the 2 you marked unreferenced, one seems to have had a ref . tho not a good one Blaqstarr--I didnt check further, and the other Esa Maldita Costilla, is probably notable given the performers involved. DGG (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess our standards differ. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your instincts were right on this one, DGG. I know this is kind of necro-bumping, but better late than never... Chubbles (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Great Work

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		DGG you are one the best Wikipedians .I have came across despite differences in standards and even opinion you have been a true gentleman,helpful,kind and very good human being. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 19#Comparison_of_web_based_file_managers

You raise an excellent point there. I seem to be averaging a DRV on one of my closures every second day (although the majority are being endorsed). The recent phenomenon of DRVs when one isn't satisfied with the result, but dressed up as "certain arguments weren't addressed, so the admin should have closed it my way" is worrisome, not least because a DRV would have been even more certain if the debate had been closed the other way. This is liable to put good admins off closing AFDs because of a perceived stigma in having your decision posted at DRV, especially when users decline to discuss matters with the closer first as the DRV instructions twice require (a matter about which we have repeatedly butted heads). Where can we go from here? Stifle (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this down, in case you missed it. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

still working on an adequate response.DGG (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fiction Survey 2008

DGG, in today's ANI thread that Masem brought against me, you said "Constructive would be a discussion of what was actually wanted." In June I suggested to Masem a series of fill-in-the-blank questions we could ask the community. On October 14, 2008, I turned those questions into a survey in my userspace. On October 22, 2008, I solicited input at the proposals section of the village pump. Do you think such a survey would be potentially constructive? I would appreciate any feedback you may have at WT:FICT, or on the talk page of the survey. You're also free to edit the survey itself if you would like if you think any improvements should be made. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I shall take a look, but what would help most of anything you could do at this stage is to promise to stop reverting policy pages. Doing that sort of thing will lead to a deteriorating situation, not just for you, but more generally. DGG (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My general feelings about this is to use a combination article for all non-principal characters except for truly major or classic fiction. For those who thing WP:N meaningful in this context, individual ones in such a list need not be Notable--there is no such requirement for indiviual items of article content. WP:OR and WP:V do not apply, a suitable descriptive content can come from the fiction itself. As for keeping a separate article for such characters, at this point in discussion it does not really make sense until there are significant real sources. Let's work towards a compromise on these. I am reluctant to consider every character in every show individually here at AfD or other venue, if we can get a general rule. What gets a combination article, what a separate one, is basically just a matter of organization. To call it notability is a misunderstanding of what WP:N ought to be used for. The idea of a "separate article" being a big deal one way or another for closely related topics is very PRINTY, and not appropriate for Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Refining AfD outcomes

Hi. I read your comments at the AfD and DRV of List of Who Framed Roger Rabbit characters. In particular, I noticed your suggestion to alter AfD/DPR. I started a discussion WT:AFD#Merge outcome, based in part on my interpretation of your comments and concerns. Flatscan (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding at the discussion. Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

54]] (T C) 12:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

episodes and chapters

(from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elementary School Musical (which was kept after the nomination was withdrawn)

Just a final comment. episodes are usually not like chapters! Chapters can not stand alone, in any sense whatsoever; they're basically pauses. Episodes in contrast are written to have some degree of internal closure, to be viewable by themselves--you won't know the background, you won't appreciate the motivations, but you will know at least the resolution or deliberate non-resolution of the particular incident. Look at the descriptions--this is almost always the case. In most good books, if you skip a chapter, you usually miss something necessary to understand the action and as things go on, you get more and more confused. Episodes are usually written with enough hooks backwards to explain the continuity. They more resemble & I think derive from the structure of comic books, which is why there is such an easy translation between those media. (There are of course other possibilities--the structure of those 19th century novels published as weekly chapters usually do not stand alone--they are not true episodes. ) The traditional form they most closely resemble is connected short stories. My favorite example is Wodehouse, with stories using the same repeated characters. Thats why we almost never have articles on individual chapters of novels--there are very few where it would make the least sense, even if a particular chapter is famous for its particular artistry or complexity of development. DGG (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Pedram Hamrah

Hi, I've been editing an article on Pedram Hamrah (possibly an autobio, but I am not sure about that). At first I put a notability tag on it, later I removed it again as I thought notability was sufficiently established. Now I start doubting again: Hamrah is instructor at Harvard and is also listed as postdoctoral fellow with another lab there, and that seems pretty junior for being notable. I would appreciate if you could have a quick look at the article and let me know what you think. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: [5] he is listed as a current postdoctoral fellow in the lab of Reza Dana, who is the senior author on some of Hamrah's most widely cited papers. --Crusio (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

People nowadays stay as postdocs for longer and longer times, and it is possible that they may do sufficient important work there to become notable as an authority in their field--I am aware of some people who might be considered such. He's in such a group of permanent postdocs, often called associated researchers. Normally, someone at his level, 12 years past his boards, would have a regular faculty position, but possibly he'd rather stay at Harvard than have one elsewhere. One has to go then by the publications -- he's about the level where one would expect of an excellent assistant professor in the subject-- 20 peer reviewed papers in Scopus, citation counts 80, 77, 73, 47, 43, all in first-rate journals. Even in medical science, where citation counts are high, this is pretty good. The next step is to see just who is citing him & what they say about his work. This can best be evaluated by someone who knows the actual subject. I'd concentrate on the spammier ones. I think spam is more the danger to our credibility than people of borderline notability. DGG (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right! Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art

I will be in Brooklyn on 2/7/09. Bearian (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

we should make sure to find each other.DGG (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User:TTN

Since you have had repeated experience with this user's AFDs like, I thought I'd contact you. This user's AFD behavior is appaling especially how he refuses to bundle nominations in the same universe for which he uses identical reasonings. He also continually fails to consider the option to merge or redirect without intervention of deletion and makes no evident efforts to look for sources himself (there's a difference between unverified and unverifiable), instead preferring to force the issue by nominating for AFD (which causes a 5-day deadline for improvement) and which is specifically considered to be improper.

The articles in question might well require care, merging or even deletion, but the way he goes about it is unneccesarily terse and bitey.

I think it's time to launch an RFC. Would you consider helping gather evidence and supporting it? - Mgm|^(talk) 15:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Before you start, you might consider seeing how the RfC/U on Gavin.collins goes first, since different facets of the same issue are involved.DGG (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

An offer of help, other inclusionists, and suggestions

Your name came up prominently at Talk:Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia#Prominent inclusionists? I was wondering:

1. How I can help?
2. If there are other inclusionists you can suggest I talk to, or if there are any groups you belong too.
3. Any suggestions about how I can help form policy to be more inclusive.

Thank you, Inclusionist (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

the best way of helping attain a better and more inclusive encyclopedia is by finding sources for worthy articles that do not have them, especially those immediately under attack. I see you are already a member of the WP:Article Rescue Squadron. You can also look for articles in areas of interest to you that might be challenged in Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Article Cleanup or at Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles. This can be done most effectively after learning carefully the rules for proper sourcing given at WP:Reliable sources and the talk page and noticeboard associated with it. We already have a considerable amount of discussion, and it is practical work that is needed more. It is easier to talk about why articles should be kept, than to do the work to keep them. And when you do participate in Afds, never do so without a good argument that the majority of people will accept; weak arguments are counterproductive. Remember that by any rational standard most of the articles there should indeed be deleted. I find a good way to keep perspective is to a do a little WP:New page patrol, and to see and identify all the junk that really must be kept out of the encyclopedia. If you want to help policy become more inclusive, first think carefully about just what you want to have included and why it would enhance rather than diminish the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zabat

A friendly question on your !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zabat. Could you clue me in as to why you think AfD is the wrong venue to discuss this deletion? Just trying to figure out what you're seeing that I'm missing. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion of what to do with the article does not belong on afd. To nominate for deletion is an assertion that neither a merge nor a redirect would be suitable. If one wants to delete, and it would appear that it might be, one should present some argument directed to that, but no such argument is presented or claimed. In fact, the exact opposite is said in the nomination "does not deserve any separate coverage" (my italics) Thus, its the proposal for a merge--and a merge would make sense for the article in my opinion also--I agree with TTN there and would support such a merge in a discussion--as I have frequently told him in similar cases. But merges on this topic are at least potentially controversial. and need discussion, if only to determine how much to merge. The discussion of these would properly take place on the article talk page (or the talk p of the article proposed to merge to, or a workgroup.) Certainly it has often been argued that a merge or a redirect is not suitable, either because the content is already merged, or that it is too trivial for even a redirect--but no such assertion was made. Please take a look at the nominators talk page, to see his frank exposition of his intentions and plans for removing such articles by any device whatsoever, no matter how ill suited--and his current pursuit of the method of removal by redirects without prior discussion or consensus or the attempt to gain such--actions for which he had previously received a topic ban. DGG (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I didn't get that out of it, but in rereading it, I can see that interpretation. (And just reinforces my opinion that we need a central, well visited place to discuss controversial redirects.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, it was for edit warring over such redirects. WP:BRD is still perfectly fine to utilize. I really don't know how everyone gets so confused over it. TTN (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you like BRD. I take it you wont mind if all of them are R'd. Remember my willingness to support you in good merges if you need support, for ones you ask about first. DGG (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If they're reverted, they'll just be put up for deletion, which I feel to be the only way to effectively deal with articles that don't need to be merged. TTN (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how a "no consensus" close somehow translates into a go ahead and "redirect" (see [6], [7], and [8]) without gaining consensus for such action on the article's talk page after the AfD closed. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

DGG, don't take this the wrong way...but are you actually reading the articles and voting on their merits as stand alone subjects or just voting because it's TTN? The above statement you made there, as much as I'd like to assume good faith, seems to imply it's just because "it's him" and he didn't clear it with you first. [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lying Bastard This AfD seems to support that too], in which the source cited was actually a very brief mention of a ship in a genre where such ships are commonplace.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

in general, about 90% of the articles proposed for deletion by TTN are indeed articles with serious problems, about which something should be done. In some cases, its merely a rewrite to encyclopedic standards; in mot cases, its a merge of some amount of the content; sometimes, if the content is already there sufficiently, its a redirect. Occasionally the subject is so utterly minor there shouldn't even be a redirect--and when I see one such, i normally do go and !vote delete. But In general, when I say keep and discuss merge elsewhere, or the like, i do not mean that the article should be kept in its current form. I mean just what I say, that afd is not the place, and that the first step is to not delete the article, and the second is to discuss how to merge it. As I mention above, I am perfectly willing to help support good merge proposals if hey run into opposition. I've usually not been asked, because the proposals that run into opposition are usually not good proposals, but proposals eliminating most or all of the content, which i would rarely support. That in my opinion is probably why TTN has to go to afd for them, because he is trying to enforce under threat of deletion what he would not be able to get consensus for if presented straight-out.

for the batch of articles on these fictional weapons, I think the articles are , as they stand, inappropriate for Wikipedia as separate articles, and I usually remember to say as much every time. They are fairly well done, but as written out in full, they belong on a specialized wiki. But some sort of summary of them on a suitable combination page seems to me suitable for Wikipedia. And that's what I mean by my comments there.

the reason I try to comment on every one is because if people do not bother to comment, it appears like the deletion proposal has consensus. It is wrong to swamp process and hope people get tired of reply. It is much easier to give a list of a dozen common things frequently wrong with articles, without specifics, than give an adequate defense against each. I find doing so an utter nuisance. There are better ways of doing this, but they require compromise. . The proof to me that the nominator(s) will presently not accept compromise is, that when they do get merged to list articles, the lists are then nominated for deletion. If they are merged then to the main article, that part of the content is removed. Obviously there is a basic disagreement about how much detail on fictional content is appropriate in wp. Either one side will drive the other out, or we can compromise. I do not expect to totally like whatever the compromise will be, but I don't expect to. I have yet to see from those wanting to cut back on such content a willingness to negotiate a compromise in good faith. DGG (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you make of all of these nominations for articles in actually different states (some have sources, some do not, yet they all get the same no sources claim) and with different degrees of notability (some are more notable than others and yet they all are commented on as if their notability is equal) all having the exact same wording in the nominations? Do you think the individual merits of these articles are being considered when articles with different degrees of sourcing and notability get the same copy and paste nomination "rationale"? The best is the whole "no current assertion for future improvement of the article"; anything that is not a hoax can be improved. Do we need someone to say (assert) somewhere that he/she will improve an article explicitly or is it generally understood that Wikipedia is a work in progress and thus pretty much all articles are expected to be improved over time? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Corps

To quote your own line above, things should be sourced!! Small stubs that are not sourced merely make WP look bad and should be either fixed or deleted. (User Buckshot06)

Is this apropos of something in particular? Things should be sourced. Until they are, the stubs should be kept so someone can fix them. Small stubs have multiple purposes: they provide at least a minimal amount of information, they indicate the structure of the articles on the subject, they provide a place for newcomers to work. The great virtue of Wikipedia is that is covers a very great range of things, even though it does not cover most of them very well. Only a top-down edited or directed work can have uniformly good coverage. At least here, if stubs bother you, you can fix it yourself by expanding the article. Don't complain that other's haven't done so--they could equally complain that you haven't. DGG (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy keep

Hi DGG. You may be surprised to see me championing anything regarding "keep" !votes, but you might find this discussion about this AfD discussion interesting. My conclusion is that WP:Speedy keep might do well to have at least one non-bad faith / non-nominator-generated reason, such as WP:SNOW. Thoughts? Bongomatic 18:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have elsewhere commented just now [9] that the reason for speedy keep should be a "clearly mistaken nomination": or something of the sort, without implying anything about good faith. Except in extreme circumstances, we can't really judge people's motivations, and they are not necessarily relevant. for example, I readily admit that the motivation of one of my principal opponents in some recent discussions is their good faith and honest and forthright desire to reduce the Wikipedia coverage of fiction, which they in all honesty think excessive. That they are totally wrong and will destroy one of the key positive features of Wikipedia does not affect their good faith.

SNOW is a different matter, and I think we use it altogether too rapidly, because we should give a chance for people to say things that we might not have thought of at first. I think it would be a good idea if almost all afds ran a full 5 days =120 hours.

As for engadget, it closed before I had a chance to comment. I think the nomination was about was wrong as a nomination can be, and showed some inability to understand either the article, or a temporary lapse in understanding our guidelines. I think the nominator sometimes does interpret our guidelins in a way that i would not, but that at most is a persistent error, or non-standard viewpoint. Bad faith in a deletion nomination would be if someone wanted to delete the article of a competitor, or about an organisation that espoused a different ideology, or an article written by an opponent here or in the RW, or to make a POINT irrelevant to the merits of the article, or to do deliberate harm to the encyclopedia, or out of purely reckless vandalism. None of these were present here that i know of. DGG (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to reach a consensus (or at least spark further discussion) at Wikipedia talk:Guide to deletion#Summary up to now. Feel like weighing in? Bongomatic 02:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Transformers

We seriously need a policy that explains exactly when, where and how much primary sourcing is acceptable or for that matter how much plot detail is too much (that would deal with this whole drama immediately). That said: the main issue with the articles is that they were based entirely on primary sources. If you can improve on those, by all means do. I think undoing the merge would be very unproductive. Try referencing material and merging it along until the time it becomes to large and needs its own entry so you can split off because of space concerns. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have sometimes been tempted to actually edit these articles, but have usually had the sense to refrain--it would be an interesting experiment in using general skills to work on a subject concerning which I am totally ignorant--except for what I've learned by watching these articles. An editor in its real world meaning, after all, is supposed to be able to do just that. (The most I've done is condense some plot summaries here and there, while hoping that I'm not accidentally leaving out the key part that the naive original editor failed to emphasize.) This leads to a reasonable question, which is why then do I care about these articles at all? Two reasons: An encyclopedia is supposed to be encyclopedic and cover more than any one persons interests--keeping in mind the range of people who use Wikipedia. But the reason I even get to this topic at all, is because I discovered attempts to try to delete the relatively detailed articles on the classic fiction and sci-fi I really do care about (some of what I call classics, to be sure, is what some other people think as junk.)

almost as you say, though, we need a guideline (I doubt we will ever have the greater consensus needed for policy). In the meantime, let's not pretend we already have one, and its the one we individually want. I doubt we ever will have even a guideline, unless we compromise. I appreciate being given advice about what will satisfy some opponents, but I think some will not accept articles on fictional details regardless of sourcing. They just don't think it's worthy of an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Appreciation

Just a note of gratitude for the fine work you do, as exemplified in your post at WP:EL#Shmoop, and many many elsewheres. You deserve a herd of barnstars, and much emulation. Thanks, repeatedly. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

A true CSD survey

Well, I've gone through a number of CSD nominations from the past month and found about 40 that I thought might pose interesting questions on how people perform CSD's. Basically, I'm asking people to review the article in question and answering the question, "how would you handle this" with one of four options:

1. Agree with criteria for deletion. 2. Disagree with criteria for deletion, but would delete the article under another criteria. 3. Disagree with the criteria for deletion, but this is a situation where IAR applies. 4. Disagree with speedily deleting the article.

To see the surveys, go to this page. I'm hoping to get a good mix of people to participate in the surveys---people who agree with my interpretation of CSD and people who have different views. I'll post the results in a couple of weeks after getting a decent return.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

you forgot to say where. DGG (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, looks like I forgot to include the link, I've added it now in case somebody sees if from here.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Your my hero

I am so impressed with your work on wikipedia. Your thoughtful contributions have been showing up everywhere. The way you carry yourself in conversations is inspiring. It is no wonder that Colonel Warden recently called you a "model of intelligent and discriminating inclusionism...quite influential in forming policy". Thank you. travb (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

New articles Septimus Heap (character) and Jenna Heap

Hi DGG, We have created these articles with real world notability, reviews and development. I would like you to please give your comments on the articles and rate these articles. "Legolas" (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ludwig Carl Christian Koch

You might want to take another look at the afd, and redo your WorldCat search. Don't count on full names being used there. DGG (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I did, and also checked other sources. As you probably noticed, I changed my vote to a keep. Thanks.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Yurken (talk • contribs)

Egyptian Yoga

If you know someone who might be familiar with this subject or wouldn't mind having a look I would appreciate it. I nominated the article for deletion, but the creator has been working hard on improving it. I'm still concerned the sources seem to be what's being promoted and the notability of the subject itself hasn't been established with good sources. It almost seems more like an article about the author of the sources than Egyptian Yoga. I'd be happy to have a neutral perspective. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

when I have so little interest I cannot force myself to actually read the article, I think it wiser not to comment. DGG (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

DGG was inducted into The Hall of The Greats

On December 30, 2008, User:DGG was inducted into

The Hall of The Greats
This portrait of Randy Couture was dedicated in his honor.
David Shankbone.

much appreciated. I understand the significance. DGG (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are our prize fighter against deletionists, a blood sport that rivals mixed martial arts. Not to mention all the work you do on sources, improvements, references, the list goes on and on and on.... Thank you, DGG The Great. --David Shankbone 20:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Dictionary of English Idioms

Alexander Dictionary of English Idioms has been tagged for speedy deletion as promotional. It may have been deleted by the time you read this message. I can't find references for it, but perhaps I'm looking in the wrong places. --Eastmain (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think its a minor publication of their language school, unknown otherwise, and accordingly I've speedy deleted it as promotional for the school. DGG (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Christian Forums

First, thanks for sticking up for the CF page back on the deletion review. It doesn't look like it's going to survive this round, BUT I think we can make it work if some reliable, third-party sources are found. I've put together a template of potential sources for this on my user page, if you're interested. What I need are some candidates, and then the article should be a go for re-launch. toll_booth (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not have the opportunity to work on this, but when you think you have enough sources, rewrite the article on a subpage and I will have a look at it. DGG (talk) 05:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Classical guitar pedagogy

When you deleted Classical guitar pedagogy, you missed deleting Talk:Classical guitar pedagogy. I'm also not convinced it fits the criteria for a speedy G7 delete, since while TheRationalGuitarist has been the principal editor for the past year, the article did exist prior to that and had edits from others, as I recall. As I mention on the talk page, I didn't touch the prodding of the article when I restored the content from TheRationalGuitarist's replacing it with a link to his blog since I didn't have an opinion on deleting the article as such, I just didn't feel it was appropriate for an editor to essentially blank an article because he wanted to take back his words. - Fordan (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I apparently missed the early history of the article and I have restored the whole. I'm removing the prod; it seems there is a decent version to revert to, and I will revert to it. Some of the later material may be usable, and I leave that to the editors interested. But my leaving the talk page was deliberate--i often do leave it for a while to serve as an explanation. I will explain there what I'm doing. DGG (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see what you think of this idea

At your convenience, please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Committees#Content authority: a different approach. It may address some of the objections you voiced earlier on that page. -- Noroton (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing question

Hello David, hope your holidays were pleasant. Question: is it acceptable to use the background-of-the-invention section of patents listed in Free Patents Online ([10]) as a source? These are often exceptionally concise and well-written summaries of current technological issues, which is useful. (Example: [11]) Presumably the background section of granted patents is vetted by US patent attorneys. Thought you would know what the official WP stance is. Best wishes, Novickas (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no official stance on this, and I would suggest asking at the RS noticeboard, and making sure the chemistry Wikiproject knows about the discussion. My preliminary thoughts are as follows:

1. . We are talking about US patents only. But the degree of review of US patents varies at different time periods. The degree of review in other countries varies.
2. . There is invariably a very long publication delay.
3. . In chemistry and biochemistry, which is what I know best, patents are accepted as references, are fully covered by Chemical Abstracts, are used as publication in curriculum vitae, and are often the sole source of information on compounds. But, as Crane's classic Guide to the Chemical literature says " Statements in the technical journal literature can more safely be presumed to be based on experiment or experience." , and, "patents are continually issued on subject matter the real nature of which is not understood" and "scientific theory or understanding may have little or nothing to do with a case" As I understand it, what is vetted is the claims.
4. . What can be claimed in the body of the patent is subject to technical rules, and it is in the interests of the patentee to claim as much as possible. General statements about classes of compounds, as distinct from actual descriptions of specific ones, are purely hypothetical.
5. . But you are talking about the introduction only. It is in the interest of the patentee to try to pretend that as much as possible of his work is novel. The examiner usually is supposed to try to to limit this,with respect to material directly bearing on the novelty of the claim, but to a much lesser extent on the general knowledge of the subject. The final text is a process of negotiation. Much patent litigation subsequently hinges on whether all the literature was in fact disclosed. In the introduction to a scientific paper, however, though one wants to show the originality of one's work, one also wants to demonstrate how thoroughly one understands the literature,and how much of the previous less well understood material one's own work explains--so one generally tries to say as much as possible, and a reviewer will both try to find what one has neglected to find as evidence of ones possible lack of competence, and try to cut back the overgeneralities.

In short, I think one could use the information there, but I would never quote such a source as proof that there is no work beyond what it says there. (if you ask this elsewhere, feel free to copy this as a start) DGG (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Will think this over, thanks. It can be discouraging, you know, the search for one or two online references that state the obvious, in lieu of bits from seven or nine refs to make up one concise statement. The single refs are awfully handy when you're short on time but want to create a reasonable stub. What I had in mind is only the "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION - 1. Field of Invention" section. In this instance [12], the statement "Crude shale oil differs from crude petroleum because, in addition to saturated and unsaturated hydrocarbons, it contains hydrocarbons, both saturated and unsaturated, in chemical and/or physical combination with a substantial amount of nitrogen, sulfur, and oxygen when compared to the elemental levels of petroleum crude. It is because of this property that crude shale oil requires additional treating when shale oil is refined by conventional petroleum refining techniques and procedures." Very limited, and would seem to be stating the obvious; a basic justification of the need for a patent. (The field-of-invention section seems to always follow claims - that ordering kind of undermines its credibility). "Description of the prior art", on the other hand, is clearly open to contention. A search of "freepatentsonline.com site:wikipedia.org" shows that the site is mostly being used here to support claims rather than to supply background info; that's why I was worried that it would be challenged as unreliable. Don't know if, or how often, these are challenged; I would think that, barring major breakthroughs, that section would be OK. Thanks again. Novickas (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you, but it'll be one more thing to keep defending, & then people will try to use entire patents for even the wildest fringe that was ever patented. But for material like this , the really good source is Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. Pity it isn't free, for it's in my opinion the best encyclopedia every made in any subject at all. BTW, the reason for the sequence of parts in a patent is that patent abstracts usually include only the claims, as the key section. DGG (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've decided against trying it; as you say, it could be a slippery slope. Still seems a shame in some ways - the writing is so good nowadays - compares well to the newer SEC filings. I have access to Kirk-Othmer at work. Their intended audience, tho, is some levels above ours. Compare, for instance, the above patent application to KO's oil shale abstract: "Production costs for crude shale oil are generally much higher than those for conventional crude oil, in part because of the high concentrations of heteroatoms in the crude shale oil." [13] Heteroatoms would need to be glossed in a (Good or FA) WP article, while the patent application explicitly states the problematic atoms. Its US-centrism is also a little off-putting: "Several commercial oil shale operations exist, but these are all outside of the United States" - what's with the "but"? and "Shale oil asphalt is the most promising of these products" - ignores world crude oil prices and energy independence issues. Those items aside, I'll probably resort to KO at some point. Can't argue with its gravitas and prose. Novickas (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed extremists are the problem

Per mailing list...

I think you are right the 1% loud mouthed people are disrupting the system so much, it prevents us as a community to reach in any sort of agreement. Such an agreement would significantly hamper the activity of the 1%.

To address this I think a few things need to be done. This is more of a chain reaction.

• I demand to see proof of consensus behind the mass removals. The community should also demand to see the evidence of such a consensus. I am wary of polls and votes on this issue as in the past the 1% has "outvoted" the community as no one is interested in the drama over unimportant articles. People reserve their "drama credits" over possible future disputes they care about.
• After the above step community would need to ban or restrict people who do not act responsively and disrupt the site with their "bold" mass actions. Mass reverts, mass deletions, mass nominations and mass actions of any sort are problematic unless there is consensus behind it.
• After the two steps above, the general issue should be addressed and community should decide how to handle unimportant articles such as the ones on TV episodes, character and video games.
• Lastly the consensus by the community would need to be enforced.

However to achieve all that we need to prod the community to act on the first item somehow. I doubt arbcom will be useful at all so this should either be a community prod or a Jimbo prod. Jimbo himself told me that he wasn't too happy with whats happening but he explicitly tried to avoid saying anything definitive. I guess maybe a community request for a Jimbo prod may start the actual discussion.

For example Jimbo could "demand to see" a consensus to mass remove articles (like how TTN and others are doing) and that would start the chain reaction. After all if they indeed have consensus behind their actions it shouldn't be too hard to prove it. If enough people ask Jimbo, I am sure he would be more compelled to prod the community.

-- Cat ^chi? 01:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Computers & Math Journal

Thank you DGG for salvaging that entry. First & foremost, I'm totally un-connected to the journal or business. I had found useful articles there, and am impressed by their international cast of editors. I'll work on improving that per your guidance. EJohn59 (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)EJohn59

Something else to consider

What do you think about IC 5357 and the half dozen or so stubs like it? Are all galaxies notable - there's likely to be "billions and billions" of them per Carl Sagan - even if we can never write more thant what's in that article - which is basically where to look for the place from the Earth? Are all stars- "billions and billions" of them in each galaxy, most likewise without much more than their location to be said for them? Are all asteroids or other balls of ice and rock out there (or down here)? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What do I think? i think we should add the same information for each of the few million others that have been catalogued. Though for convenience, we ought to group them together in articles. The notability=article equation is part of the problem. There are 2 qys: should Wikipedia cover something, and, separately, how should it be arranged. I have, for example, no objection in the least to group episodes together, as long as a reasonable amount of information is included for each, including the actors, timing, and main plot lines from beginning to end. I think we could have coverage on every street in a city; most of them would be in groups. It would be easier to do than to argue about which ones to include.

The real reason to restrict notability is to main the encyclopedia free from promotion and advertising. As this doesn't affect galaxies, we don't have the problem there. the real point is to stop arguing about arrangement and subdivision, and start writing content.

Personally, i think it would be a good idea to build a stub on every possible notable subject, and encourage people to fill them in. Where would I start? every noun and verb in wiktionary, that there is more than one reference for. DGG (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This made me chuckle - we worry about both ends of the scale don't we? "are hamlets notable?" at the one and then "are galaxies notable" at the other. :-) --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

A quick question

If an AfD closes as redirect, does the article get deleted and then redirected or is it just redirected with the history inact? Gracias. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

the article is redirected, in most cases. There are times when the previous history of the article is such that we delete and make a new redirect, and that should when needed be specified in the closing. . Note that if the article is merged, then the GFDL requires that the history not be deleted, and after whatever content needs to be merged is merged, then the remainder is edited to be a redirect, but cannot be deleted. At least thats how I interpret the procedure. DGG (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Please excuse my jumping in here. DGG's interpretation matches what I've found in documentation. Per WP:Guide to deletion#Shorthands (scroll down to Redirect), history deletion must be explicitly recommended, such as in cases of copyvio or BLP. Flatscan (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Computers & Math Journal (your sec#118)

Dear DGG,

I now agree that the page should be deleted. After I looked at the Elsevier page, I see all kinds of controversies, incl. whole editorial Bd resigning in protest, and also boycotts by renowned libs at places like Harvard, Stanford & Duke. Until Elsevier cleans up its act, all their journals are tainted. So please go ahead and delete. Thanks. EJohn59 (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)EJohn59

I am sorry, but I do not accept that. If their journals have problems, then we discuss the problems in the articles. If this particular journal as problems, cited references to them should get added to the article. Any journal in the top half of JCR in the subject is certainly notable; by my standards, any JCR title is, and according to some, all peer reviewed journals with any real publication history, though I personally do not go that far. WP is the encyclopedia of the good and the bad alike. Elsevier publishes some junk, has has done quite a number of stupid things, and so have most publishers. It also publishes some of the very best journals in the world, such as Journal of financial economics, and Cell. DGG (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

request for input

here when you have some time (concerns a proposal to Verifiability policy) Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

verifiability and context

I appreciate your recent comment - would you mind proposing wording you would find acceptable? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Grayson

Pleased to have the advice. I want to work through the WP:WWF backlog as quickly as possible which means making quick judgements, hoping that I will improve as I go along. I have in the past often suggested a merge instead of deletion, and have voted to keep articles when I could see that sources might appear, so will have another look in this case. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I did check the notability guidelines for film (nothing relevant said about characters) and for fiction. For fiction one of the criteria is: "Real-world coverage: Significant, real-world information must exist on the subject, beyond what is revealed in the plot of the fictional work." That doesn't seem to be present at the moment, but of course it may turn up now the article is flagged for rescue. Also, I assumed that AfD could result in a redirect, but now I think that perhaps I must always tag for merge instead unless I think a redirect is not needed. I've been reading and re-reading the deletion policy and everything associated, but more guidance would be appreciated. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, the guidelines for fictional characters are bitterly disputed at present: I'll give here a summary of what i think is the status, not the way I'd really want it, but the effective status, trying to be fair about the different views. I do not consider separate real world coverage necessary for major characters, and neither do many people at afd. As a result, some articles have been kept without it, and some deleted because they do not have it. Guidelines often lag behind AfD results; an afd must end somehow, but a significant minority who disagree prevents the revision or establishment of a guideline. In practice it depends to a good deal on the recognition of how important the character is.

There are no agreed guidelines whatsoever for the degree of notability for characters in a combination article on "characters of X... ", and the argument that they do not need to be individually notable is usually accepted. Minor characters normally go in a list. A list of characters can be combined with the main article, & size is accepted as a significant consideration in this decision.

Obviously any character with a list or combination entry needs a redirect from their name. Very minor characters (in a film or video, usually characters without dialog who have no particular role in the action; in a game, non-playable characters with purely decorative background roles & no significance to the actual play) do not even need to be listed or given a redirect.

As a side issue, there is no requirement that the source for information about anything direct and factual in fiction be as secondary source, not the fiction itself, though this is needed for matters of opinion and is disputed with respect to notability.

as another side issue, sourcing in this field is difficult because lack of indexing and access; there is no rule that n article must be sourced in any particular time, and requiring it to be done in the 5 days of an afd does not take account of the nature of the material.

Now, in practice, people asking for deletion of character articles for major characters want one or both of two things: Either they are asking for deletion because they hope to agree on merge as a compromise, while knowing or thinking that they might not get a merge decision at the proper place -- the main article talk page. Alternatively or additionally, they want the least possible coverage of fiction, and only reluctantly accept the idea that they might have to merge, and would rather have no separate mention of characters at all.

Myself, I care about content primarily, and only secondarily about how things are connected into articles. I, in common with most of the editors in the field, and almost all our users, want rather full coverage of fiction, though not actually exhaustive to the degree of a fan wiki, where anything that can be written about is considered appropriate. Therefore I want separate articles for major characters because I have learned that otherwise the content gets reduced. Those who want minimal coverage of fiction tend to go about it as follows: first step is reduction is a combination article; second is to a list; third is to a redirect to a paragraph giving the characters in general; fourth is to say that the characters that matter are adequately discussed in the paragraph on the plot (by that time, the plot too has been whittled down to a paragraph); fifth, to eliminate the redirect because the main article now no longer includes the name, and finally to remove the plot paragraph also as nonencyclopedic. Simultaneously, coverage of the production & distribution and reception will be being deleted as trivia.

What we need, though, is not just content on characters, but good content on characters (and other elements). The present content is either excessively over-exuberant, or reduced to a meaningless teaser. In many cases of either form, they are probably copyviols. this is what we need to work on: quality, not dividing up vs. combining bad material, but improving it. DGG (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking the time to explain. I'm not sure that I fully understand though. I would have thought that the priority would be to cover the works of art themselves rather than all the characters in them. Obviously I can see the point in some cases, e.g Juliet Capulet has a significant academic literature even separate from that on [[Romeo and Juliet]. Even Lewis from Inspector Morse is worth an article because there was a spin-off series on that character. But if the line is not drawn at the point where there are independent sources, then where is it to be drawn? Excuse me for being naive about this, but I haven't worked much on fiction articles. I know there are very active communities working in these fields, but if I am going to make real inroads into the wikification backlog I have to be familiar with the notability threshold in every area. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

you are correct about priorities. But Wikipedia is not an organized project: it is open to everyone to write about whatever they wish to write about. People tend to write in detail about the details of their favorite things. There's no way of directing it. I personally came here mainly to increase the coverage of some of the less-intensely covered academic topics here, and the only way to accomplish this is to try to recruit others who have similar interests. I became interested in Wikipedia coverage of fiction upon seeing the afd for major characters in Tolstoy and other classic writers--many of which were lost. I soon realized that the way of defending articles on what interested me, was to defend similar articles on everyone's individual hobbies, and to say that no topic however obscure was unworthy of detailed coverage if people were willing to write the articles and material was available--material from any source that there is reason to think accurate, including the blogs that reliable people use for communication in that interest group, and even one's examination of the fundamental works themselves.

There is no inherent advantages in either lumping or dividing articles; the point is content. But experience has shown that often the only way to preserve content on many subjects is to have a separate article, because even easier than deleting an article, is the removal of content. This is especially prevalent in fiction, where there are a number of people who want minimal coverage of fiction in Wikipedia as a matter of maintaining what they think is the fundamental serious purpose of the encyclopedia. They will therefore use the excuse of organization to remove content: the sequence I gave in my last reply is not hyperbola or rhetoric, but plain description of what routinely happens, sometimes on a massive scale. Any of the many Wikipedia procedural devices will be used for this purposes in a variety of ingenious manners. The best defense against this is to maintain the integrity of articles. We can have whatever rules we choose to have, in order to accomplish the fundamental purpose of an encyclopedia--we are not constrained to write an encyclopedia to fit some particular set of rules. To get the appropriate content, we adopt whatever rules we need.

Now, there can be disagreement over whether n encyclopedia like Wikipedia should included detailed coverage of fiction. my view is I that the various forms of fiction are one of the central arts of our civilization, and high in the interests and expectations of the public who make up our audience. Perhaps those who think otherwise want to limit to the subjects of academic study, but even so they have lost contact with it. in 1300 it probably would not have been considered respectable for a general encyclopedia to include English literature at all; in 1600, not English popular drama; in 1800, not novels. In 1900, not musical theater; 1920, not film; 1950, not comics; 1960,not television, 1980, not computer games. We could have a fiction-free fork of the encyclopedia , but who would prefer to use it? DGG (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for spelling it out so clearly. Count me in the pro-fiction camp, and pro popular culture too. I suppose I still do think some rigour is useful, having spent time removing the in-universe tone from Ashley Thomas (the least interesting soap opera character ever) only to realise there are notability guidelines for soap opera characters. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Black Psychology

Discussion about a journal, contributors have mentioned library use, made me think your knowledge/opinion could be valuable. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the actual AFD, I find it frankly bonkers that people are citing Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Newspapers.2C_magazines_and_journals this. Leaving aside the fact that it's an essay, it seems to based on journal as in "periodical you'd find in the supermarket" not "Peer Reviewed journal". --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

actually, factors 3 and 4 are probably the main considerations for academic journals. And in some cases 2, and perhaps 5, suitably interpreted to mean the citations involved in factor 4 are to be interpreted according to their niche.. What do you think is wrong with this?DGG (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That's it's an essay on mass media not scholarly discourse - some of the criteria might fit by accident but that seems to be luck not intent. Do we not have an explicit notability criteria for PR material? --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I would then advocate saying that those are the basic conditions for all journals, with an explanation that they can be shown by impact factor, wide holdings in appropriate libraries, and presence in major indexes-- and making it a guideline--at least for that part -- I have not looked at the rest. DGG (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Bielski

Forgive me, I lost track of how you got involved in this issue. Do you mean Aron Bielski? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

of course I do. I saw the AfD. And long ago, it was you yourself who invited me to the discussion of Polish related topics here. But why on earth should you have even asked "how I got involved"? I consider that a highly improper question, though I answer it anyway. DGG (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

useful general remark

::if anyone wishes to fight with me, this page is the place; if anyone wishes to fight with someone else, please do it elsewhere. DGG (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Errol Sawyer article

How big is the chance that Errol Sawyer's article will be deleted again in the Wikipedia?

Errol Sawyer has in total 112 pictures in important museum and gallery collections:
La Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris, France: 37 pictures.
Schomburg Library of Black Culture (not digitized yet), NY, USA: 47 pictures.
MFAH, Texas, USA: 2 pictures.
Erik Franck Gallery, London, UK: 21 pictures.
Fadi Zahar, La Chambre Claire Gallery, Paris, France: 5 pictures.

A lot of his pictures are published (fashion/beauty and documentary/fine art) worlwide.

There is an important article written about him in the Dutch PF (Professionele Fotografie) magazine.Their server is slowly.

5 books with his pictures are in the process of being published:
1. Paris 1971-2003 contains 64 black and white pictures.
2. New York 1971-2007 contains 96 b & w pictures and 12 color pictures.
3. Amsterdam 1988-2008 contains 60 b & w pictures.
4. Peru and Ecuador 1968 contains 30 b &W pictures and 6 color pictures.
5. London, Children 1973 contains 40 b & W pictures.

--1027E (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

See User talk:DGG/ES

A centralised discussion which may interest you

Hi. You may be interested in a centralised discussion on the subject of "lists of unusual things" to be found here. SP-KP (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

your support on the RfA

Can you explain your reasoning in light of the hundreds of episodes which will now be deleted? Ikip (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here. You do understand that FICT represents an expansion of what is considered notable, not a contraction, right? That right now the number of fictional elements that are faced with deletion (under just the GNG) is larger than the number which will be threatened with deletion under the new fict? That we are relaxing inclusion standards for fiction specifically? You understand these things, right? Protonk (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

you said it not me. I guess both you and Randoman are watching my edits, Protonk, I know your opinion, as you have attempted to control opinion on the WP:FICT. I am interested in DGG's.

I find it difficult to have a polite converstation with someone who supports personal attacks against me. Please allow DGG and I have a conversation ourselves. Thank you.Ikip (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

A number of people look at this page from time to time, and "talk page stalker" as used above is an ironic description of something that many of us quite properly do. I watchlist a number of user talk pages myself where material of particular interest to be might appear. I do not currently look regularly at anyone's edits, but sometimes I have when I think there is some good reason--that's legitimate too. This is a page available for anyone's comment, if they keep it polite and to the point, and don't use this page to fight with other editors than myself. Private conversations are better carried out by email. As for my opinion.

Yes, I understand it was intended to be somewhat more inclusive than current standards. The question is whether it offers enough of an expansion, or whether we should keep trying for a better compromise. I cannot say I really like the compromise: I disagree with the emphasis on sourcing as a standard for notability of fiction articles, and, I dislike even more the retention of a criterion for real world notability, which I think totally irrelevant. I've argued both of these points extensively; see above for my recent talk, and in my talk archives on [User talk:DGG/Archive 0.3| IPC & Fiction]] for earlier. I do not propose to reargue it here. I've said it as well as I can say it, and convinced whomever I am likely to convince. The decisive reasons for supporting this I see as the following:

1. The way it works out will be seen at AfD, which is the true test of notability guidelines.

2. I think it perfectly reasonable to merge content on semi-notable fictional characters or background topics; the question is retaining proper content. The page deliberately does not discuss the content of merged articles, and I will certainly only support guidelines or practices that permit reasonably full and detailed descriptions , without the excesses of a fan wiki.

3. I think episode articles re almost always better merged. it helps comprehension, for one thing, in those cases where there is some sequence in the plot. Even for shows without such sequence, it gives a good idea of the nature of the show. (Such articles have in many cases confirmed my guess that the show was not worth the watching. Others might find just the opposite.) the real problem is proper description of episodes. Most of the merged episode articles are far too short, and end in teasers. This is non-encyclopedic, and they need to be rewritten to show the complete plot to the end. Some of the longer episode articles are so overdetailed as to make it impossible for those not very familiar with them already toa ctually follow the main story line. Whether separate or apart, the main thing is to improve the content.

4 The test of a good compromise is that neither side likes it much. Kww's reluctant support was what actually was the final decisive factor.

5 And in any case, we really must settle this issue and work on improving the very poor quality of most articles in these fields. It matters very much to the reputation of Wikipedia that whatever we write about, we write about in a mature way. DGG (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your long explanation DGG, you know I really respect and look up to you.

Everyone keeps talking about how their has to be a guideline, you state "we really must settle this issue". Isn't existing guidelines enough?

As soon as this article becomes policy a lot of editors, who didn't know about this RfC, are going to be angry, because self-promoted janitors, are going to take it upon themselves to merge in mass, as has happened before.

You seem tired of talking about this. I was just suprised you supported the proporal, thats all. Ikip (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That existing guidelines are not suitable is shown by the activity at AfD. We therefore either need one that is at least generally tolerable, if we are not to fight every one on first principles and, as has been shown, decide pretty much at random. A hallmark of a good encyclopedia is consistency.

I generally will not oppose merges in fiction of everything but the most important topics, if they do not result in loss of content. If the merges do result in loss of significant content, we will need to develop some system of publicly watching them as prominent as AfD, and carry on from there. Merges after all have virtues: they can be undone rather easily, and the content is at least in the edit history. Thus even your worst case is an improvement over the present. What those who care about episode articles could most usefully do at this point is to improve them. That is what will save content the best. it is very hard to defend bad content. DGG (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Editors are going to use those three prongs as sticks in AfDs, I know they will because they already use notability as a stick. You either do this, this, and this, or the article gets deleted.

I am not only concerned about the articles, I am concerned about the editors too. I won't give you all the statistics and media buzz, because you have probably read it from me alrdady. I want wikipedia to continue to grow, I want new editors to be attracted to wikipedia. Accepting the merge of hundreds of articles not only pisses off current editors, we lose future editors too.

From a marketing stand point this merge behavior is dumb. On most of these articles that we will merge, we are in the top 10 on google. Editors find these articles, and may decide to stay and contribute more.

Everyone agrees that these articles don't ruin the quality of any other article on wikipedia, so why merge them? I just don't see any benefit at all, and that is why I encourage you to change your vote. Ikip (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So go to the articles on the most important characters and remove the excess and look for sources, and then they are less likely to be merged. I came here to edit, not argue, & I want to go back to it. Just as deletion is the last resort in dealing with problem articles, so is argument the last resort in tryingto save them. The benefit is in having a compromise and avoiding conflict. That matters to me. It ought to matter to you. I really hope it will matter to the great majority. DGG (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks, Ikip (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2016 (2nd nomination) ==

I encourage you to respond to comments about your keep vote. Timmeh! 00:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

what i find impossible to understand is the multiple opposition to the article. it would seem among the most obvious of topics. I explained there a little further. And after all, with one or two more published comments, it could be inserted again even if deleted now. DGG (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

we lost this one: probably worth a DRV or a modification to NOT CRYSTAL DGG (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Possibly distinguished in its field"

Re: this prod removal. "Possibly distinguished in its field" could be said of any random academic. Demanding that we "First look for references & wht he may have published" for each of the thousands of unsourced vestigial stubs on wikipedia before deletion, is (i) against WP:BURDEN & (ii) creates an enormous and unreasonable assymetry between the time needed to add a barren (i.e. unsourced and uninformative) stub and the time taken to delete the same -- leading to their continued proliferation to the detriment of wikipedia. I'm AfDing it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you about the way to do deletion, about the burden & the asymmetry. I think nominating for deletion without checking for sources oneself is reckless and unhelpful, and against the intent of basic WP deletion policy, that deletion is the last resort. It ought to be made impossible when the question is notability. I further think the asymmetry is the opposite direction, between the extreme ease of nominating for deletion and the much more difficult one of creating or saving. Therefore a concern for symmetry requires one to be exceptionally careful in deleting to correct for this. I also think you misinterpret WP:Burden. The burden is to prove an article should be deleted. The policy you refer to deals with V, with providing sources for a challenged statement, where indeed the burden is on the one who asserts the statement. Not here. Yes, certainly, the demonstration of notability it ought to be done properly by the person who wrote the article, but if not , then it is the responsibility of all editors to try to improve it. If it appears impossible, or if one fails in a reasonable effort, then one nominates for deletion. Whether he will prove notable or not, the afd will decide. I agree with you to the extent that he possibly may not be distinguished in his field. What we need is some evidence. DGG (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

turns out he is distinguished: a very major book by Cambridge Univ Press, among other things. I admit to being a little surprised how easy it was to show this. I too failed my own expections a little, for I should have done this when removing the prod & added it then. DGG (talk) 05:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It is reasonable to expect those proposing/nominating deletion to investigate articulations of notability contained in the article. It is not reasonable to expect an open-ended search for anything that might bring notability. In cases such as this, nothing of any substance has been 'created', so it is not a matter of "saving" so much as re-creation from scratch, whether the article is deleted first or not. WP:BURDEN goes on to state "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Taking that in conjunction with the first sentence in that section, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the burden for finding "reliable, third-party sources" to prevent deletion "lies with the editor who adds" an article. Certainly the burden lies with them to give some articulation of why the topic is worthy of further investigation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The phrase is "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found" , not" If the author finds no.. " I agree that the burden is primarily on the author. I think further,that any who thinks it unnotable because there are no sources should confirm whether there are no sources to give. I shall continue to gather consensus to make that an actual formal requirement, both to help articles and to avoid wasting the time of the community at AfD. DGG (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible to "confirm whether there are no sources to give", as one can never prove that there isn't, in some obscure bookcase, in some obscure library, a book containing material on a topic. This is why the only efficient policy is to have the burden of proof on those creating an article to demonstrate an article's notability. They are the ones who are supposed to know (i) what an article is about, (ii) why it is supposed to be notable & (iii) where the sources are. Expecting this from editors who simply come across a badly underformed article is unreasonable, and will lead to a plague of these articles -- as they are far easier to create than to delete (the article that started this argument would have taken at most 5 minutes to write). If you want "to avoid wasting the time of the community at AfD" then don't un-prod articles with only trivial content. Such trivial content is inconsequential to the task of creating any sort of useful encyclopaedic content on the topic, so deleting it doesn't harm any legitimate purpose. I will close by noting that, in spite of all the huffing and puffing of 'keep'ers on the AfD, Harold Hoehner‎ is still simply an unencyclopaedic resume+bibliography, lacking any third-party sources, that in a more rational system should have difficulty passing a prod. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

we seem to have some disagreements. I hope we will have several tens of thousands of more articles on academic people of similar and greater distinction, and I expect that the consensus will agree with me. Actually, this is what I came here to do originally, after seeing articles for members of the NAS actually put up for speedy without anyone checking the person's cv to see whether someone in a distinguished position might be a member. You are welcome to argue that people who publish multiple major professional academic books that are found in hundreds of libraries are not notable. As all of the ones from major publishers get reviewed, there will be sources, so I doubt you will get much agreement. I certainly do not defend all academics --I have probably voted to delete more of the nonnotable academics than most people: I was in the middle of nominating one for prod when I saw your message.

I routinely unprod every article in any subject I understand that I think might be fixable or where the deletion might be controversial--my experience is that's only about small percent of the ones I look at, so I don't expect a flood of Afds. I agree that there are too many afds, and the answer is that many of the current unchallenged afds might have better been prods--I too try to use it when possible. As for the article, you are right the article needs some additional sources, such as reviews of his many books.

I expect to disagree with other people sometimes, and I encourage them to ask my reasons, but I am surprised to get such intense challenges as this, because usually people just argue against me at the AfD or whatever. Perhaps you recognize you fell into the same trap I almost did, of assuming that someone with his background

My goal in this--which is a goal much too large to succeed unless others help me-- is to see improved every new article that's fixable, and delete the hopeless (which is about half the total submissions). Probably at the moment we make a considerable percent error in both directions. I think your goal is to keep every new article that is already good enough, and delete all the others. That approach will lose about 25% of the potential articles, and about 25% of the potential new good contributors. Our ultimate goal is the same--to keep out the spam and the nonsense and the unimportant. You are willing to tolerate losing good articles and contributors to make sure of doing that. I am wiling to tolerate some borderline articles to make sure of keeping all the good ones.

In my view, what really harms the encyclopedia are not borderline articles, but spam and bad writing and error. Getting rid of those is what's important. But what harms us even more at a more fundamental level, is the loss of potentially good contributors, for if we continue to lose more than we gain, we will stagnate into obsolescence. DGG (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Your account of the speedy-nominated NAS member leads me to a polar opposite conclusion from yours. From my perspective, any article that gives the impression that a NAS member is so lacking in notability as to be a speedy-candidate is sufficiently misleading and sufficiently vacuous that wikipedia would be better off having no article at all until somebody can be bothered spending time to write a decent stub on them. This is also why I consider an articulation of notability to be so important -- and why I'll tend to be quite dismissive of articles that lack such an articulation -- they give no fertile basis for expansion -- they are bland inconsequences providing no germ of information (e.g. specialisation in a specific doctrine, book of the Bible, or such in Hoehner‎'s case), that some editor might likewise be interested in, and so be interested in expanding.

How many contributors, who start off writing short, unsourced stubs (and similar), go on to be valuable contributors? How many of them either wander off to do something else, or simply continue to create malformed articles until dissuaded? My experience of such editors is that they're generally disinterested in either editing beyond a very limited range of topics, disinterested in wikipedia policy, and disniterested in cleaning up their messes. Productive editors, in my experience, tend to be disinterested in boldly going forth into creating new articles until they have learned the system sufficiently well tinkering with minor improvements to existing articles. There may be some confirmation bias in this perception, but I don't think its completely wide of the mark. People tend to be creatures of habit -- and the habits they bring with them to wikipedia, and the habits we let them develop, are likely to be the habits that will stay with them for the period of their contributorship. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

are you actually saying that the man is not notable because the topic he worked on was not important? I wonder if that might be some cultural bias. It also show the misunderstanding of the academic world--the topics most people work on are fairly narrow--But for someone to actually specialize and write a monograph on a broad topic with such enormous literature as an whole book of the bible seems to me a very broad topic, and that CUP published it and half a thousand libraries bought it exceptionally impressive. Famous people --people at the level of Nobel prize winners--have made their entire careers based on one feature of the life of a specific species of mold, or even a single group of genes, or the structure of one single protein, or the discovery of one type of subatomic particle, or one physical law.

as for a stub being superior to no article, all I can say is that such is very fortunately not the present Wikipedia policy; many more people have the will to add to an article than start a new one. The idea of most articles being good at the start is simply incompatible with an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, which inherently builds up in a cumulative process.

but more generally, I agree with you about people coming in with bad writing habits; the solution is to teach them better. Not to reject their articles, not to nominate them for deletion and hope they notice it and have time in 5 days to fix it up, but to work with them to improve it. The difficulty is that this takes even more time than fixing an article oneself. i have time to fix (or write) maybe 5 or 6 short articles a week, but working with one or two beginners to help them develop an article themselves is the most that I can manage. The more of us that do it, the better it will get done. I said I came here to add articles, but that's only partially true. I also came here to help others do so. No matter how unteachable someone appears to be, the first step is not to throw them out the door. Even a harsh schoolmaster saves that for the proven dunces. DGG (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The notability problem in a nutshell

Though it remains in the policy, there are now many exceptions to: If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. - quoted from WP:V (There are a number of areas where this is true, but primary among the one that concerns us here is fiction.) There are several ambiguities: the first is the meaning of the plural of sources, for it is accepted and elswhere stated that ones sufficiently reliable third party source is sufficient. Second, there are many cases where it is clear that first party sources such as official documents from government sources are sufficient to show the notability of the agencies concerned. Third, we routinely accept the probability that there will be such sources. Fourth, the sources for writing an article are not in the least limited to third party sources, for the primary source of the work itself is accepted as sufficient and in fact usually the best source for content. Fifth, and crucial here, is the distinction between "topic" and "article"-- a key argument above is whether a spin offarticle on a character is to be judged as a separate article. The sixth is the lack of a requirement that the third party source be substantial. DGG (talk)

and we see how notability is used as an excuse to delete secrets that are merely hard to source like DCEETA. we have the spectacle of people saying that the NYTimes is not reliable, and it's just synthesis. thanks for the kind comments Dogue (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

there seems to be a recent trend to be as perverse in nominating as possible. See today's nominations for the chairman of AOL, and.a major dam. I think they may be intended as a POINTy demonstration that common sense is an unreliable criterion, or a proof by example that WPedians can be shown to be lacking in that mental quality. DGG (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What else? Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Gargoyles characters

I saw your suggestion at List of Gargoyles characters regarding the merger. Personally, I think that the major characters like Goliath, Elisa, Xanatos and maybe Demona could stay if sources could be found, but I'd have no problem with merging the rest. They definitely need sources, but I don't have any idea where to find them except through the actual episodes. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Google News has sometimes worked recently, since they are now doing cover to cover on many newspapers; but the primary work itself is an adequate source for description. There is no need for secondary sources for content in a combination article, just sources that meet V. The FICT compromise, if adopted ,and followed up realistically will clear up a lot of things. Getting sufficiently full content accepted--and written!!-- in combination character and plot articles is much more important than keeping everything as separate articles. DGG (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Spreadin the word.....

From this discussion, we get the box on the right - cool eh? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Good work indeed from the two of you! This is the sort of thing that can make a practical positive difference to the encyclopedia! DGG (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Geek Housecalls

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geek_Housecalls

You marked the article we had put up quickly as blatent advertising and spam. The problem here is that our competitor has a page up just like that and is is going fine for them. The next problem is that relevant information is going to be put into that page about the court case that Geek Squad had against us, and we won. The page is informational, just like theirs. If all of our competitors get to put things up, so should we. Especially when our page is going to actually be informative about multiple companies who have pages up on wikipedia already. I do believe that the court case and other things like it apply here. It is something that should be recorded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.139.6 (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

looking at the article, I see it is made up of a description of your business, & a discussion of a trademark case. Except for the case, the business has as of yet no claim to notability (20 employees vs the main competitors 18,000) and that part is entirely promotional. We are not a directory, and don't list all companies in a business, but instead write articles about only the ones that have already achieved importance. But the part of the trademark case might be significant,so I am undeleting so you can develop that. --though you will need good 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases, or material based on press releases). The interviews from the boston papers now used as sources seem entirely derived from PR, as are most such interviews, and are not sufficient to rely on, &. since the case was settled by arbitration, there will obviously be some difficulty in documenting it fully. If you haven't made any progress in a week, I will nominate for regular deletion, so the community can decide. 09:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

where I come from, The Boston Globe is considered a reputable source. You say the interviews seem entirely derived from press releases, and yet, there are quotes from both sides (Geek Housecalls and Geek Squad) which is certainly atypical of a press release issued by either party in litigation. Further, there was no press release. The Boston Globe reporter discovered the suit during a routine scan of court documents (digging for dirt)and contacted Geek Housecalls and Geek Squad independently to formulate his story. This story was originally published on the front page of the print edition business section. It is, of course,now only available online in BG archives. --98.217.230.166 (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

so write to make this clear.DGG (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Not asking you to write the article for me, but can you offer suggestions as to how to clarify? I thought having references was how clarity was achieved. Am I better to quote the Globe article? Thanks--Atrask (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Dwellers of the Forbidden City

Hi there. :) I noticed that you had participated in the deletion review of the module Dwellers of the Forbidden City, and helped to overturn the initial deletion. I just wanted to let you know that today, the article was successfully turned into a Good Article. :) BOZ (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

unexpected but wonderful. This could probably be done for essentially any Wikipedia article. When you're ready, there are several thousand similar articles that could be undeleted on this precedent. If you can do 1 a month, and recruit 10 like-minded friends,who each recruit 10 more, we could make this a spectacularly valuable reference site in few years. DGG (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about that, but I'm glad to have made something worthwhile out of this article which was nearly deleted for good. :) We've also gotten a number of similar D&D module articles up to GA recently. BOZ (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Fiction notability

You referenced my position during your comment at WT:Notability (fiction). This is to inform you that due to revisions of the guideline, I have had to switch my position from support to strong oppose.—Kww(talk) 16:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be the subject of a bit of edit-warring: [14] is the revision to which I refer.—Kww(talk) 17:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

remember that the support for the compromise from those on the inclusionist side is only as a compromise. If it wasn't that I would accept almost anything, I wouldn't have supported it. I consider it much too deletionist, but the test of a fair compromise is that nobody actually likes it. If either side presses too hard it will destroy the whole thing, and make it all worse than before. People with one set of views will simply argue that GNG does not apply to components of fiction, and in the absence of any specific guideline, the whole WP:N concept is irrelevant for this type of article --and if enough people agree with this position, the people with the other views will be worse off that with the compromise. DGG (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

DCEETA deletion

thanks again for your comments, what troubles me, (given that i subscribe to the "The advanced human aircraft hypothesis" (Ufology), is that avowed military users are following a similar modus operandi, in this case. (then they call it a personal attack.) this is more of an ad hoc coverup, than a conspiracy.

i suppose i shouldn't wave the red flag of area 58 before them, the problem is, it's in the NYTimes. then the tenditious cutting down 'not authoritative', 'trivial' begins. the longwinded changing of arguments, and not giving an inch, dosn't strike me as good faith either. here we have articles about museums yet to be built, Cold War Museum, civil war forts that no longer exist, Fort Corcoran, but no Area 58. (all in the same neighborhood.) and the problem being, that if i can find it so can any enemy researcher, so it ends up only obscuring the government program from public oversight.

the implication for wiki is that subcultures, with group think, can impose non wiki rules upon specialized parts of wiki, withholding public information. the dissenters are shouted down with specious arguments:

All the quotes say is that this facility is "alleged to be" a satellite downlink station. Even if you choose to ignore the blatant weasel words, that's hardly a big deal, and notability isn't inherited from any notable data which goes through the place. The other citations appear to only mention the site in passing while discussing data which has passed through it

btw, this statement is false.

i've written worse articles, and will continue. how long will it take before they delete it from my userpage? well i will go back to my other articles, where more polite, rational editing prevails. Dogue (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There are some good people at the Military wikiproject. Go there specifically & ask for help fixing it. DGG (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

i'm sure there are, as i'm sure all the delete voters are, it's just their conduct that is not so good on this occasion. (the quote above) the russian source, and the inside defense source use caveats, however, the NYTimes, (Bamford), the Intelligence Community book, and the Deep black book do not. authoritative, if they mean that you need a judicial order or whistle blower, no, but that's a higher standard than merely confirmation, by sources with editors subject to lawsuit. trivia, well the media attention during y2k was not trivial, the NYTimes article is about the NRO, and this installation is several paragraphs, the Intel Comm book has a page or two, and there is a chapter in Deep Black. i wish they wouldn't make statements that are factually incorrect. Tom Star said it was a hoax, and then looked like a hoax, then notable but not progressing. ALR went to mediation, and ignored the mediation suggestions. I wrote the thing twice; i doubt that any article would be acceptable. Now as to speculating about motivation: either it's a mindset, and commanding the writing of others, and deleting when frustrated with the conduct of others, or an active censorship to maintain secrecy through obscurity effort; it dosn't really matter since the outcome is the same. teleology not deontology. verifiable material is supressed from wiki. this philosophical conflict between inclusionist and exclusionist, really has no end. i conclude that i don't need the heartburn here. i can tilt at windmills closer to home in the flesh. i was serious when i said to ALR that i can provide the public protests similar to those at Menwith Hill, and Pine Gap in order to provide notability. Dogue (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

covert installations are always a problem here, as are elite organizations that shun publicity, secret fraternities, businesses that don't deal much with the public, people who work in not very visible capacities, and such like. There have been a number of articles on such that are probably notable, but can not be verified; there have also been many articles on such that are not notable, or in some cases even non-existent, and can not be verified for that reason. It can be genuinely hard to tell. As for rewriting, persistence is the key--my advice generally i to wait for one or two more sources; many things do work the third or 4th time Like many people here, I have my own list of articles that ought to be able to stay, but haven't been able to, and a similar list of ones that ought to go, and are unaccountably kept. Any group working the way we do is going to be inconsistent. Your plan to work on other things in the meanwhile is the rational one.DGG (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

i note that ALR is doing his magic over at Menwith Hill. and the fact that this group was fast deleted is troubling (to me). Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases Dogue (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

many things are deleted that ought to be kept, and many kept that ought to be deleted. Just concentrate on getting the article sound enough to stand. It's the only way to show you were right. DGG (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

BGC

I see you're on-line, possibly. If you have a minute, can you do a prose edit of an article I just started, Berkeley Geochronology Center? I would appreciate it. I asked at WP:Geology, also, the botany editors tend to stalk me and edit my prose, so if you don't have the time or interest, someone else will get to it, but I might like to try to shape it up into something nicer, sooner. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

first pass done; I assume you are now writing bios of Garniss Curtis and Paul Renne. I will revisit the article at that point. DGG (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It never fails to amaze me how much I need a fellow Wikiepdia editor in real life. Yes and yes, watch-listed redlinks on both. Surprised not to find Curtis article. Renne's a bit obscure outside of the world of geochronology so no surprise to find him omitted. --KP Botany (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)06:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's the depressing part of Wikipedia, seeing how many world-class scientists are omitted from their own articles and from other articles. I can barely find Curtis mentioned in Wikipedia, not in the Zinj article, not in the Java Man article, not in the paleoanthropology article, not in the K-Ar dating article, not in the geochronology article. --KP Botany (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The academic humanities are even worse. And so are the engineers. The humanities is lack of interest, the engineers difficulty in documenting as well. And for physicians, we're top-heavy for the specialties that need to advertise. Check the missing people for the US national academies. The omissions from subject articles has a different cause: the tendency of COI people to enter just the bios and take no further interest. DGG (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the last comment about the COI people entering just bios?

Ah, well, that was a frustrating few hours through science biographies on Wikipedia, trying to add just one article, and winding up red-linking my watch list beyond repair. Also added Kenneth Farley, so we don't have to add him at the last minute. One problem with engineering bios is the limited amount of biographical information available in the public domain on the web. Every time I tried to start an engineer bio I was thwarted by the only reliable biographical information being locked in the, oh, what is that engineering archive IEEE, or whatever, which I can only access at school. I do know about the missing engineers, but don't have the resources on hand to remedy that. I wrote the Curtis and Renne bios from scratch and attached sources from their BGC bios and the first google hits that came up, Wrote the Farley bio from his CalTech web page and a Wikipedia article, deletionists be damned.  ;) --KP Botany (talk) 09:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

the COI people enter the bio, but do not think to edit the subject articles. And my experience is the academics (and their family & students) show their COI almost as frequently by entering over-modest non-explanatory pages as overly self-advertising ones. The hardest of the engineers are the non-academic ones known in the profession as leaders, who do not necessarily publish at all. Businessmen likewise. DGG (talk) 09:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I know what you mean. Still it's an easy omission for new editors to make because the task is rather demanding, but, imo, it's almost more important to get the information in the subject articles than to just enter a bio. The Curtis article was depressing for the magnitude of his omission from Wikipedia and the need to add the information about his contributions to paleoanthropology and geochronology to so many articles. He was only in a few articles, the Louis Leakey article, at least. Renne's probably one of the best known geochronologists in the world, for his contributions, but he also is a major international collaborative scientist, yet he is largely ignored and unknown outside of the scientific community. Acalamari and I occasionally edit some of the overly modest biographies, so I know what you mean in that area also. Yes, in engineers this is the area I tried to work in, civil engineers, mostly. They have newspaper articles, they've built structures (modern ones, mostly), but there is no biographical info. --KP Botany (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You are me

Sorry David, but you are apparently me. --David Shankbone 05:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

all David's are actually clones; we use disguises to conceal the fact, but they don't work 100%. DGG (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Shankbone is the cabal. --KP Botany (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

the person who does the photos can control the world. DGG (talk) 09:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You're awesome by me! I originally thought the page was about me, but apparently it is about you. Jeez, if you're going to have haters hating on you, at least get your name right! I'm guessing they put as much thought and research into their self-promotion as they did into that Facebook group. --David Shankbone 14:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Journal of Public Affairs Education

Could you perhaps have a look at this journal? It's not in my field, so I don't know whether it is notable. I added a link to the homepage of the journal, and the info there is sparse regarding possible notability (indexing, etc). As far as I can see, the journal is not listed in the Journal Citation Reports (both the Science and the Social Sciences editions). Thanks; --Crusio (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

JCR gives poor coverage for the applied soft social sciences--as you realised, and which is why you asked. As for this journal, it's the official journal for The National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration. All fields with university teaching have a journal of this nature, which are read almost exclusively by professors of the subject. They are not that often found in libraries, because almost everyone who is likely to be interested is a member of the relevant association and gets its journal. (this is in 73 WorldCat libraries). The test is whether it's of interest to others: some such journals are, e.g. Journal of Chemical Education, which carries review articles suitable for student assignment. In this case, checking Google Scholar, I find a very small number of articles cited by general journals in public administration, but most of the articles in GS are only there because they are indexed in ERIC. The alternative is redirecting to the article on the society, and there's already a paragraph on it there. The history of the article is not encouraging, so I boldly did just that. DGG (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen

Hello. Please see the above page as there has been a change in mediator and state whether or not you accept the new mediator. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Codex Leicester (disambig) is not REDIRECT

You have asked for this page to be RfDed. However this page is not a REDIRECT page. Please delete as requested. Regards, JohnI (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

you are right, it's a disam, which usually go to MfD, not RfD. As I've said from time to time, we have a confusing number of XfDs. But what is the reason to delete.? DGG (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(1) Unnecessary (only 2 entries) (2) Misnamed Disambiguation page. (3) Unlikely search target. JohnI (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine, take it to MfD DGG (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

List of top Telugu-language films

Could you please expand your argument with a comment on my nom statement, rather than Lugnuts' faulty assumption. I said it was a copy of part of an existing Teluga list with a POV problem. Mandsford's comment didn't really address my concerns. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think his later response answers your objections. I've said all I want to say. I am of course not always correct, but if you are right, the consensus will agree with you. DGG (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Prods

You have lost me when you say that "unresolved issues is not a good enough reason to delete". Taking Manhunt (urban game) for example, the issues raised are as follows:

It does not cite any references or sources.

t needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications.
It may contain original research or unverifiable claims.
Its factual accuracy is disputed.
It may need copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling.
It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

Its lead section requires expansion.

In other words, it is an extremely poor article that is almost certainly providing misinformation to the readers. So why keep it? Are you perhaps being pedantic and trying to insist that I duplicate all of the above as the prod reason instead of merely referring to the loud and clear issues that appear immediately below the prod box?

We are supposed to be providing the readers with a credible encyclopaedia, not preserving patent rubbish. --Orrelly Man (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• In the case of the above article the prod wasn't correct as the article had previously had a prod removed, AfD therefore is the only way to go. RMHED. 19:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As for your question though,since it applies equally to Prod and AfD:
You should not nominate an article for deletion if it can be rescued: see WP:BEFORE and WP:Deletion Policy. It is an excellent idea to remove rubbish, but only if it cannot be improved. The mere failure to have improved an article is not a reason for deletion by itself, no matter how long it has been unimproved. Let's look at those reasons:

1. We do not remove articles for being unsourced. We remove them for being unsourceable. You need to do a proper search. For games of this sort, I think this should include printed books on children's games. Atthe very least before nominating, you should check Google Books.
2. The second reason is just like the one above; it does need them, & the thing to do is to look for them. It's not a reason for deletion unless there are none to be found. (t
3. If the factual accuracy is disputed, then it should be edited, not deleted. The disputes about accuracy should be discussed on the talk page and resolved. It would only be a reason for deletion if you were prepared to show it did not exist at all, or that there was so much dispute that it was impossible to write even a brief article.
4. If copy editing is needed, then it should be done. The need for this is never a reason for deletion.
5. Ditto for general cleanup. If it needs it, do it. This too is never a reason for deletion.
6. If the lead section needs expansion, expand it. This again is never a reason for deletion.

Thus, none of the unresolved issues were a good enough reason for deletion, just as I said. I hope this explanation helps, more than my edit summary did. As a general rule, what we do with poor articles is improve them. What we do with misinformation is correct it, if we can show it incorrect. If you know enough about the game to make these statements, you know enough to help the article. Articles of this sort do tend to attract dubious material, and need proper attention. Then Wikipedia will be a more credible encyclopedia and not provide patent rubbish. I see you are interested in these games, so I look forward to seeing your improvements in this set of articles. DGG (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I can see you mean well but you are being very unrealistic. If the original editor will not make the effort to provide proper sources, why should anyone else? You have to remember that other editors don't have the time to do "proper searches" or expand the lead or edit factual inaccuracies and original research. Quite often, when you find a bad article, it has been created by some redlink userid who has made no other "contributions". Best thing to do is get rid of it or you end up wasting valuable time. If the creator is a genuine editor, he can always come back and recreate it. --Orrelly Man (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

why? because of our Deletion policy, as clearest expressed at WP:BEFORE, our need to encourage new contributors, and WP:BITE. It is you who unrealistically expect perfection at the first edit. It is every bit as valuable and necessary to fix articles as contribute new ones. DGG (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sigma Delta

Thanks for the heads-up about Sigma Delta, DGG. For future reference though, was I correct in closing the AfD as speedy keep? Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You should perhaps have explicitly said, no prejudice to a re-nomination by somebody else. But it's like the rule of uncritically deleting contributions by banned editors. I understand why the rule is there, and I of course won't revert if someone does it, but I personally do not look for occasions to do it. DGG (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you mean DGG. I may have jumped the gun on that closure. But yes, no prejudice towards you (nor anyone else) in renominating it. Thanks again for your messages, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Miranda

Hello DGG. About that AfD, you're misinterpreting what I wrote. I certainly could protect the page and would have done that had it not occurred to me that this article shouldn't even exist in the first place. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I realize that, & I was saying that doing so would have been sufficient. You meant that sub-borderline articles are not necessarily worth the trouble of getting rid of if they're no problem otherwise. There is something to be said for that, but I think it's a dangerously slippy slope. DGG (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

List of works by William Monahan

Would you be willing to comment at the discussion here? We are discussing a revision of this featured list of works, from something like this to this. I would appreciate your input. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I could do it quickly, because i had thought it out & had commented to the same effect over a year ago, in Talk:William Monahan/Archive 1 DGG (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Advice sought

I'm currently looking over a long article about a work of fiction that was published in epistalary form in a free weekly. The series received no secondary coverage beyond a passing mention in a gossip column about its author and a blog post. I'm looking for guidelines for assessing the notability of articles, particularly ones that might diverge from general notability standards. The article is Dining Late with Claude La Badarian. Look over it if you're interested, but what i'm really after is policy/guidelines that will aid my decision in whether to nominate it for deletion (and please forgive any typos; just got six stitches on one of my fingers).Bali ultimate (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be more politic to cut it down. it is a substantial work by a moderately important writer. There are no clear rules for fiction-- just check the talk pages for WP:BOOK and WP:FICT--Unless we reach a compromise, I doubt there is any present consensus. Looked at from common sense, for the very most important authors, every work warrants an article, but he's clearly not at that standard. Going down, it goes proportionately: for the general run of important author, the major works warrant articles. for borderline important authors, only their most important works. If he counts as an important author, the question then is whether this is a major work. I personally am not sure we should consider the GNG applicable to fiction. If we do, the question then becomes what counts as a RS for reviews. For some genres, established blogs with positing by well-known critics have sometimes have been considered sufficient. DGG (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. In this case each "epistle" was under 1,000 words and the only review/independent comment was a very positive blog post of under 500 words. This article currently stands at 8 screens. Now the problem becomes, cut it down to what? To what secondary sources say? That would yield about 150 words (a blog liked it, a gossip columnist said Monahan was using the fake name to say mean things about people he didn't like?). Go wellBali ultimate (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys. Bali I wasn't able to talk to you on your talk page. Do either of you know where can the bibliography for William Monohan be found on the internet? i looked thoroughly and could find even a trace. ≤Ftphokie (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)≥

If you mean, on Wikipedia , you may be looking for List of works by William MonahanDGG (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy of Dale Dubin

Perhaps I lack perspective by being immersed in medical school culture, but in my experience his book is a widely known and essential resource, and his story is well known to medical professionals. Please review my hangon justification on the talk page for more information on his notability; I added it about the time the article was deleted, so you may not have seen it. I also must say that I don't appreciate your scolding tone; I created the article in good faith and you should assume such based on my record if nothing else. - Draeco (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I ask that you examine the article once more and reconsider the deletion. I'm willing to discuss it, but if we can't work something out I plan to post it on WP:DRV. - Draeco (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I had actually considered writing an article about the book as well. Regardless, if you recognize his book, then as author he is an academic and thus notable under criteria #4 of WP:ACADEMIC because his methodology is so widely used. Once his notability is established, his record is important as well; omitting it would be like omitting scandal from the Pete Rose or Bernard Madoff articles. - Draeco (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Rose is a public figure at a national level in profession that thrives on the widest possible publicity, so criminal activity of his--even something as minor as a short sentence for income tax problems-- is appropriate. (His major scandalous activity as a gambler is of course directly related to his notability). For Madoff, the crime is of such great magnitude as to be of permanent international historical importance, as directly affecting thousands and indirectly millions. It may even possibly be the final blow to a major industry. That you use such examples shows the weakness of the case.

If you want to try an article on him based only on his actual notability as the writer of a widely used textbook, I will not speedy it again, but I will remove all extraneous material (your recourse for that would be the BLP noticeboard). whether I send it to afd will depend on the strength of the sourcing for the textbook. i note that, curiously, its not in his professional speciality. DGG (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

3rd strike and out vandalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/150.101.115.53 Cluebot has undone it, but recommend blocking this account or IP or whatever it is you do at this stage. JJJ999 (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• In fact, if this mirrors last time it'd be best to lock the page to anonymous users again for a month or two. CheersJJJ999 (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Your talk p. is still protected against anons, till Oct.; I semi-protected ACT for 2 weeks--As for blocking, I want to see if he strikes somewhere else next. It'll be easier than spotting another IP. DGG (talk)

Splitting Avalanche Article

I'd like to revise the Avalanche article. I spent some time last night making changes which were then reverted by ClueBot. I tried to notify ClueBot of a false positive but the reporting page is not functional. I'd also like to split the topic into two or more separate categories. Most avalanches do not involve people ... therefore a lot of the information in the article is biased toward human-avalanche interaction. This should be cleaned up.

You can examine my changes to the article and you'll see that they're not vandalism. Not sure if I should even bother at this point as Wikipedia makes it SO much work to contribute. No wonder the Avalanche article is so poorly written; most avalanche professionals won't deal with this sort of hassle. I'm happy to give it one more try. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somerandomicicle (talk • contribs) 23:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not hard to learn to work here if you learn gradually. First, remember that this is a specialized community and a specialised editing environment, and will take a while to get up to speed--and almost nobody ever does learn all the parts. It's not enough to know the subject and know how to write. You started out right, by editing an existing article. Perhaps you should have concentrated on simply expanding the section of interest, and discussing the possibility of a split on the article talk page. There are a number of considerations, not all of them obvious. Read WP:SPLIT for an introduction to the problems. you set up something usually difficult to do, which is splitting an article--this cannot be done the way you tried to do it.

Let me think a day or two on how this should best be handled--the first thing I need to do is read the articles carefully myself. I'll then sort things out and get things ready for you to properly upgrade.

One immediate thing to pay attention to: this is an encyclopedia, not a how-to-do it book. We write articles in the third person, in an formal way, not addressing the reader: do not word things like: "You need to first do ... " but "In order to accomplish this, the first thing to do is ...

If you want to learn things systematically, start with reading our guide to writing Wikipedia articles. And then read pertinent parts, bit by bit, of one or another of the two excellent books on writing for Wikipedia that have recently appeared & both available in print and free online: Broughton, John. Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. The missing manual. Cambridge: O'Reilly, 2008, ISBN 9780596515164, (available online at http://safari.oreilly.com) and Ayers, Phoebe, Charles Matthews, and Ben Yates.How Wikipedia Works: And How You Can Be a Part of It. San Francisco: No Starch Press, 2008 ISBN 9781593271763 (also available online at http://www.nostarch.com). DGG (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Offline

No need to ever contact me off line from my perspective. I'm a big believer in daylight. BestBali ultimate (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you asked, i looked. These are all mine (some accidental): [[15]] . There should be another IP traceable to mid town from around that same time (late september/early october) but i can't find it.

Found it [[16]]. You now can review every wikipedia edit i've ever made. Bali ultimate (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

All clear. I ha asked offline in case there were a name you did not want to disclose online. DGG (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably should have been an A3

It's simply that the thing was a WP:MADEUP candidate and I thought that the A7 applied. Did you want to AfD it? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Madeupdoes not apply to A7 or A3 or any other speedy criterion. Please restore it. I think it quite possibly tenable if someone were to work on it, but if you want to afd it , sure. perhaps someone will see it there. I'd normally say prod, except that the creator will surely remove the tag immediately. DGG (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

article

Hello, recieved a msg from Dlohcierekim about an article i just posted. i'm on a contract with this company at the current time and felt necessary to post a bit about them (pls ignore username, bad choice as my intention was to only post up this one article about them). I've taken what was on their About page and trimmed the language to be as neutral as possible (imo of course). This organization is pretty important in the history of education in BC. I understand conflict of interest, but feel this group is fairly well known in education circles and is of value.

Please let me know what parts do not meet requirements and I can have them removed, and possibly find some more references about the history over the last 100 years.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Openschoolbc (talk • contribs) 19:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

actually feel free to delete

It keeps getting marked as conflict of interest so just ahead and delete the article please. I'd rather have nothing there then have it marked as conflict of interest. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Openschoolbc (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I did delete it, after seeing that it was of provincial reach only--judging by the order form, it is almost entirely set up to provide material within BC. I also searched some databases, including ERIC, and could not find adequate references to use. If you can find any magazine articles, let me know, & I will restore it with them as sources, & I will rewrite as necessary. DGG (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Return of the Mergist

See Captive orcas, an attempt to salvage content from the set of articles flagged for deletion. Most of the {{main}} links lead to articles in AfD. Monuments, I like them if dramatic and equestrian. Bus routes, don't think so. Individual Orcas? Aymatth2 (talk)

I saw those. I defended these once. I'm not sure if I will now If I did, the argument would be that they are equally distinctive to individual humans, and, by the nature of their being exhibited, are public figures. I extend this to well known chimpanzees also. I esteem them much more highly than some hominids with unassailable articles here. DGG (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Trolling the AfD list can be depressing. I tend to skip the hominids. I just did National Referral Hospital (Thimphu) to clear my head, and a couple of related ones. Not a great article, but the first and only one for a hospital in Bhutan. The first and only one. Is this a well-balanced encyclopedia? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The balance will depend on the interests of the people who come here, and there is no way to remedy it except recruitment. DGG (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Reluctantly agree. The mix of articles in the English Wikipedia presumably fairly accurately reflect the interests of both editors and readers. That will not stop me writing the odd article nobody is likely to read. Loch Alsh! :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In the words of Wes Nisker, "If you don't like the news ... go out and make some of your own." Bongomatic 15:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

My goal is more modest, which is to look for other good things to report that are not reported. He probably would have worded this a little more radically, to look for good things to report which are suppressed from being reported--in our case, more from indifference than from malice. What he meant, of course, was something I do not disagree with either, which is to change the world so there will be more good things to report. The role of an encyclopedia in this is to inform about the world, so people will know what to change. DGG (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed . . . and I certainly meant it by analogy—to create new articles about real topics rather than to engage in making stuff up and writing about it. Bongomatic 00:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

What has been concerning me lately - and I have only got addicted to Wikipedia lately - is not so much imbalance or triviality as insensitivity and outright bias. I got into debates recently about ‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib, Nestorian Stele, Fred Shapiro and others where it just didn't feel right. The decisions were probably correct based on the rules, but they left me feeling really uneasy. Something wrong here. I am going to spend more time writing new articles, avoid the AfD list. Mega Rice Project (Kalimantan) needs a whole lot of work, and a bunch of related articles. All sorts of great books just have stubs. There is so much to write about. I am much more comfortable as an essayist than a critic. Signing off. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Icehockeybcboy

My mistake. I'll go fix it. Thanks for the note. --Rrburke^(talk) 03:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Saint John Fisher College

Wouldn't the article belong at St. John Fisher College instead? Cheers, Enigma^msg 06:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I checked their website, and St. is their official form, so I moved it. DGG (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Whenever you get the chance. Thanks, Enigma^msg 18:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. DGG (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

award

I was ferreting around for a Defender of the Wiki award, but stumbled over this one which looked nicer. I was always impressed at what a succinct and cool word mensch was, which has no real less-than-a-bunch-of-polysyllabic-adjectives-equivalent in (gentile) english :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

		The Mensch's Barnstar
		To DGG for being a mensch (what else), being there at AfD and always arguing sensibly and maturity, and without a skerrick of flippancy, which can be hard...and for telling it like it is at times. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Judgement

Yes, I was arguing that judgement was correct; the user in question had been kind enough to do some copyediting for me and had changed "judgement" to "judgment". Ironholds (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

sorry if I got mixed up on who was saying what. I should have known you'd get it right. DGG (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Why thanks! Not sure if it is a comment about my nationality or a general compliment, but ta either way :). Ironholds (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Just saw your userpage, by the way; kudos on being a former/current librarian! I worked as a bookmonkey for about three months and still have odd bits of the dewey floating around my head (remember Ironholds, 340.9 for legal history). Ironholds (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Reversed burden of proof problem - help needed

I wonder if you are able to comment on the following principle, relevant to the Ayn Rand dispute - see the talk page, and see WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Ayn_Rand. The problem is as follows: William Vallicella, who is a recognised Kant scholar, has published something in a blog post about Rand having completely misunderstood Kant. Someone has objected that while Vallicella is a recognised Kant scholar, he has not published on Rand in reliable sources (a blog post not being considered RS), and so the citation cannot be allowed.

This is the reverse burden of proof problem - it is hard to find scientific sources that discuss pseudoscience. In such cases I believe it is legitimate to source from non-promotional descriptions of pseudoscience that can only be obtained from second- and third-party sources and not peer-reviewed.

The dispute also has affinities with the special pleading problem - that pseudoscientists (or in this case, pseudoacademics) can object that the academics are not expert in the pseudoacademic subject. This is of course an absurd argument, and if allowed unchallenged, would open the floodgate - any advocate of any fringe view could object that the advocates of scientific method simply didn't understand the pseudoscientific 'theory' being advanced.

I appreciate you are not an expert on philosophy (at least I assume not). But this has little to do with philosophy, and everything to do with the need to establish a precedent in Wikipedia policy. Because science is generally silent about pseudoscience, it is difficult to reliably source scientific views on pseudoscience. In such a case, we should be allowed to source views of established scientists or academics or scholars, from any available sources (giving precedence to reliable independent sources where possible).

Principle: "if an established scientist, scholar or academic has made statements about a pseudoscientific or pseudo-academic subject, then whatever the source of that statement, it should be allowed as a reliable source, if no other sources are available." Peter Damian (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

1. As a preliminary, how do you know he has not published on this? Perhaps he has put a sentence on this somewhere in his published writings.
2. As another preliminary, how do you know he understand Ayn Rand?
3. As another, how do you know if he might not be totally biased on the subject of her work and motivated by a general dislike?
4. Even more, how well are Kant scholars agreed on the actual meaning of Kant? If everything had total concensus,, nobody would bother writing books about his work.
5. As a very general question, how careful are his blog postings.? Even a scholar of high repute is normally expressing himself a little more loosely there than he does in his actual published works. He might speculate much more freely, because, after all, its conventionally not part of the scholarly record. On the other hand, he might regard them as part of the record. There is no established standard. Of course, there is no single standard for publication either. Most people will give broader judgments at a conference talk than they would in a scholarly article The world is not divided into RS and Non-RS with a sharp dividing line.
6. There are major qualifications you do not include: first, it has to be in his general field of study. His opinion of Ayn Rand's economics is worth no more than that of any other intelligent person.
7. Second, it has to be at least public statement intended to be such, not general conversation.
8. There are too many examples of academics with unusual views where their view is regarded as important, but not really reliable: Pauling on vitamin C (a subject within his very general area of expertise), Rombauts on AIDS, Tesla on quite a number of things.
9. We already have a way of dealing with it: we give this as his informal opinion, qualifying the statement by saying where it is from.
10. Further, the test of the reliability of his view is whether other experts on Kant refer to it. Citation (in the general sense) is the general test of the reliability of anything in any field. The NYT is known to be reliable because every news source in the world quotes it as reliable. Aquinas is a RS for Catholic doctrine, because the entire Catholic world and even non-Catholics think that he is. (this is also how we deal with the people two points above: Rombauts is wrong because essentially every person except himself knowledgeable on the subject thinks he is not correct, and publishes this opinion whenever they discus him.)
11. Generalizing from that, In some fields, some people's blog postings are RSs, because everyone in the field treats them as such. If experts on Kant refer to his blog in their papers as reliable for his views, then it is. We might even say that if all their blogs refer to his as reliable, then it is.
12. One can show a negative: if a reliable encyclopedic source on Kant, such as Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy, does not discuss her in the articles on Kant's philosophy, then one can say exactly that.

Footnote 7 in the Kant aricle is not supportable:

1. It says philosophers but refer to only one,
2. It says philosophical matters when his comments are on Kant,
3. It has to be said in some way to show its informal, as you do in section 7.1 of that article.
4. The lede paragraphs, which are meant to be a consensus view where the details of controversy and sourcing cannot be fully explained,

As written, it's an overgeneralization that has no place in the lede.

I recognize the problem. The general problem is met better by expanding the nature of publications recognized in a much less prescriptive way than your Principle DGG (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Thank you for that very full reply. A detailed reply below. You are quite right about 'some philosophers'. I do have more citations, I will locate them and put them in.

1. Do I know he has not published on this? I have been through most of his published work, and can find nothing. I will check again.
2. How do I know he understands Ayn Rand? Well he explicitly quotes Rand here and since it is entirely clear what she is saying, and since he is very clear about how her statement is a misunderstanding, I think we can accept his word. He says "Anyone who knows anything about Kant knows that this is a travesty of Kant’s actual views. It is either a willful distortion, or a distortion based on ignorance of Kant’s texts."
3. How do I know if he might not be totally biased on the subject of her work and motivated by a general dislike? I don't have any views on his motivations. His argument is perfectly clear and he directly quotes Rand so as a philosopher I find that sufficient. (As it happens, I happen to know he is generally sympathetic to Rand, but that is irrelevant).
4. How well are Kant scholars agreed on the actual meaning of Kant? Again, the misunderstanding shown by Rand is basic and gross, rather than nuanced and subtle, so we are not involved in some difficult exegtical question.
5. How careful are Vallicella's blog postings.? He is a very careful and meticulous writer at all times.
6. "It has to be in his general field of study. " I think I already mentioned that V is an established expert on Kant.
7. "it has to be at least public statement intended to be such, not general conversation. " Correct.
8. "There are too many examples of academics with unusual views where their view is regarded as important, but not really reliable" Agreed. V is a Kant scholar. The question is whether we can allow a statement by a Kant scholar outside the usual RS, concerning an interpretation of Kant by a writer (Rand) the Kant scholar has not published about.
9. "We already have a way of dealing with it: we give this as his informal opinion, qualifying the statement by saying where it is from. " Correct.
10. "Further, the test of the reliability of his view is whether other experts on Kant refer to it." V has been cited on Kant. The question is whether V has been cited on Rand-on-Kant. The problem is that Rand has been so entirely marginalised by established philosophy that it is very difficult to locate sources.
11. "If experts on Kant refer to his blog in their papers as reliable for his views, then it is. " Generally blogs are not referred to in papers. That is the problem.
12. "if a reliable encyclopedic source on Kant, such as Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy, does not discuss her in the articles on Kant's philosophy, then one can say exactly that. " Rand is only mentioned a handful of times in the SEP, all in the context of feminist philosophy. Nowhere is she mentioned with reference to Kant.

Peter Damian (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Although we fundamentally disagree in many respects about content criteria, I find it impossible to have anything less then the greatest respect for your work and contributions Spartaz Humbug! 17:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)