Oct08,
Nov08,
Dec08,
Jan09,
Mar09,
Apr09 ,
May09 ,
Jun09
Jul09, ...,
Sep09,
Oct09,
Nov09, ,
Dec09,
I wanted to create an article on Orquesta Tabaco y Ron, but I see it was deleted once and I wanted to check with you before re-creating it. I had no difficulty locating some sources providing basic information, such as: [1], and this detailed article written about the band in Latin Beat Magazine: [2]. I know that my notability standards are often lower than others though, and I'm biased here in that I really like this group, so I wanted to make sure that I'm not re-creating a page in vain that is just going to be deleted again. If you had any information on the page that was deleted (and if there's any salvageable material, if you could userify it) I would be very grateful, or if you have any information on why the page should not presently be re-created, I would like to know that too. Thanks! Cazort ( talk) 20:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
DGG, you always seem to be fair in these types of discussions and have a good grasp on Wikipedia policies. With these nominations, linked to above, I am more concerned about the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber article (one I and Rocksey plan to fix up). The article/topic is clearly notable, but I feel that this could get overlooked due its current messy state and the fact that it is lumped into a debate with other messy soap opera couple articles, most of which should be deleted. Should I trust in the system in this case, or what? Flyer22 ( talk) 17:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I've read your comments and have disregarded them. DJ 17:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this user page on your watchlist? If it's not, could I recommend it? As User:Bittergrey seems to be in perpetual content disputes, the most recent interchanges there are presumably mirrored across half a dozen related pages, including WP:SEX. I'd be happier if someone else were thinking about this problem before it gets any bigger. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I bow to your greater experience, but have you been following the great redirect kerfuffle. That dab page redirects to two topics that we don't have articles on.... However, if your opinion is it's OK to create two entry dab pages to disambiguate between non existent entries, then as I say, I bow to your greater experience.-- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 20:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up the Getting Things Done article. I have removed the NPOV tag, but would appreciate your comments in the discussion area if you see other opportunities for improvement. The page is subject to spam from software vendors claiming to be inspired by the methodology, but I think the core article describing the methodology is fairly NPOV. Open to suggestions. Cyberscribe ( talk) 00:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The council race is of some note and Brad Lander is a citywide known advocate. I clarified that on the page, let me know what else I can do to make the article stick. Thanks. Michaelfs ( talk) 02:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
╟─ Treasury Tag► ballotbox─╢ 09:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
At [4] you said communist genocide is "a well-known concept". I tried to check a few sources used in the article, but found nothing to confirm this (please see my expanded comments on the AfD page). All this material is surely present in the individual genocide articles, so why do we need this synthesis article? Also, do you think this article really representes WP:NPOV? Just take look at the first sentence ("Communist genocide refers to the genocide carried out by communist regimes across the world. From the very beginning, communism forged a new order based on genocide") - no attribution, and this polemic opinion of a journalist is basically stated as the truth. Offliner ( talk) 10:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I would appreciate your comments on this stub. If you think she passes WP:PROF, I will close the discussion with a keep. Bearian ( talk) 16:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello - I thought I was doing the speedy delete thing properly. However, it appears I was mistaken and need some guidance. Can you help me understand how this article is notable so I may not make the same mistake again? Regards - Blind Eagle talk~ contribs 18:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
" and this is not an applicable reason even at AfD. We have a very firm consensus that if something is notable and worthy of an encyclopedia article at any time, it always will be, and whether or not the organization still exists is therefore irrelevant.
Hi DGG
Don't know if you're a fair use expert, but the most recent photograph of John Hughes (director) I could find was at Macquarie University. Any idea if there's a fair use rationale for including this in the encyclopedia?
Thanks, Bongo matic 02:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Did you notice my question above? You haven't answered it yet. I think your argumentation at the AfD was wrong, so it would be nice if you did. Offliner ( talk) 10:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
You have sharp eyes! Its true, I based that article off of 2 sources. Most of it was just shifting sentences around and changing a few words. Don't worry, I will try to re-hash some it and probably find some more references and information. Thanks, Danski14 (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought you might be interested in this -- another plan to archive web content -- this one run by librarians.
I've wondered about the legality of these plans, whether they lapse from a strict compliance with copyright.
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 05:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
You wrote "AfD" when you meant "RfA" on WP:ANI. I tried to just fix it, but another editor reverted me and even warned me about my "inappropriate" edit. As such, I came here to waste more of my time & yours to tell you you'll have to fix it yourself. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 05:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in reserving the Public housing estates in Hong Kong. Ricky@36 ( talk) 04:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Mr.TrustWorthy---- Got Something to Tell Me? 04:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
User Ratel is trying to archive an active discussion in Aktion T4. This User Ratel is clearly involved in the discussion.
comment made by 190.25.101.144 ( talk) 05:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Why did you suggest to merge to Bryan Perro? Both the book series and the author seem notable enough to me from the French-language media coverage for separate articles. Fences& Windows 15:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated Transitioning Applications to Ontologies, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transitioning Applications to Ontologies and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 15:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
If you think my DB tagging of new articles that do not seem (to me) comply with guidelines is not helpful all you have to do is politely ask me to stop. I'm trying to be helpful but I'm happy to stop if I am not successful in this regard. Threatening to "enforce" a Twinkle removal is a bit excessive, I'm not sure why you're telling me that since I already know it can be disabled or I can be blocked. I'll just stop the tagging altogether. Cheers, <>Multi-Xfer<> ( talk) 00:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of My Tomato Pie. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle ( talk) 08:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is encyclopedic, but I am willing to try it out. Bearian ( talk) 13:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Mmwilgus ( talk) 15:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Please go to [5] and vote again. Thank you. LargoLarry ( talk) 14:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Ironically, I spent much of today (when I was supposed to be working) looking at that page. I also looked at the citation project page, but it doesn't look very active. I was reading it in the context of canonical reference - I'll look again for bibliography info. Thanks-- SPhilbrick T 00:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
saw your post and I agree. User marlon was warned about edit warring but continues. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_John_Fisher_School&action=history He says to discuss but he would rather revert every other editor & call it vandalism than discus anything. thank you User:Husounde —Preceding undated comment added 13:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
also I just warned him for edit warring and he called it vandalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Marlon232&diff=307742704&oldid=307741003 Husounde ( talk) 13:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
He's reverted 11 times this summer if that helps. I think more before that. Husounde ( talk) 14:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear DGG! Sorry for taking you time, but I would like to ask you about this matter. In my opinion, article about PlanetWM.com service can be usefull to some of readers, because it's one of leading digital currency exchangers. Many similiar services have articles about them here, so I think this one can be usefull too. Tonxxx ( talk) 00:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Thanks, Anthony
Thanks a lot, I understand your point of view Will write another article later then
Please forgive me, I'm very inexperienced with CSD. I'm actually working on a coaching program with Juliancolton, and the one area that I told him I needed a lot of help with (and am currently working on) is CSD. I'm in the process of trying to gain more knowledge in speedy deletion. Thank you very much for the note, and please let me know in the future if I mess up again (although I hope it doesn't happen!). iMatthew [[User_talk:IMatthew
Mr.TrustWorthy---- Got Something to Tell Me? 02:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Your vote is killing me right now. I've answered you and I really think you made too hasty a call on this. Your two main objections (or at least what I think are your main objections) were the deletion of Proc Natl Acad Sci U S a and the AfDing of Vacuum genesis. I'm pretty sure I've addressed those sufficiently. The former serves no purpose whatsoever, as the search engine isn't capital sensitive (try both "go" and "search"), and the later was not some kind of reckless AfDing like you suggested it was. I consulted with the Astronomy project first to confirm that my concerns had a certain basis, and one of the resident editor there thought that it was non-notable too and should be sent to AfD. Only after that did I send it to AfD.
If there's anything else I would need to justify or explain to convince you to move from oppose to neutral/support, please let me know. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Major book related Wikipedia hoax: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_20#The_Alphascript-Amazon-Wikipedia_book_hoax. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Just as a heads up you are being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_for_review_of_admin.27s_actions.3F (obviously I did NOT start that thread) and thought you should be aware. Sincerley, -- A Nobody My talk 05:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG. I sent this for AfD. This is just a fictional island named in some certain video games. I played on of these games and I didn't know the name of the island. Nothing important in google as well. You may want to write your opinion there. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 20:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I will not use delete templates until I become more familiar with them. -- An ha mi rak 12:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
User:Johnnypd on Communist genocide. PD as in law? Johnny Law come to make things right? User talk:Johnnypd Special:Contributions/Johnnypd
18:40;
19:03;
19:20;
19:39;
19:55;
20:03;
20:09;
20:24.
20:39new
Anarchangel (
talk)
01:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I do not claim any quality for the content of Johnnypd's edits. This is an appeal for the bright line to be invoked, only.
As for the article itself, it is currently a release valve for anti-Communist sentiment; garbage in, garbage out. There is no GA content in it atm; the only way there can be is if the genocide tag is dropped (I am not aware of intent to eliminate ethnic groups having been proved for any of the incidents), and the grey area between 'happened in a communist country' and 'policy of a Communist state' is firmly delineated. I am just biding my time until the heat is off, and then I think one day it can be a useful way to show the overreaction and zealousness of communism that lead to few mass killings, the inexplicable bloodbath by purported communists (Cambodia) and a few mass negligent homicides (Ukraine and China). Or perhaps I am wrong, and WP cannot sustain such an article against incessant waves of PoV editors. Anarchangel ( talk) 01:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
As some editors are going on and on about this paragraph that a local newspaper reported some students as saying there was aggression and verbal abuse etc directed at some pupils, and you said you read the article, could you say how you got to read it and if possible put a transcript on the jfs talk page. Thanks Sayerslle ( talk) 16:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
It's perverted by pro-Celente partisans (GwenGale, Laura289, now Celente himself apparently -- see Celente discussion page) who continually, systematically use it for advertising, who consistently violate WP's rules (reliable sources, no COI, no advertising, verifiability, etc etc). I sent you an email. I do not know what to do; I'm a neophyte editor, hard working, wanting to help, but the battling with Celente partisans for some kind of neutrality is wearying. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 16:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
Sorry to have wasted your time (validly) removing the speedy template from Symphony CMS. The article was deleted in January so I didn't remember the contents. The fact remains that, notwithstanding the expansion, notability not demonstrated in the article nor have I been able to establish it myself (I did a good faith search). So I have renominated it ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symphony CMS (2nd nomination)). If you disagree (or agree, for that matter), please opine.
Regards, Bongo matic 17:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
You made a comment at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_August_12#Alan_Roger_Currie that "two local articles for someone claimed to be of nationwide significance is not significant coverage". Would you still so consider four articles from two widely separated states?
On a different approach, the article author has completely rewritten the article as User talk:Chicago Smooth/New Alan Roger Currie article. Would you consider if this different version would meet our Notability standards? Thanks. -- GRuban ( talk)
Thanks .... for the first part of that, then. Appreciated. -- GRuban ( talk) 18:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I was sure that this existed, but as you can see, it doesn't. I had understood the particular warnings on the various noticeboards (AN, ANI, WQA, SPA, etc.) that you should notify an editor if you are reporting their conduct there to be manifestations of a deeper policy, or at least community norm, of notification. Viz. that as a matter of wikiquette if nothing else, if you are trying to get someone into hot water, you should notify that person so that they have basic due process (notice and opportunity to be heard). Thus, whether you are asking for sanctions against someone at ANI or on an admin's talk page, or anywhere else, you should let that person know.
I therefore have three questions. (1) Is my understanding correct, in your view, that there is a broad community norm of notification? (2) Is this reflected in any existing policy? (3) If the answer to 1 is yes and to 2 is no, how do I go about proposing such a policy? Do I just create WP:NOTIFY and slap the "proposed" tag on it?- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 14:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I was just checking from your edit summary on this dab if you were planning to create articles on these. At the moment, it's not a valid dab, so I thought I'd check with you what your intentions were first before taking it to AfD. Thanks, Boleyn ( talk) 12:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Wuh Wuz Dat 01:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#single_mention_in_a_foreign_language_tech_blog_to_show_notability:_reliable.3F - your objectivity, regardless of your decision, is requested. Theserialcomma ( talk) 09:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see User talk:NIHKZ. In the history, see the difference between my edit and your edit. Then have a look at the version before my edit, and you'll understand your mistake. Debresser ( talk) 11:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
You have either edited Symphony CMS or you participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symphony CMS. Please consider contributing your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symphony CMS (2nd nomination). Regards, Bongo matic</
Why do you delete this with no notification?
sub> 03:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi! You would be glad to know that a new wikipedia ad has been created by
Srinivas to encourage users to join
Chronicles of Narnia Task Force. You can display that ad on your user/talk page too using the following code: {{
Wikipedia ads|ad=190}}
-- Alan16 ( talk) 10:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Your opinion would be appreciated here. Thanks, Majorly talk 15:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The August 2009 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Alan16 ( talk) 17:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Good Afternoon. I nominated this article for deletion as a group that does not show significance. You denied the speedy because it was a pioneering troop. The article itself says that the Troop is often confused with the first BSA troop and admits they really are not the very first troop; they merely share the same number. So it's not the pioneering troop and I think it still qualifies for speedy. Thanks.-- TParis00ap ( talk) 20:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Re: [7] - I was never happy with that section, recently a chunk was deleted (see article's talk). While I am tempted to rv the anon, I do wonder if the section is BLP-compliant? Perhaps you could share your thoughts on the article's talk? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Given that the main subject itself is only barely notable "Mega64 is a DVD-exclusive series that can be only purchased on their website.", do you think there's a requirement to have four articles about it? Black Kite 17:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, DGG. First, let me assure you that I have not been involved in any way with editing/ tagging or discussing this article with any other editor. I just came across it today while doing a Google search for "Nostalgic Depression" (a wholly-unrelated subject). I can't quite pin down exactly why, but I feel this article is unsalvageable and should be deleted. I thought you might be a good resource to consult, as you have access to collegiate library resources. Some obvious problems I can say about the article are:
While these things could certainly be improved through editing, I just am not sure if the article is worth the effort, because it:
I also note from the article history that it was penned by a single-purpose account, whom several other editors have suggested is likely the fringe theorist who wrote part (one chapter) of one of the books listed in the references section, which is extensively referred-to in the article. As such, the article may serve as a self-promotional piece. Do you agree? Any suggestion on how to proceed? Thanks for your time. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
For one, the Creatures page has no more value as an article than Headcrab, and Father Gregori is a minour character and can be summed up in a single sentence, which is probably already done in the Half-Life 2 article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
There are a couple of articles on training camps and a couple of article on safe houses like this one [15] at AfD. What do you think? Is there a way to include them or combine them? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 06:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I think there might, potentially, be some BLP issues involved in the discussion regarding calling a living person an "amateur" at Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen#About the definition of 'amateur', but am far from being really knowledgable about that subject. I was wondering if you had any opinions. Thank you for your attention. John Carter ( talk) 18:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi David hope you are fine. Don't know if you will get to it before it is deleted but I though you could provide a word or two on this deletion. List of MIR (Chile) members assassinated by the Pinochet regime. Regards, Moshe-paz ( talk) 20:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
`
Hi David. I was wondering what your thought about articles like Violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict 2000. Do you think we should have articles listing every civilian that ever died in a conflict, especially when it is unreferenced and contianing a lot of unbalanced missing information according to some people. Does wikipedia really need to list every civilian who ever died? To me it seems problematic and likely to continue to be a target for conflict... As you have much experience with AFDs I wanted to know your thoughts before I take them to AFD. Himalayan 13:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
This redirect was wrong. Saint Petersburg State University used to be known as Leningrad State University named after Zhdanov. Leningrad State University named after Pushkin is another university (fairly non-notable and rarely heard of), which is known by this name right now (and Leningrad in its name refers to Leningrad Oblast). Colchicum ( talk) 19:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I see you removed this speedy deletion tag I placed on the article of Juan M Clouzet on August 14. I haven't been around, but when I checked today, I was kind of surprised. How is this article notable and where are any sources? (I did a quick check and nothing popped up on google) BrianY ( talk) 20:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
You recently tagged Michael Barrett for speedy deletion. I've now tweaked the sentences some and have added new material to try to avoid the suggestion of copyright violation. When you have a chance, please take a look. If you have additional suggestions, please reply either here or on the article talk page. Thanks.-- John Foxe ( talk) 20:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I take it that none of my pointers about why my page should stay were accepted, or even discussed, as it was deleted without any further comment. If it is indeed Wiki's policy to rule by "dictatorship" and to deliberately ignore all comments against it, then Wiki can, quite frankly, go hang itself. I did expect a bit more from this place than the usual "I don't like what you like and don't agree with you, so all your comments and arguments are obviously irrelevant", but being merely an online source (one still not accepted in university essays, for instance), I should have known better. It's the same petty policies and bickering as can be found everywhere else, and people are not really likely to be unbiased just because they suddenly get gifted with some online influence - on the contrary. -- Ethuil o Lorien ( talk) 13:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
You know, this is actually the first useful comment I've gotten in this whole debate - thank you for that. A well-written, thought-through reply is infinitely easier to read than the vague, non-descript replies I've been getting so far - and easier to accept, as a whole. As for what to do with the article; we'll have to see - I don't have time to re-do anything at the moment, and will need some time to figure out where to go from here.
(On a whole other matter, your username seems familiar to me. Do you frequent other sites as well?) -- Ethuil o Lorien ( talk) 06:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
David -
I wanted to thank you for taking the time to respond to my concerns and also to educate me. I have books on working on wikipedia and I have been doing articles - but MAN there is a lot to digest.
I am going to rewrite the article per your comments tomorrow - and I believe we can make good on all your requirements. Do have a couple of questions:
1. The Turek Clinic is obviously led by Dr. Turek. If he has received recent awards, or published recent research, while running the clinic, does that count as the clinic doing it since it was done under their aegis?
2. When a page becomes a company template - does that change the standard of verification required?
3. In many cases, I am writing articles with graphics where I have received authorization from the owner to use on rwikipedia and put into the Commons. What documentation do you require to prove that I have the right to use the photos? Alternately, should I have the photo owner post the photos and put them under commmons licensing?
I am really looking forward to being an active contributor on Wikipedia on a variety of subjects, and I greatly appreciate your guidance as I get up to speed.
Please respond back User_talk:Arthurofsun or talk:The_Turek_Clinic —Preceding undated comment added 01:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC).
Arthur Coleman' ( talk ) 06:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
-- Ethuil o Lorien ( talk) 13:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG, I saw this comment of yours and at first was a bit taken aback, but then quickly realized it was likely you had simply confused me (or rather my username) with someone else (please see my reply here for the full explanation). If that is the case, obviously it would be good if you could clarify the matter over at ANI. And if you were referring to me, well then I guess I'd want to hear more about it! I'm pretty sure though that this is just a misunderstanding, in which case no worries. I'm going offline now (was supposed to be awhile ago) but I'll check back for any reply tomorrow. Best, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a thread on the talk page of the above named article regarding whether that council is still active at Wikipedia talk:Advisory Council on Project Development#Still viable?. As one of the listed members, your input would very likely be useful. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 16:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
DGG, please consider revisiting and commenting on the remaining issues. Tony (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Nova Science Publishers detractors are back again in what I perceive as an unfair anonymity which the system permits, to detract again the publisher in a general way, beyond permissable criticism, which might be raised against an academic publishing company (in the particular context on their journals, as stated in the article by colleague Dr. Bade from Chicago University Library, which should have a continued place in future Wikipedia articles on the company, as the "flagship of criticism"). To be honest, the recent and renewed changes to the article, which you, Mr. Goodman, improved months ago to meet Wikipedia standards of objectivity, could be - when published in the press - the subject of lengthy court-room proceedings initiated by the authors and the publishers against some of these anonymous Nova critics, and if Wikipedia takes no action, against Wikipedia itself. As an author who published with such publishing houses as Palgrave-Macmillan, Dutch University Press, Rozenberg (Amsterdam), Saint Martin's Press New York and Nova Science Publishers in English, and Braumueller, Wilhelm Fink and LIT-Verklag in German, and whose works were well received in such journals with a very high impact factor as the Journal of Common Market Studies, Politics Studies, etc. and who himself has written articles in journals around the world (just look at the EINIRAS network or Cambridge Scientifc Abstracts) I am really startled, as one of many Nova authors, by all this destructive rage and negative energy, which two of these anonymous authors develop on the pages of Wikipedia against this particular publisher.
As I could show on the peer-reviewed pages of the Social Science Research Network in New York, re-published at Chicago Business School, the European Corporate Governance Center in London, Korea University and Stanford Law School at:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1162241
Nova has indeed an average record as an academic book publishing company, and by July 2008, 518 world class scholars contained in the "Cambridge Cientific Abstracts" all published books and or articles with the company. Social science authors know that the most powerful companies are indeed such publishers as Cambridge UP, Cornell UP, Oxford UP etc. and authors also know that there are smaller book publishing companies, such as Amsterdam University Press (EU); Ashgate (EU); Campus (Frankfurt/Ann Arbor) (EU); IOS Press (EU); Nova Science Publishers (US); Springer-Verlag (US); and Transaction Publishers (US), which often serve as an outlet especially for authors from outside North America on the big and important North American academic market. Well-founded and legitimate and even tough criticism of the work of publishers of course is permissable. But it is beyond my comprehension to find now this Wikipedia piece on one of my publishers [with the Wiki article now ranked as number 2 or 3 also on "Google"], when searching for "Nova Science Publishers", stating in paragraph 1 of the article on Nova that:
"Nova Publishers is a publishing house based in Hauppauge, New York. Frank Columbus is the current editor-in-chief. They publish both books and journals for an academic audience, but have been criticised for republishing material in their journals that is available in the public domain, and so-called "cross publication," where the same paper is published in more than one sources"
as if that would be the most important fact, to be stated in paragrpah one. User Weber did not remove the sentence, but only moved the sentence downwards to a criticism paragraph, but to no avail, and User "Famousdog" states on the discussion page:
"Regarding Franz Weber's 17th Aug 2009 edit (which I reverted), I would argue that the controversy over cross-publication and re-publication is of primary interest and may even be the one fact that makes this publisher particularly notable and worthy of a WP entry at all... Famousdog (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)"
So, not the works of 518 internationally re-known scholars are worthy of a Nova Science Publishers entry at Wikipedia, but only this controversy (which by the way could be applied also to many other academic publishing houses). I only generally say here that the law of most OECD-democracies protects with good reason the credit and the economic existence of persons against incorrect statements by other persons.
What I say here is that such statements and the context of how they were formulated potentially infringe on sales figures of the company and the author royalties of hundreds of Nova authors around the globe, and that such statements really could become the subject of court proceedings in various countries.
I hope that Wikipedia editors take strong and firm action and fix the article in an objective way, i.e. by stating that Nova Science is an academic book publishing company with decades of record in academic book publishing and by giving also due room to the criticism formulated by colleague Dr. Bade, which should have a legitimate place in the Wikipedia article, but also to the facts stated by me in my SSRN article, transmitted also by various other high-quality academic networks.
Kind regards and thank you for your attention
Dr. Arno Tausch, Adjunct Professor (Universitätsdozent) of Political Science, Innsbruck University, Austria, Lecturer of Political Science at Graz and Vienna University, recent member of the tribunal in Doctoral Commissions at the Universities of Montpellier and at the Sorbonne in France etc.etc.
E mail address: arno.tausch@yahoo.de (copied from user page, unsigned message by IP 85.158.226.129) BusterD ( talk) 12:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear David, I have a kind of dumb question which you must know the answer or can point me to some instruction. I want to create a sandbox that can only be viewed by me because I want to freely place half-baked or far out ideas there, not for public consumption. Is there a way to do it? Much obliged. -- EJohn59 ( talk) 15:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)EJohn
Hello, you removed my prod from Taxi Game stating that I should look for reviews for the games per WP:BEFORE. However, could you please clarify this to me as I am still unsure what I did wrong in this process. I nominated the article for deletion because it is claiming that "Taxi Games" is a video game genre, which I believe it is not as I couldn't find any sources stating it as such outside of forums. I am unsure how reviews of the games would be a reason to not prod this, as they themselves state the games given as examples are in the "Driving" genre. Thank you in advance for clarifying, I want to improve my understanding where I can. -- Taelus ( talk) 21:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I have just made the unhappy discovery of the deletion of this article I had created (I had had earlier questions about which to which I had replied, so had stopped following it closely). I cannot find the old version via google archived cache, is there a way to find it under wikipedia?Contrary to what you or one of the other deleters asserted the article was not "completely without" any "outside" sources, I had found and included I believe at least 2, I am certain at least one, completely independent sources. Please clarify if you would, 1) how to find the old version if possible (so I can use it to build a new one more quickly, which also addresses any questions/concerns) and 2) is there a way to be notified when any change that is a Deletion call is made to one's talk page? This part of wikipedia I'm still not familiar with and thought I had asked wikipedia to send me an email when something this big needs my attention yet I received n no such note, so how to do this info, would be appreciated, it would prevent me being caught blindsided long after a deletion request or similar urgent matter comes up. Thank you-- Harel ( talk) 00:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
1. I have moved the deleted version to your user space, at
User:Harel/Emmett E. Miller for you to work on further. This is temporary; it cannot stay there indefinitely. When you consider you have improved it enough according to the suggestions below, ask me about reinstating it. Things sometimes get removed wrongly or unfairly or prematurely, but one thing is true: we can always get it back.
2. There seems to be a notice of its nomination on your talk page, and that's what you should be looking at frequently. There's also your watchlist. You should take a look every few days. (Many systems do email people when there's a change to their user talk or to particular pages they designate, but Wikipedia had to stop doing this when we got too large.) Nobody had ever designed a system of this type as large & complicated as this, so we're pioneering. And unfortunately our system does work best for the heaviest users. Some of it is inevitable for anything large & complicated, but I'm afraid some it is because they're the ones who design the system.
3. See the discussion at the
AfD for what other people think. The problem is that the material showing the notability must be references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. If you can find a few such sources, there should be no problem reinstating the article. If not, it won't stand. The rules for this are at
WP:RS. The best guide for how to do things here is
the free online version of How Wikipedia Works by Phoebe Ayers, Charles Matthews, and Ben Yates (also available in
print).
DGG (
talk )
02:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
http://www.theunion.com/article/20090823/NEWS/908219971/1066&ParentProfile=1053?FORM=ZZNR2 which is a story in a newspaper based in Grass Valley, CA. In fact in the interview Miller points out that his latest book is entirely online for free(!) so that is clearly no money for him to make. Dr. Miller's work has been powerful in my life and he is not very interested in self-promotion, so despite being one of the fathers of mind/body medicine and having originated the relaxation cassette tape in 1970, he's not as well known, but I hope all of the above links combined are more than enough to address the earlier concerns? Thanks. -- Harel ( talk) 02:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Let me clear up a misunderstanding. Promotional applied to non commercial as well as commercial, and it can apply even thee is no conventional conflict of interest. If, for example, I want to promote the work of someone I admire, that's different from if I intend to write a neutral encyclopedia article about him. The difference is that promotion is telling people how good something is, as contrasted to providing encyclopedic information about it. So telling us how highly Joan Baez or any other celebrity, thinks of him, is not particularly relevant--and such testimonials are hallmarks of a promotional style of writing. If there were to be a published article from a reliable source discussing his work, written by someone who has authority to give opinions on the subject at hand, then it would be relevant--but such sources say things much differently, which is one of the ways we judge them. It is possible Miller is notable--I note that many of his self help books and tapes are in libraries--see [17]. What you now need are reviews of them. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, DGG!
Further to the decision at the above AfD, I'm in the process of implementing the merge that you and I opined (and the closer agreed). Want to help out?
Cheers— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 15:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi David. I hope you're enjoying your weekend. When you get a chance I'd appreciate it if you would have a look at the vegetarian article and the related AfD. It's new and was formerly a redirect to vegetarianism. There is a debate about whether it is a distinct and independently notable subject and I would be interested in your opinion and that of anyone watching your talk page. Thanks. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 17:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I want to delete this page to make a new one, more better.-- Hovik95 ( talk) 14:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
To refactor another editors talk page? [ [18]] I have left a lvl 1 warning on this page for refactoring another users talk page that was clearly not vandalism. I have since been told that because I have a colorful history it is an invalid warning. I would like to have a few admin go and comment one way or another to this as I believe my actions were not only appropriate but very moderated. Thank You. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 09:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Consider changing your !vote? 652 .gov hits.
You really, really need to archive your comments. thanks. Ikip ( talk) 14:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I was going through the speedy delte template removed backlog and stumbled across this article and felt before I took any action I should notify you. This article, originally at Ouanani - Vote Etnik, I believe should be speedy deleted as a violation of A9. Vote Etnik is a recording of the artist Ouanani, whom does not have a wikipedia article, which is black letter case of A9 in effect. Not even factoring in the COI provided by that the creator appears to be the musician himself I think wikipedia rules would prevent me from overruling an already declined speedy delete without discussing it with you first. –– Lid( Talk) 06:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG. is this person notable? Bongo matic 15:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Kenneth Kronberg - I would like your opinions on the matter. It seems that this individual was only notable for a suicide, and then other information (some of it original research) appears to be tossed in based on notability from being a suicide. The WP article is merely an obit and there are much longer for other non-notable people. I found this because someone added the name as a notable graduate of one of my almas under the claim that he had a "philosophy degree" (my school does not offer "majors" for undergrads - there is one set curriculum, so the claim was patently false). This reference bothers me - that book was written by the current president of the Annapolis campus and has no mention of the individual from what I can see. There aren't even any page numbers to check where the claim came from. The book itself deals with the founders of the school's graduate program during the beginning of the 20th-century, so it is very different from the article. This appears to be the only use of him in the book, which deals only with a letter about offering students a chance to come to the Kenneth's group.
The Larouche movement stuff appears to be a coatrack and has very little to do with him directly. Mere mention of him as a member is used to justify tons of sources not about him or having little to do with him. As such, I would like you to look through it and see if it really falls under notability (or should any info about him and Larouche simply be merged into another page). Ottava Rima ( talk) 19:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
As per the discussion at WT:MILHIST, I've started a deletion discussion for the 722nd Ordnance Company (United States). Please come and give your opinion. Cheers Buckshot06( prof) 21:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Oct08,
Nov08,
Dec08,
Jan09,
Mar09,
Apr09 ,
May09 ,
Jun09
Jul09, ...,
Sep09,
Oct09,
Nov09, ,
Dec09,
I wanted to create an article on Orquesta Tabaco y Ron, but I see it was deleted once and I wanted to check with you before re-creating it. I had no difficulty locating some sources providing basic information, such as: [1], and this detailed article written about the band in Latin Beat Magazine: [2]. I know that my notability standards are often lower than others though, and I'm biased here in that I really like this group, so I wanted to make sure that I'm not re-creating a page in vain that is just going to be deleted again. If you had any information on the page that was deleted (and if there's any salvageable material, if you could userify it) I would be very grateful, or if you have any information on why the page should not presently be re-created, I would like to know that too. Thanks! Cazort ( talk) 20:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
DGG, you always seem to be fair in these types of discussions and have a good grasp on Wikipedia policies. With these nominations, linked to above, I am more concerned about the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber article (one I and Rocksey plan to fix up). The article/topic is clearly notable, but I feel that this could get overlooked due its current messy state and the fact that it is lumped into a debate with other messy soap opera couple articles, most of which should be deleted. Should I trust in the system in this case, or what? Flyer22 ( talk) 17:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I've read your comments and have disregarded them. DJ 17:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this user page on your watchlist? If it's not, could I recommend it? As User:Bittergrey seems to be in perpetual content disputes, the most recent interchanges there are presumably mirrored across half a dozen related pages, including WP:SEX. I'd be happier if someone else were thinking about this problem before it gets any bigger. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I bow to your greater experience, but have you been following the great redirect kerfuffle. That dab page redirects to two topics that we don't have articles on.... However, if your opinion is it's OK to create two entry dab pages to disambiguate between non existent entries, then as I say, I bow to your greater experience.-- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 20:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up the Getting Things Done article. I have removed the NPOV tag, but would appreciate your comments in the discussion area if you see other opportunities for improvement. The page is subject to spam from software vendors claiming to be inspired by the methodology, but I think the core article describing the methodology is fairly NPOV. Open to suggestions. Cyberscribe ( talk) 00:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The council race is of some note and Brad Lander is a citywide known advocate. I clarified that on the page, let me know what else I can do to make the article stick. Thanks. Michaelfs ( talk) 02:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
╟─ Treasury Tag► ballotbox─╢ 09:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
At [4] you said communist genocide is "a well-known concept". I tried to check a few sources used in the article, but found nothing to confirm this (please see my expanded comments on the AfD page). All this material is surely present in the individual genocide articles, so why do we need this synthesis article? Also, do you think this article really representes WP:NPOV? Just take look at the first sentence ("Communist genocide refers to the genocide carried out by communist regimes across the world. From the very beginning, communism forged a new order based on genocide") - no attribution, and this polemic opinion of a journalist is basically stated as the truth. Offliner ( talk) 10:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I would appreciate your comments on this stub. If you think she passes WP:PROF, I will close the discussion with a keep. Bearian ( talk) 16:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello - I thought I was doing the speedy delete thing properly. However, it appears I was mistaken and need some guidance. Can you help me understand how this article is notable so I may not make the same mistake again? Regards - Blind Eagle talk~ contribs 18:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
" and this is not an applicable reason even at AfD. We have a very firm consensus that if something is notable and worthy of an encyclopedia article at any time, it always will be, and whether or not the organization still exists is therefore irrelevant.
Hi DGG
Don't know if you're a fair use expert, but the most recent photograph of John Hughes (director) I could find was at Macquarie University. Any idea if there's a fair use rationale for including this in the encyclopedia?
Thanks, Bongo matic 02:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Did you notice my question above? You haven't answered it yet. I think your argumentation at the AfD was wrong, so it would be nice if you did. Offliner ( talk) 10:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
You have sharp eyes! Its true, I based that article off of 2 sources. Most of it was just shifting sentences around and changing a few words. Don't worry, I will try to re-hash some it and probably find some more references and information. Thanks, Danski14 (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought you might be interested in this -- another plan to archive web content -- this one run by librarians.
I've wondered about the legality of these plans, whether they lapse from a strict compliance with copyright.
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 05:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
You wrote "AfD" when you meant "RfA" on WP:ANI. I tried to just fix it, but another editor reverted me and even warned me about my "inappropriate" edit. As such, I came here to waste more of my time & yours to tell you you'll have to fix it yourself. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 05:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in reserving the Public housing estates in Hong Kong. Ricky@36 ( talk) 04:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Mr.TrustWorthy---- Got Something to Tell Me? 04:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
User Ratel is trying to archive an active discussion in Aktion T4. This User Ratel is clearly involved in the discussion.
comment made by 190.25.101.144 ( talk) 05:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Why did you suggest to merge to Bryan Perro? Both the book series and the author seem notable enough to me from the French-language media coverage for separate articles. Fences& Windows 15:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated Transitioning Applications to Ontologies, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transitioning Applications to Ontologies and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 15:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
If you think my DB tagging of new articles that do not seem (to me) comply with guidelines is not helpful all you have to do is politely ask me to stop. I'm trying to be helpful but I'm happy to stop if I am not successful in this regard. Threatening to "enforce" a Twinkle removal is a bit excessive, I'm not sure why you're telling me that since I already know it can be disabled or I can be blocked. I'll just stop the tagging altogether. Cheers, <>Multi-Xfer<> ( talk) 00:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of My Tomato Pie. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle ( talk) 08:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is encyclopedic, but I am willing to try it out. Bearian ( talk) 13:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Mmwilgus ( talk) 15:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Please go to [5] and vote again. Thank you. LargoLarry ( talk) 14:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Ironically, I spent much of today (when I was supposed to be working) looking at that page. I also looked at the citation project page, but it doesn't look very active. I was reading it in the context of canonical reference - I'll look again for bibliography info. Thanks-- SPhilbrick T 00:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
saw your post and I agree. User marlon was warned about edit warring but continues. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_John_Fisher_School&action=history He says to discuss but he would rather revert every other editor & call it vandalism than discus anything. thank you User:Husounde —Preceding undated comment added 13:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
also I just warned him for edit warring and he called it vandalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Marlon232&diff=307742704&oldid=307741003 Husounde ( talk) 13:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
He's reverted 11 times this summer if that helps. I think more before that. Husounde ( talk) 14:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear DGG! Sorry for taking you time, but I would like to ask you about this matter. In my opinion, article about PlanetWM.com service can be usefull to some of readers, because it's one of leading digital currency exchangers. Many similiar services have articles about them here, so I think this one can be usefull too. Tonxxx ( talk) 00:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Thanks, Anthony
Thanks a lot, I understand your point of view Will write another article later then
Please forgive me, I'm very inexperienced with CSD. I'm actually working on a coaching program with Juliancolton, and the one area that I told him I needed a lot of help with (and am currently working on) is CSD. I'm in the process of trying to gain more knowledge in speedy deletion. Thank you very much for the note, and please let me know in the future if I mess up again (although I hope it doesn't happen!). iMatthew [[User_talk:IMatthew
Mr.TrustWorthy---- Got Something to Tell Me? 02:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Your vote is killing me right now. I've answered you and I really think you made too hasty a call on this. Your two main objections (or at least what I think are your main objections) were the deletion of Proc Natl Acad Sci U S a and the AfDing of Vacuum genesis. I'm pretty sure I've addressed those sufficiently. The former serves no purpose whatsoever, as the search engine isn't capital sensitive (try both "go" and "search"), and the later was not some kind of reckless AfDing like you suggested it was. I consulted with the Astronomy project first to confirm that my concerns had a certain basis, and one of the resident editor there thought that it was non-notable too and should be sent to AfD. Only after that did I send it to AfD.
If there's anything else I would need to justify or explain to convince you to move from oppose to neutral/support, please let me know. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Major book related Wikipedia hoax: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_20#The_Alphascript-Amazon-Wikipedia_book_hoax. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Just as a heads up you are being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_for_review_of_admin.27s_actions.3F (obviously I did NOT start that thread) and thought you should be aware. Sincerley, -- A Nobody My talk 05:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG. I sent this for AfD. This is just a fictional island named in some certain video games. I played on of these games and I didn't know the name of the island. Nothing important in google as well. You may want to write your opinion there. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 20:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I will not use delete templates until I become more familiar with them. -- An ha mi rak 12:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
User:Johnnypd on Communist genocide. PD as in law? Johnny Law come to make things right? User talk:Johnnypd Special:Contributions/Johnnypd
18:40;
19:03;
19:20;
19:39;
19:55;
20:03;
20:09;
20:24.
20:39new
Anarchangel (
talk)
01:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I do not claim any quality for the content of Johnnypd's edits. This is an appeal for the bright line to be invoked, only.
As for the article itself, it is currently a release valve for anti-Communist sentiment; garbage in, garbage out. There is no GA content in it atm; the only way there can be is if the genocide tag is dropped (I am not aware of intent to eliminate ethnic groups having been proved for any of the incidents), and the grey area between 'happened in a communist country' and 'policy of a Communist state' is firmly delineated. I am just biding my time until the heat is off, and then I think one day it can be a useful way to show the overreaction and zealousness of communism that lead to few mass killings, the inexplicable bloodbath by purported communists (Cambodia) and a few mass negligent homicides (Ukraine and China). Or perhaps I am wrong, and WP cannot sustain such an article against incessant waves of PoV editors. Anarchangel ( talk) 01:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
As some editors are going on and on about this paragraph that a local newspaper reported some students as saying there was aggression and verbal abuse etc directed at some pupils, and you said you read the article, could you say how you got to read it and if possible put a transcript on the jfs talk page. Thanks Sayerslle ( talk) 16:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
It's perverted by pro-Celente partisans (GwenGale, Laura289, now Celente himself apparently -- see Celente discussion page) who continually, systematically use it for advertising, who consistently violate WP's rules (reliable sources, no COI, no advertising, verifiability, etc etc). I sent you an email. I do not know what to do; I'm a neophyte editor, hard working, wanting to help, but the battling with Celente partisans for some kind of neutrality is wearying. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 16:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
Sorry to have wasted your time (validly) removing the speedy template from Symphony CMS. The article was deleted in January so I didn't remember the contents. The fact remains that, notwithstanding the expansion, notability not demonstrated in the article nor have I been able to establish it myself (I did a good faith search). So I have renominated it ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symphony CMS (2nd nomination)). If you disagree (or agree, for that matter), please opine.
Regards, Bongo matic 17:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
You made a comment at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_August_12#Alan_Roger_Currie that "two local articles for someone claimed to be of nationwide significance is not significant coverage". Would you still so consider four articles from two widely separated states?
On a different approach, the article author has completely rewritten the article as User talk:Chicago Smooth/New Alan Roger Currie article. Would you consider if this different version would meet our Notability standards? Thanks. -- GRuban ( talk)
Thanks .... for the first part of that, then. Appreciated. -- GRuban ( talk) 18:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I was sure that this existed, but as you can see, it doesn't. I had understood the particular warnings on the various noticeboards (AN, ANI, WQA, SPA, etc.) that you should notify an editor if you are reporting their conduct there to be manifestations of a deeper policy, or at least community norm, of notification. Viz. that as a matter of wikiquette if nothing else, if you are trying to get someone into hot water, you should notify that person so that they have basic due process (notice and opportunity to be heard). Thus, whether you are asking for sanctions against someone at ANI or on an admin's talk page, or anywhere else, you should let that person know.
I therefore have three questions. (1) Is my understanding correct, in your view, that there is a broad community norm of notification? (2) Is this reflected in any existing policy? (3) If the answer to 1 is yes and to 2 is no, how do I go about proposing such a policy? Do I just create WP:NOTIFY and slap the "proposed" tag on it?- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 14:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I was just checking from your edit summary on this dab if you were planning to create articles on these. At the moment, it's not a valid dab, so I thought I'd check with you what your intentions were first before taking it to AfD. Thanks, Boleyn ( talk) 12:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Wuh Wuz Dat 01:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#single_mention_in_a_foreign_language_tech_blog_to_show_notability:_reliable.3F - your objectivity, regardless of your decision, is requested. Theserialcomma ( talk) 09:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see User talk:NIHKZ. In the history, see the difference between my edit and your edit. Then have a look at the version before my edit, and you'll understand your mistake. Debresser ( talk) 11:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
You have either edited Symphony CMS or you participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symphony CMS. Please consider contributing your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symphony CMS (2nd nomination). Regards, Bongo matic</
Why do you delete this with no notification?
sub> 03:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi! You would be glad to know that a new wikipedia ad has been created by
Srinivas to encourage users to join
Chronicles of Narnia Task Force. You can display that ad on your user/talk page too using the following code: {{
Wikipedia ads|ad=190}}
-- Alan16 ( talk) 10:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Your opinion would be appreciated here. Thanks, Majorly talk 15:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The August 2009 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Alan16 ( talk) 17:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Good Afternoon. I nominated this article for deletion as a group that does not show significance. You denied the speedy because it was a pioneering troop. The article itself says that the Troop is often confused with the first BSA troop and admits they really are not the very first troop; they merely share the same number. So it's not the pioneering troop and I think it still qualifies for speedy. Thanks.-- TParis00ap ( talk) 20:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Re: [7] - I was never happy with that section, recently a chunk was deleted (see article's talk). While I am tempted to rv the anon, I do wonder if the section is BLP-compliant? Perhaps you could share your thoughts on the article's talk? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Given that the main subject itself is only barely notable "Mega64 is a DVD-exclusive series that can be only purchased on their website.", do you think there's a requirement to have four articles about it? Black Kite 17:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, DGG. First, let me assure you that I have not been involved in any way with editing/ tagging or discussing this article with any other editor. I just came across it today while doing a Google search for "Nostalgic Depression" (a wholly-unrelated subject). I can't quite pin down exactly why, but I feel this article is unsalvageable and should be deleted. I thought you might be a good resource to consult, as you have access to collegiate library resources. Some obvious problems I can say about the article are:
While these things could certainly be improved through editing, I just am not sure if the article is worth the effort, because it:
I also note from the article history that it was penned by a single-purpose account, whom several other editors have suggested is likely the fringe theorist who wrote part (one chapter) of one of the books listed in the references section, which is extensively referred-to in the article. As such, the article may serve as a self-promotional piece. Do you agree? Any suggestion on how to proceed? Thanks for your time. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
For one, the Creatures page has no more value as an article than Headcrab, and Father Gregori is a minour character and can be summed up in a single sentence, which is probably already done in the Half-Life 2 article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
There are a couple of articles on training camps and a couple of article on safe houses like this one [15] at AfD. What do you think? Is there a way to include them or combine them? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 06:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I think there might, potentially, be some BLP issues involved in the discussion regarding calling a living person an "amateur" at Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen#About the definition of 'amateur', but am far from being really knowledgable about that subject. I was wondering if you had any opinions. Thank you for your attention. John Carter ( talk) 18:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi David hope you are fine. Don't know if you will get to it before it is deleted but I though you could provide a word or two on this deletion. List of MIR (Chile) members assassinated by the Pinochet regime. Regards, Moshe-paz ( talk) 20:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
`
Hi David. I was wondering what your thought about articles like Violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict 2000. Do you think we should have articles listing every civilian that ever died in a conflict, especially when it is unreferenced and contianing a lot of unbalanced missing information according to some people. Does wikipedia really need to list every civilian who ever died? To me it seems problematic and likely to continue to be a target for conflict... As you have much experience with AFDs I wanted to know your thoughts before I take them to AFD. Himalayan 13:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
This redirect was wrong. Saint Petersburg State University used to be known as Leningrad State University named after Zhdanov. Leningrad State University named after Pushkin is another university (fairly non-notable and rarely heard of), which is known by this name right now (and Leningrad in its name refers to Leningrad Oblast). Colchicum ( talk) 19:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I see you removed this speedy deletion tag I placed on the article of Juan M Clouzet on August 14. I haven't been around, but when I checked today, I was kind of surprised. How is this article notable and where are any sources? (I did a quick check and nothing popped up on google) BrianY ( talk) 20:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
You recently tagged Michael Barrett for speedy deletion. I've now tweaked the sentences some and have added new material to try to avoid the suggestion of copyright violation. When you have a chance, please take a look. If you have additional suggestions, please reply either here or on the article talk page. Thanks.-- John Foxe ( talk) 20:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I take it that none of my pointers about why my page should stay were accepted, or even discussed, as it was deleted without any further comment. If it is indeed Wiki's policy to rule by "dictatorship" and to deliberately ignore all comments against it, then Wiki can, quite frankly, go hang itself. I did expect a bit more from this place than the usual "I don't like what you like and don't agree with you, so all your comments and arguments are obviously irrelevant", but being merely an online source (one still not accepted in university essays, for instance), I should have known better. It's the same petty policies and bickering as can be found everywhere else, and people are not really likely to be unbiased just because they suddenly get gifted with some online influence - on the contrary. -- Ethuil o Lorien ( talk) 13:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
You know, this is actually the first useful comment I've gotten in this whole debate - thank you for that. A well-written, thought-through reply is infinitely easier to read than the vague, non-descript replies I've been getting so far - and easier to accept, as a whole. As for what to do with the article; we'll have to see - I don't have time to re-do anything at the moment, and will need some time to figure out where to go from here.
(On a whole other matter, your username seems familiar to me. Do you frequent other sites as well?) -- Ethuil o Lorien ( talk) 06:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
David -
I wanted to thank you for taking the time to respond to my concerns and also to educate me. I have books on working on wikipedia and I have been doing articles - but MAN there is a lot to digest.
I am going to rewrite the article per your comments tomorrow - and I believe we can make good on all your requirements. Do have a couple of questions:
1. The Turek Clinic is obviously led by Dr. Turek. If he has received recent awards, or published recent research, while running the clinic, does that count as the clinic doing it since it was done under their aegis?
2. When a page becomes a company template - does that change the standard of verification required?
3. In many cases, I am writing articles with graphics where I have received authorization from the owner to use on rwikipedia and put into the Commons. What documentation do you require to prove that I have the right to use the photos? Alternately, should I have the photo owner post the photos and put them under commmons licensing?
I am really looking forward to being an active contributor on Wikipedia on a variety of subjects, and I greatly appreciate your guidance as I get up to speed.
Please respond back User_talk:Arthurofsun or talk:The_Turek_Clinic —Preceding undated comment added 01:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC).
Arthur Coleman' ( talk ) 06:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
-- Ethuil o Lorien ( talk) 13:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG, I saw this comment of yours and at first was a bit taken aback, but then quickly realized it was likely you had simply confused me (or rather my username) with someone else (please see my reply here for the full explanation). If that is the case, obviously it would be good if you could clarify the matter over at ANI. And if you were referring to me, well then I guess I'd want to hear more about it! I'm pretty sure though that this is just a misunderstanding, in which case no worries. I'm going offline now (was supposed to be awhile ago) but I'll check back for any reply tomorrow. Best, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a thread on the talk page of the above named article regarding whether that council is still active at Wikipedia talk:Advisory Council on Project Development#Still viable?. As one of the listed members, your input would very likely be useful. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 16:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
DGG, please consider revisiting and commenting on the remaining issues. Tony (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Nova Science Publishers detractors are back again in what I perceive as an unfair anonymity which the system permits, to detract again the publisher in a general way, beyond permissable criticism, which might be raised against an academic publishing company (in the particular context on their journals, as stated in the article by colleague Dr. Bade from Chicago University Library, which should have a continued place in future Wikipedia articles on the company, as the "flagship of criticism"). To be honest, the recent and renewed changes to the article, which you, Mr. Goodman, improved months ago to meet Wikipedia standards of objectivity, could be - when published in the press - the subject of lengthy court-room proceedings initiated by the authors and the publishers against some of these anonymous Nova critics, and if Wikipedia takes no action, against Wikipedia itself. As an author who published with such publishing houses as Palgrave-Macmillan, Dutch University Press, Rozenberg (Amsterdam), Saint Martin's Press New York and Nova Science Publishers in English, and Braumueller, Wilhelm Fink and LIT-Verklag in German, and whose works were well received in such journals with a very high impact factor as the Journal of Common Market Studies, Politics Studies, etc. and who himself has written articles in journals around the world (just look at the EINIRAS network or Cambridge Scientifc Abstracts) I am really startled, as one of many Nova authors, by all this destructive rage and negative energy, which two of these anonymous authors develop on the pages of Wikipedia against this particular publisher.
As I could show on the peer-reviewed pages of the Social Science Research Network in New York, re-published at Chicago Business School, the European Corporate Governance Center in London, Korea University and Stanford Law School at:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1162241
Nova has indeed an average record as an academic book publishing company, and by July 2008, 518 world class scholars contained in the "Cambridge Cientific Abstracts" all published books and or articles with the company. Social science authors know that the most powerful companies are indeed such publishers as Cambridge UP, Cornell UP, Oxford UP etc. and authors also know that there are smaller book publishing companies, such as Amsterdam University Press (EU); Ashgate (EU); Campus (Frankfurt/Ann Arbor) (EU); IOS Press (EU); Nova Science Publishers (US); Springer-Verlag (US); and Transaction Publishers (US), which often serve as an outlet especially for authors from outside North America on the big and important North American academic market. Well-founded and legitimate and even tough criticism of the work of publishers of course is permissable. But it is beyond my comprehension to find now this Wikipedia piece on one of my publishers [with the Wiki article now ranked as number 2 or 3 also on "Google"], when searching for "Nova Science Publishers", stating in paragraph 1 of the article on Nova that:
"Nova Publishers is a publishing house based in Hauppauge, New York. Frank Columbus is the current editor-in-chief. They publish both books and journals for an academic audience, but have been criticised for republishing material in their journals that is available in the public domain, and so-called "cross publication," where the same paper is published in more than one sources"
as if that would be the most important fact, to be stated in paragrpah one. User Weber did not remove the sentence, but only moved the sentence downwards to a criticism paragraph, but to no avail, and User "Famousdog" states on the discussion page:
"Regarding Franz Weber's 17th Aug 2009 edit (which I reverted), I would argue that the controversy over cross-publication and re-publication is of primary interest and may even be the one fact that makes this publisher particularly notable and worthy of a WP entry at all... Famousdog (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)"
So, not the works of 518 internationally re-known scholars are worthy of a Nova Science Publishers entry at Wikipedia, but only this controversy (which by the way could be applied also to many other academic publishing houses). I only generally say here that the law of most OECD-democracies protects with good reason the credit and the economic existence of persons against incorrect statements by other persons.
What I say here is that such statements and the context of how they were formulated potentially infringe on sales figures of the company and the author royalties of hundreds of Nova authors around the globe, and that such statements really could become the subject of court proceedings in various countries.
I hope that Wikipedia editors take strong and firm action and fix the article in an objective way, i.e. by stating that Nova Science is an academic book publishing company with decades of record in academic book publishing and by giving also due room to the criticism formulated by colleague Dr. Bade, which should have a legitimate place in the Wikipedia article, but also to the facts stated by me in my SSRN article, transmitted also by various other high-quality academic networks.
Kind regards and thank you for your attention
Dr. Arno Tausch, Adjunct Professor (Universitätsdozent) of Political Science, Innsbruck University, Austria, Lecturer of Political Science at Graz and Vienna University, recent member of the tribunal in Doctoral Commissions at the Universities of Montpellier and at the Sorbonne in France etc.etc.
E mail address: arno.tausch@yahoo.de (copied from user page, unsigned message by IP 85.158.226.129) BusterD ( talk) 12:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear David, I have a kind of dumb question which you must know the answer or can point me to some instruction. I want to create a sandbox that can only be viewed by me because I want to freely place half-baked or far out ideas there, not for public consumption. Is there a way to do it? Much obliged. -- EJohn59 ( talk) 15:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)EJohn
Hello, you removed my prod from Taxi Game stating that I should look for reviews for the games per WP:BEFORE. However, could you please clarify this to me as I am still unsure what I did wrong in this process. I nominated the article for deletion because it is claiming that "Taxi Games" is a video game genre, which I believe it is not as I couldn't find any sources stating it as such outside of forums. I am unsure how reviews of the games would be a reason to not prod this, as they themselves state the games given as examples are in the "Driving" genre. Thank you in advance for clarifying, I want to improve my understanding where I can. -- Taelus ( talk) 21:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I have just made the unhappy discovery of the deletion of this article I had created (I had had earlier questions about which to which I had replied, so had stopped following it closely). I cannot find the old version via google archived cache, is there a way to find it under wikipedia?Contrary to what you or one of the other deleters asserted the article was not "completely without" any "outside" sources, I had found and included I believe at least 2, I am certain at least one, completely independent sources. Please clarify if you would, 1) how to find the old version if possible (so I can use it to build a new one more quickly, which also addresses any questions/concerns) and 2) is there a way to be notified when any change that is a Deletion call is made to one's talk page? This part of wikipedia I'm still not familiar with and thought I had asked wikipedia to send me an email when something this big needs my attention yet I received n no such note, so how to do this info, would be appreciated, it would prevent me being caught blindsided long after a deletion request or similar urgent matter comes up. Thank you-- Harel ( talk) 00:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
1. I have moved the deleted version to your user space, at
User:Harel/Emmett E. Miller for you to work on further. This is temporary; it cannot stay there indefinitely. When you consider you have improved it enough according to the suggestions below, ask me about reinstating it. Things sometimes get removed wrongly or unfairly or prematurely, but one thing is true: we can always get it back.
2. There seems to be a notice of its nomination on your talk page, and that's what you should be looking at frequently. There's also your watchlist. You should take a look every few days. (Many systems do email people when there's a change to their user talk or to particular pages they designate, but Wikipedia had to stop doing this when we got too large.) Nobody had ever designed a system of this type as large & complicated as this, so we're pioneering. And unfortunately our system does work best for the heaviest users. Some of it is inevitable for anything large & complicated, but I'm afraid some it is because they're the ones who design the system.
3. See the discussion at the
AfD for what other people think. The problem is that the material showing the notability must be references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. If you can find a few such sources, there should be no problem reinstating the article. If not, it won't stand. The rules for this are at
WP:RS. The best guide for how to do things here is
the free online version of How Wikipedia Works by Phoebe Ayers, Charles Matthews, and Ben Yates (also available in
print).
DGG (
talk )
02:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
http://www.theunion.com/article/20090823/NEWS/908219971/1066&ParentProfile=1053?FORM=ZZNR2 which is a story in a newspaper based in Grass Valley, CA. In fact in the interview Miller points out that his latest book is entirely online for free(!) so that is clearly no money for him to make. Dr. Miller's work has been powerful in my life and he is not very interested in self-promotion, so despite being one of the fathers of mind/body medicine and having originated the relaxation cassette tape in 1970, he's not as well known, but I hope all of the above links combined are more than enough to address the earlier concerns? Thanks. -- Harel ( talk) 02:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Let me clear up a misunderstanding. Promotional applied to non commercial as well as commercial, and it can apply even thee is no conventional conflict of interest. If, for example, I want to promote the work of someone I admire, that's different from if I intend to write a neutral encyclopedia article about him. The difference is that promotion is telling people how good something is, as contrasted to providing encyclopedic information about it. So telling us how highly Joan Baez or any other celebrity, thinks of him, is not particularly relevant--and such testimonials are hallmarks of a promotional style of writing. If there were to be a published article from a reliable source discussing his work, written by someone who has authority to give opinions on the subject at hand, then it would be relevant--but such sources say things much differently, which is one of the ways we judge them. It is possible Miller is notable--I note that many of his self help books and tapes are in libraries--see [17]. What you now need are reviews of them. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, DGG!
Further to the decision at the above AfD, I'm in the process of implementing the merge that you and I opined (and the closer agreed). Want to help out?
Cheers— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 15:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi David. I hope you're enjoying your weekend. When you get a chance I'd appreciate it if you would have a look at the vegetarian article and the related AfD. It's new and was formerly a redirect to vegetarianism. There is a debate about whether it is a distinct and independently notable subject and I would be interested in your opinion and that of anyone watching your talk page. Thanks. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 17:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I want to delete this page to make a new one, more better.-- Hovik95 ( talk) 14:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
To refactor another editors talk page? [ [18]] I have left a lvl 1 warning on this page for refactoring another users talk page that was clearly not vandalism. I have since been told that because I have a colorful history it is an invalid warning. I would like to have a few admin go and comment one way or another to this as I believe my actions were not only appropriate but very moderated. Thank You. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 09:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Consider changing your !vote? 652 .gov hits.
You really, really need to archive your comments. thanks. Ikip ( talk) 14:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I was going through the speedy delte template removed backlog and stumbled across this article and felt before I took any action I should notify you. This article, originally at Ouanani - Vote Etnik, I believe should be speedy deleted as a violation of A9. Vote Etnik is a recording of the artist Ouanani, whom does not have a wikipedia article, which is black letter case of A9 in effect. Not even factoring in the COI provided by that the creator appears to be the musician himself I think wikipedia rules would prevent me from overruling an already declined speedy delete without discussing it with you first. –– Lid( Talk) 06:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG. is this person notable? Bongo matic 15:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Kenneth Kronberg - I would like your opinions on the matter. It seems that this individual was only notable for a suicide, and then other information (some of it original research) appears to be tossed in based on notability from being a suicide. The WP article is merely an obit and there are much longer for other non-notable people. I found this because someone added the name as a notable graduate of one of my almas under the claim that he had a "philosophy degree" (my school does not offer "majors" for undergrads - there is one set curriculum, so the claim was patently false). This reference bothers me - that book was written by the current president of the Annapolis campus and has no mention of the individual from what I can see. There aren't even any page numbers to check where the claim came from. The book itself deals with the founders of the school's graduate program during the beginning of the 20th-century, so it is very different from the article. This appears to be the only use of him in the book, which deals only with a letter about offering students a chance to come to the Kenneth's group.
The Larouche movement stuff appears to be a coatrack and has very little to do with him directly. Mere mention of him as a member is used to justify tons of sources not about him or having little to do with him. As such, I would like you to look through it and see if it really falls under notability (or should any info about him and Larouche simply be merged into another page). Ottava Rima ( talk) 19:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
As per the discussion at WT:MILHIST, I've started a deletion discussion for the 722nd Ordnance Company (United States). Please come and give your opinion. Cheers Buckshot06( prof) 21:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)