ARCHIVES
DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG
Topical Archives:
Deletion & AfD,
Speedy & prod,
NPP & AfC,
COI & paid editors,
BLP,
Bilateral relations
Notability,
Universities & academic people,
Schools,
Academic journals,
Books & other publications
Sourcing,
Fiction,
In Popular Culture
Educational Program
Bias, intolerance, and prejudice
General Archives:
2006:
Sept-Dec
2007:
Jan-Feb ,
Mar-Apt ,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2008:
J,
F,
M,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2009:
J,
F,
M,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2010:
J,
F,
M,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2011:
J,
F,
M,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2012:
J,
F,
M,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2013:
J,
F,
M,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2014:
J,
F,
M,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2015:
J,
F,
M,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2016:
J,
F,
M,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2017:
J,
F,
M,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2018:
J,
F,
M ,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2019:
J,
F,
M,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2020:
J,
F,
M,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2021:
J,
F,
M,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2022:
J,
F,
M,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2023:
J,
F,
M,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O
DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG
I'm not sure how they found me, but they asked about your deletion of Total Phase. See my reply. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 19:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear DGG,
My name is Nadya, I have spoke earlier with Gogo Dogo regarding the Total Phase article that has been deleted some time ago and I was trying to get more information on the case and see what could be done in order to recreate the article. I am not very experienced with Wikipedia and frankly this is the first time dealing with an issue of this kind.
I wanted to reach out to you and find out if there is a chance of recreating the Total Phase page on Wikipedia and what should be done from my side to make it happen?
As far as understood from Gogo Dogo, the community suspected that the page contained information that might have looked/felt like advertisement which played the main role in having the page deleted. I will do my best to create a page that will contain objective information about the company and by no means sound like advertisement of any kind.
Could I ask you to advise me on the best solution in this situation?
Thank you, I greatly appreciate your help with the case!
Best,
Nadya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudkan ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd help if I could, but I do not see how this can possibly make an encyclopedia article. There are two problems. First, there is no indication that the company or its products are notable, in the sense we use the word. A Wikipedia article needs to show notability with 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. All you have now is press releases. The best sources are independent product reviews published in well-known publications. If you have such sources, it may be possible to rewrite the article; otherwise, it will not. (If it wins a major national award, they may be sources--but not just being a finalist.)
Second, a Wikipedia article needs to be written like an encyclopedia article, not a press release--it has to me mor ethan a product listing. A detailed list of products is an advertisement. . DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I added Cooksonia to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 30, but cannot work out how to get the header above my comment. Anyway, if Cooksonia could be deleted, and Cooksonia (plant) be moved back Cooksonia again, that would be much appreciated. JMK ( talk) 20:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC) zit seems OK now. I'll let the AfD decide what to do with it. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that you moved List of Taiwanese administrative divisions to List of Republic of China administrative divisions yesterday. I had declined the speedy deletion as a potentially controversial move, and I'm a little disappointed that you overruled my opinion. Over the past year, the article has been moved back and forth several times (including moves by the nominator), so it's pretty clear that there's disagreement about its title. I had hoped to see the subject discussed at WP:RM so that the community could reach consensus about the title, but I guess it's a moot point now. - Eureka Lott 23:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. As we are using the source only to voice the POV he expresses, and attribute it as such, I think your qualified "RS" is sufficient. I saw your comment on the article talk, and your just posted comment on the RSN. You said you posted 2 places (other than RSN), what is the other place? Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is " Gun Control". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 15:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
"Raising funds for notable organizations is not the same thing as notability ." And yet, raising funds for non-notable organizations is notable, as evidenced by Kickstarter and others. GrowLab is essentially a venture capital firm, an "accelerator" for small or proposed businesses. I added the entry for reference sake, since it was referred to by other pages: one of its founders is notable and has a page, a crowdfunding service that partnered with it is notable and has a page, and it's referenced in the page for the Economy of Vancouver. With so many references to the organization, should there not be an entry that explains what the organization is?
BTW, since I'd contested the speedy deletion, should there have been a discusson on AfD? Morfusmax ( talk) 05:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi again, we had previously discussed other copies of this page on Wikipedia. The result of the relevant discussion about this page was Delete, and there now remains at least one copy of this page on another user's sandbox. Note, this second user is currently suspected of being a sock of the first user. Can we safely delete the "CeceliaXIV" version of this page? Also, I suspect that the Civilization Jihad will come up again for discussion at DRV, like it has recently. Thanks in advance. Guy1890 ( talk) 19:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your Keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Bush (businessman). This has been a painfully drawn out process and has seen some very odd responses that suggest that editors do little research before casting a "vote". The original call for deletion came within minutes of a confrontation I had with the editor who made the call and at best appeared to be vexatious. For that reason I was very surprised by the calls for Delete from so many. Where does this article go wrong or am I mistaken in finding the subject obviously notable in the Australan business and sporting worlds? Castlemate ( talk) 20:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
What merge? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Since this is your area of expertise (one of them) I thought I'd ask for your input here: [1] Thanks! Jimsteele9999 ( talk) 23:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear DGG: Can you please explain your thinking regarding the above captioned subject:
Understanding your thinking will be important as to whether the modifications you have made will endure.
Kind regards Jono2013 ( talk) 16:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
It's a bit like having a government made up of time share salesmen, to my mind. Oliver is starting to remind me of a character in an as yet unfinished set of stories of mine - oddly enough called Oliver - who talks in enthusiastically motivational 'that's what we're here for, isn't it, team?' style. I'm sure the WP one isn't a green rabbit fluffy toy, though..... Peridon ( talk) 21:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I've got a question for you: I'm participating in an AfD where the other editor is a little overly generous with their typing, to where their arguments take up multiple, multiple paragraphs. ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Vishwanath (author)) Is it, in these cases, permissable to apply a collapse shell to the comments as long as we note in the AfD that the comments were collapsed and that they were further arguments? I'm worried about the AfD looking so long that it deters other editors from contributing. Since I'm involved, as is the other person I asked about this, I thought I'd get the opinion from an uninvolved editor and if it's something that can or should be done, ask if you could do it. I don't want to do it and then have someone say that I'm trying to deliberately hide arguments to sway things to my side. I'm just thinking more about brevity's sake and not scaring off other editors. I'm kind of thinking that it wouldn't really be something doable, but I thought I'd ask just in case. The collapse shell template has become my new best friend, so I'm trying to figure out when and where it's acceptable to use them when it comes to other users. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Please participate in the discussion of Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#Inclusion of Pulitzer Prize for History. Solomon7968 ( talk) 17:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Just came across the Alan Curtis (criminologist) article, which it looks likes you have had some dealing with in the past. I AFDed it. I may do so as well for the Eisenhower Foundation article after I do some WP:BEFORE Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I have a questions about the wp:advert and wp:peacock flags that you recently added to the Sharon A. Hill article. It is a new article that has a pending DYK so I want to help correct the language if I can. You did not leave a note on the Talk page about what part of the text you do not think is neutral enough. Can you point me in the right direction? Allecher ( talk) 13:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I almost marked it for deletion as G11. 'DGG (at NYPL) ( talk) 22:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
|
Hi DGG.
I am the main author of the article “Falsification of history in Azerbaijan” in Russian Wikipedia. The article has many times been reviewed by a special group of mediators which were appointed by the decision of the Arbitrage committee. The mediators confirmed that this article had the right to exist and also that its title was correct. The article was recently translated into English Wikipedia, however administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise deleted it giving the following reason for his deletion: WP:CSD#G10: attack page ( talk). On page I collected all the neutral sources based on which the article was written. As you are dealing with history yourself, I need your advice – what to do with the sources which explicitly say that there is a state program of falsification of history in Azerbaijan? In what article can they be used and is it permissible to have a separate article describing this phenomenon? Divot ( talk) 21:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey DGG; Kaldari has finished scripting a set of potential replacements available to test and give feedback on. Please go to this thread for more detail on how to enable them. Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 15:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
You mentioned this in a few CFDs. Mind swinging by and giving your thoughts here, on a possible band-aid while awaiting wiki-data? Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection#A_working_category_intersection_today? -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 19:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
In the context established by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susumu Shibata, may I ask you to to take a look at two related articles. I wonder how to measure consensus opinion about Tsukasa Kawada and List of Ambassadors from Japan to Algeria? -- Ansei ( talk) 17:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello DGG,
Deleting this article was hasty and rather hostile - Instead of opening a dialogue to discuss changes, you deleted the additions of many different people who are interested in this person. This is a notable designer, and a simple google search can present with enough data on this. It would have been more helpful to discuss these concerns and suggest the adjustments and amendments so that the page could be developed instead of this approach. This article was part of developing the Icelandic wiki project and has had various people contribute to it.
Please reinstate the article so the factual data that you claim is promotional does not have to be resourced, and the page does not have to be restarted from scratch.
Sawwater ( talk ) 23:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Updated, requesting removal of the deletion suggestion
Each point comes directly from a reputable source. There are 93,300 google hits on the subject, as well as published books, including the Gestalten publishing book on Icelandic fashion design, which has a Sruli Recht photograph as the cover. This designer has been noted in some of these articles as the best known designer from Iceland.
For comparison, I suggest to look at the page of
Gudmundur Jorundsson which references the subjects own webpage bio, and is written by and signed by the subject, and also uses quotes referring to other people.
Other very well known fashion designers pages are similarly "unreliable" by your standards, even though Sruli Recht is very well known in the fashion business world. It is possible that the general wiki editor's field of interest are various and rarely fashion oriented, which makes the subjects less covered/ edited by those knowledgeable, and more scrutinized by editors such as yourself.
Please see the following pages for reference - all very well known international fashion designers:
Rick Owens,
Antipodium,
Yigal_Azrouël
Akira_Isogawa It would be good to have an editor who's field of interest is fashion and design weigh in come to think of it.
Recht is mentioned in Time magazine, Fashion Business times, Huffington post, has a dedicated segment on TYT, the worlds biggest online news... the list goes on. We could find and add a heavy amount of references from printed fashion journals if necessary, but there would be more references than text in the article.
I would appreciate help in knowing how to improve this article based on your criteria, as the article is clearly relevant to any reader researching fashion design. Wikipedia is here to educate those not knowledgable on a subject, by those who are.
The only doubt about the notability of the subject is the suggestion of deletion at the top of the page. Otherwise, if the lack of notability of Sruli Recht can't be proved then I propose immediate removal of the deletion suggestion.
Sawwater (
talk) 16:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Notable? I pick up a few hits in multiple books but nothing extensive. He seems to meet WP:Academic ...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#RFC-birth date format conformity when used to disambiguate so I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Birth date format conformity .28second round.29.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 15:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment on the AfD - it does seem strange that notability standards on one continent are not applied to another. Also I feel that if one applies a purely legalistic view to the inclusion criteria then there are enough reasons to deny the deletion. The non-commercial organisation criteria seem to be met.
I had a quick read through your essay on Notability & Inclusion and appreciate the term 'deletionists'
IanMelb ( talk) 21:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)IanMelb
Hello. You had commented a couple of months ago at Success Academy Charter Schools ( Talk), and I was hoping you might weigh in again, or at least offer some additional advice on to how to proceed. Thanks! Grayfell ( talk) 19:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Have you been able to find reviews then? I haven't, but then perhaps my WP:BEFORE skills are inferior. I thought I'd better check with you before taking it to AfD. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 21:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello DGG,
You recently removed an article I wrote about a company. I understand that you considered the language to be advertising focused. Can I submit an updated article to you as a rewrite?
Thank you.
Hi, I wondered if you could provide some input into the discussion at the bottom of the page involving a dispute over a fact in this FA article.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I am the author of the article above, which you reviewed and deleted. I was wondering if I can appeal this decision and explain why I believe that this should go to the community.
Based on my reading of your rationale, the decision to delete (as opposed to holding a vote) was motivated by a lack of independent evidence. However, I would like to raise the following points:
1. You correctly noted that several refs were her own work. However, one ref was merely her written testimony before the Missouri legislature, where she was called as an expert witness on an important policy issue. The second work was a peer-reviewed journal article on higher education policy in a symposium edition on how to successfully run an assessment regime. While she did write the article, it has been validated by other experts as warranting inclusion in a journal to provide guidance.
2. Regarding her APSA position, the webpage clearly showed that she chairs the committee in charge of the conference, and this is a standing committee of the APSA. The chairs are elected, and she has served twice, so for two years now her colleagues from across the nation have elected her to lead the APSA committee with jurisdiction over the discipline's approach to teaching. Yes, she does serve on a panel, but the key part of her position involves: organizing the national conference, determining what papers make the cut, and coordinating the conference summary article that is published each year in PS: Political Science and Politics.
3. You also noted that the Crews article is unpublished. This is not fully accurate. The Crews article was published as a companion piece to the print journal as an online supplement. The piece was still peer reviewed and is considered by the journal to be of the same caliber as physically published pieces. The only difference is that the online articles are geared towards a more narrow audience.
If at all possible, I request that the article be restored so that the community can vote on the issue. As you surely saw, the original article was not particularly geared towards establishing notability based on broad impact. That is, however, the goal of this article. Because the original vote did not consider the issue of broad impact, I think the new article that attempts to establish that deserves a vote so that the community can weigh the evidence. Thank you -- Adamc714 ( talk) 15:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll grant you are right, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Unknown 8 is possibly not intended as a joke. I declined it as WP:OR. I'm sure I could've found several other reasons to fast-decline it as well. Anyway, it's been properly declined now. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 04:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Please correct your AfD Success Academy Charter Schools nominating post quickly and visibly, i.e., not by deleting or striking out parts of it but by posting a separate and affirmative correction or substantiation consistent with my replies at the AfD. Your nominating post has irrecoverably vitiated the AfD, which is probably irrecoverable without starting it over, which is warranted only if supported by policies and guidelines. Nick Levinson ( talk) 15:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Lfdder ( talk) 19:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
It might take me a few days before I get to it. Any help regarding Talk:Lois Herr would be appreciated. Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi David. Can you help me to review the article of Errol Sawyer and get it in Wiki? It is in my sandbox. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred Bokker ( talk • contribs) 22:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
— Anne Delong ( talk) 12:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
as a convenience to you, since they want to send it to AFD, and since this was your suggestion to begin with. Since I knew you would have done the same thing, I just went ahead without seeking permission, confident you would have granted it in this circumstance. Ending that exercise in incivility quickly seemed the prudent course of action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
nonsense ferret 15:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
DGG, I've found that you have declined speedy deletion of my article - thank you. May I ask you to take part into the discussion about this article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th parallel (phenomenon), because, it seems to me that Barney the barney barney and RHaworth are not objective and want to delete my article because its "bizare": ":: You might want to look at 30th parallel (phenomenon) as well, which is a WP:COATRACK for the above, and is extremely bizarre. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 18:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)" (taken from here: User_talk:RHaworth#Dolphin_Embassy)
Soderjanie Pustoti ( talk) 23:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adobe OnLocation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adobe OnLocation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bejnar ( talk) 16:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi DGG. If you have the time, your input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Hersh would be much appreciated, given your expertise with academic bios. The article is about a physician and clinical professor. Bizarrely, someone at AfC passed it yesterday when the references consisted virtually entirely of primary sources, and today proceeded to nominate it for deletion (!). I've cleaned up the article after it was moved into article space as the original version was promotional, repetitious, and actually misleading in places. Voceditenore ( talk) 10:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi DGG. I guess one of the issues with my COI work is that I often have access to a lot of Original Research. I was wondering if you would provide a second opinion at: Talk:MarkMonitor#Research_section regarding the inclusion of information about the company's board members. The organization has since been acquired and no longer has a board, but naturally there will be no sources to explicitly state that the board was dissolved. CorporateM ( Talk) 20:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey there, DGG. Following our last discussion, I did some new research and today I made a series of edits updating the article according to your advice late last month. If you're interested in seeing what I've done, here are a few links:
I'm just interested to hear if you think this looks better or, alternatively, if you have any further suggestions. I'm working on some further changes as well, and when I'm ready, then I'll look for someone else to consider moving it back. Cheers, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 21:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
DGG, You mentioned a strong dislike of "quack" anything on your talk page, a view which I share :) The fact that the page sources holistic medicine journals, the Daily Mail, and is written in an alarmist style, combined with plenty of existing data on the pages Water pollution, Template:Pollution, and Template:Marine_pollution led to me requesting the peer review. The only suggestion I heard back from science article volunteers was a suggested deletion. What do you suggest? respectfully, — Hobart ( talk) 00:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Where I think we may agree: The article consensus is changing or shortly will, as more editors join in editing the article and posting to its talk, resuming the traditional process so the earlier consensus will no longer produce the effect complained of. What I had invited at the talk page will probably now happen because the AfD brought in more people willing to work. (It is interesting to me what complaints were not made about the article.) Your original COI complaint, although mistaken, was made in good faith. Where we differed was in apparently requiring me to proceed in ways that would violate policies and guidelines, not for everything but for much, and, as you know, I had an obligation to refuse. I don't think this needed an AfD since the article's talk page was open, but, with the AfD, now presumably all of us can resume the normal course. Let me know if you think this will be a problem and I'll try to work with you on your remaining concerns. Nick Levinson ( talk) 19:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
FYI
"My grateful acknowledgement to ... Ralph Patt for his valuable assistance in the preparation of the manuscript", wrote
Russell (1959).
Russell, George (1959). "Acknowledgements".
The Lydian chromatic concept of tonal organization for improvisation. 40 Shephard Street; Cambridge, MA 02138: Concept Publishing Company. p. vi (unpaginated). {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)
I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of Mackdonald Language Academy. You nominated it under the A7 criterion, but there it actually specifically states that educational institutions are exempt from that criterion. Since A7 is not an appropriate venue for deleting this article, I would suggest using WP:PROD or WP:AFD to proceed for notability reasons.-- Slon02 ( talk) 02:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
What's the usual way of dealing with AFC submissions like [Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_most_beautiful_girl_in_the_world this one?] Decline and speedy? Or just speedy straight away? Valenciano ( talk) 06:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I think you misread what I said at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Motionless_electromagnetic_generator. I never said the sources were unreliable, IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I renamed Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Questions to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Questions (May 20) because I was tired of the "save" button taking me to the wrong place. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 20:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
May 22 - Thank you for your feedback. I would like to try again based on your recommendations. Is there a way to access the page you deleted, so I can further edit?
Hi DGG, you deleted this page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SpiderCloud Wireless (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement). I'm unclear on what caused you to mark and delete the article. I am eager to remedy the problem and have tried to follow all rules to the best of my knowledge, perhaps I missed something? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbranin ( talk • contribs) 21:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi DGG,
It looks like both User:DGG (NYPL) and User:DGG voted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farhad Mohit. L Faraone 01:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi DGG.
I've tried to improve my -article with some references. If this is not good enouugh, could you try to explain what else I can improve?
Best regards, Marius.Willy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marius.willy ( talk • contribs) 09:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
DGG, thanks for your help with the deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Partisan Republic of Rasony. I wanted to note that it was a multi-article deletion, with Operation Heinrich also ominated. If you wouldn't mind speedy deleting that for consistency, that would wrap things up. Cdtew ( talk) 01:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi DGG. I have one question, is this article F.Godmom notable enough? Sorry for asking this, but I know that GVnayR likes to create pages totally at "random", and has caused (actually still causing) many trouble in the past because of copyright infringements among other "childish" things. When you have some time, please review that article. Regards. -- 46.50.120.95 ( talk) 13:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi David. Thanks for all your many years of generous service volunteering here at Wikipedia. As you are somebody whose opinion I greatly respect, I wanted to ask about some comments that have confused me. This comment of yours seems to sort of conflict with this comment. As the author of the RfC in question, I think I may not have provided enough background or maybe not described the situation properly. Perhaps I didn't make a clear enough connection between the template and the service. Could you possibly let me know if I could improve the situation? Thanks very much. 64.40.54.118 ( talk) 04:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
An editor is interested in the correct title and information pertaining to the article entitled " CSA (database company)". Of course, I am also interested in accuracy. The introduction use to say that the company name is "CSA Illumina" [3] under the ProQuest banner.
However, someone tagged the article, and removed the "Illumina" from "CSA Illumina" in the intro [4]. The editor did leave a query on the talk page. Today I have responded and assembled some links. Although the other editor has not responded (not a lot of time has passed), it seems to me that "CSA Illumina" is not incorrect [5], but it may also be called CSA Illustra [6].
In any case, now that I have wet your whistle with the above external links, maybe you could review the talk page discussion, and links, and maybe you can come up with something (I hope). Thanks in advance. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 15:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi DGG. You recently added an Advert tag to an article I wrote on Qualpro. Any suggestions on what I need to do to make it less promotional?
Also, just as a heads up, I pinged you a few days ago about MarkMonitor (again) to see if you had an opinion on this:"A 2011 opinion piece in Tech Dirt criticized MarkMonitor's research methodology. [7]" I don't mean to pester (and by all means I can ask someone else) just thought it might have gotten lost as your Talk page fills up quickly. CorporateM ( Talk) 23:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear DGG,
I see you proposed for deletion the page of Moravia IT at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravia_IT, which was then deleted. I believe this is because of the alleged infringement of copyright of the logo, which I uploaded. The company (which I work for) has undergone a rebranding in 2012 and uses a new logo now. It may be my mistake in incorrectly marking the property of this logo when updating the page, which I wanted to stay current. Can you please restore the page and I will upload the current logo again (it is normally available at www.moravia.com). I think it is a pity if a valid page should be deleted simply because the entity's current logo is not properly tagged.
Thank you! Vikivik ( talk) 15:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
It might be possible to give permission according to DCM, but remember that this gives permission to the whole world to use and modify it, even for commercial purposes. In my experience, it is almost always easier to rewrite.
To avoid a promotional tone, it's better to avoid all possible adjectives, certainly ones implying quality. I also see that there are no 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. Everything there is a press release. or a listing, or a dead link. Every statement that you have been given an award must be sourced to a reliable source. You might want to remove regional awards, which are minor, and "largest" 20 means less than specifying the rank. And avoid bold face, except in the first sentence. If you want to say "5 out of the 8 Fortune 1000 computer software companies or 4 out of the 7 Fortune 1000 computer hardware manufacturers" you need a 3rd party source, which is tricky, because we also do not allow lists of customers.
Your reply to me at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_May_21 seems to begin in the middle of a sentence. Did the start get cut off somehow? Dricherby ( talk) 21:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. As a contributor to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pundits back in 2009, you may be interested to know I have renominated this article for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pundits (2nd nomination). Robofish ( talk) 21:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi David,
I had created a page on Ayesha Thapar - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ayesha_Thapar. This article was rejected by - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sharafat99. I have complied with the WP guidelines and proved the subject's notability with valid references. I have provided authoritative news sites as references among others. Request you to review the article and make it live as a stub, as you would also agree that this is not good enough to be a featured article. I have been working on it since quite some time now and I feel it will not improve until it is worked upon at a collaborative level.
Thanks, Tushar Taliyan ( talk) 09:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi!
Id appreciate any help, but I dont think my article will be published. Thank you.
Ianlee73 ( talk) 13:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think I'm especially dense (maybe you disagree) but I just don't grok Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Cecil Bisshopp, 10th Baronet. He's no different from any other clergyman born of the gentry who died under 30. I certainly can't find any basis for expansion; even what we have is unsourced. What am I missing? Thanks, as always, Mackensen (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Please consider adding your voice to the new discussion on this page [8] - the Requested Move section. Red Rose 13 ( talk) 01:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I noticed you (and other admins) often tag pages for speedy deletion, even though you can delete them yourselves. Is this out of personal preference for wanting review by another admin or is there some guideline or unspoken rule that calls for review by at least two different people? Ramaksoud2000 ( Talk to me) 00:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
In fact, I've argued that this should be absolutely required, but there are cases where one must act immediately, and it's been difficult to specify exactly the exceptions. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to get a more experienced meat(sock?)puppet-spotter to look at this before I took any other action. I checked and the four "ninety-nines" appear to be in the vicinity of the same large American city. I will say this, sock or not at least their surviving articles appear to be well distant from G11. Your thoughts? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 06:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi DGG,
Thank you for contacting me about the Todd Hauptman article. I believe him to be notable for more than one event; his resignation from working as Mary Polak's campaign manager was one well-documented event, but he is also notable for his anti-human trafficking work and his co-founding of the Fraser Valley Transplant Network. Should I add further sources to demonstrate Hauptman's notability?
Neelix ( talk) 16:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
DGG, can you give me your opinion on the following scientists who recently passed away:
Given it's a BLP, I suggest at least userifying the article until references are mustered. A quick google search didn't find any substantial coverage, so the user's input is required. It won't survive mainspace. The user clearly circumvented AfC after his submission got delayed in the queue. Keen to hear your input. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 02:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I've seen your good cleanup on Gaetano Cozzi: for me too is ok, now. Btw, I'll just watch if some POV sentences, still removed time ago and added again, will be replaced. Regards. -- Dэя- Бøяg 20:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
Thank you for your message. Last night I was so tired to add the proper information to the article. I will add them to the article today to help make the article useful and important. Will this solve the issue? Arsi Warrior ( talk) 06:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Florinel Enache, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The awarding of a medal by the President is enough importance for A7, plus the references. May well not pass through AfD, so you should take it there if you still want it deleted. Thank you. Ged UK 11:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I stumbled across some articles today all written by the same author that are all related and all have seemingly the same issues. The main one being notability. I noticed that you put a PROD tag on one the articles a bit over a week ago and it was subsequently removed by the author. I'm thinking about nominiating some (or all) of the articles for deletion, but I just wanted to get a second opinion first as I haven't been involved in AFD for awhile. Articles in question are: Mark Flood (animator), Jack Morrison (actor), Imraan Ali, Amy Gregson, Two Women, One Heart, and The Freak Next Door. Thanks. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 13:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi DGG. I know you prefer not to proxy edit or approve PR-generated content, but I thought you might be interested in this. I could definitely see you being interested in the requested deletion if nothing else.
Also, let me know if Qualpro needs anything else before removing the Advert tag. CorporateM ( Talk) 16:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
ARCHIVES
DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG
Topical Archives:
Deletion & AfD,
Speedy & prod,
NPP & AfC,
COI & paid editors,
BLP,
Bilateral relations
Notability,
Universities & academic people,
Schools,
Academic journals,
Books & other publications
Sourcing,
Fiction,
In Popular Culture
Educational Program
Bias, intolerance, and prejudice
General Archives:
2006:
Sept-Dec
2007:
Jan-Feb ,
Mar-Apt ,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2008:
J,
F,
M,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2009:
J,
F,
M,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2010:
J,
F,
M,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2011:
J,
F,
M,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2012:
J,
F,
M,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2013:
J,
F,
M,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2014:
J,
F,
M,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2015:
J,
F,
M,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2016:
J,
F,
M,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2017:
J,
F,
M,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2018:
J,
F,
M ,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2019:
J,
F,
M,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2020:
J,
F,
M,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2021:
J,
F,
M,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2022:
J,
F,
M,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O,
N,
D
2023:
J,
F,
M,
A,
M,
J,
J,
A,
S,
O
DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG
I'm not sure how they found me, but they asked about your deletion of Total Phase. See my reply. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 19:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear DGG,
My name is Nadya, I have spoke earlier with Gogo Dogo regarding the Total Phase article that has been deleted some time ago and I was trying to get more information on the case and see what could be done in order to recreate the article. I am not very experienced with Wikipedia and frankly this is the first time dealing with an issue of this kind.
I wanted to reach out to you and find out if there is a chance of recreating the Total Phase page on Wikipedia and what should be done from my side to make it happen?
As far as understood from Gogo Dogo, the community suspected that the page contained information that might have looked/felt like advertisement which played the main role in having the page deleted. I will do my best to create a page that will contain objective information about the company and by no means sound like advertisement of any kind.
Could I ask you to advise me on the best solution in this situation?
Thank you, I greatly appreciate your help with the case!
Best,
Nadya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudkan ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd help if I could, but I do not see how this can possibly make an encyclopedia article. There are two problems. First, there is no indication that the company or its products are notable, in the sense we use the word. A Wikipedia article needs to show notability with 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. All you have now is press releases. The best sources are independent product reviews published in well-known publications. If you have such sources, it may be possible to rewrite the article; otherwise, it will not. (If it wins a major national award, they may be sources--but not just being a finalist.)
Second, a Wikipedia article needs to be written like an encyclopedia article, not a press release--it has to me mor ethan a product listing. A detailed list of products is an advertisement. . DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I added Cooksonia to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 30, but cannot work out how to get the header above my comment. Anyway, if Cooksonia could be deleted, and Cooksonia (plant) be moved back Cooksonia again, that would be much appreciated. JMK ( talk) 20:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC) zit seems OK now. I'll let the AfD decide what to do with it. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that you moved List of Taiwanese administrative divisions to List of Republic of China administrative divisions yesterday. I had declined the speedy deletion as a potentially controversial move, and I'm a little disappointed that you overruled my opinion. Over the past year, the article has been moved back and forth several times (including moves by the nominator), so it's pretty clear that there's disagreement about its title. I had hoped to see the subject discussed at WP:RM so that the community could reach consensus about the title, but I guess it's a moot point now. - Eureka Lott 23:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. As we are using the source only to voice the POV he expresses, and attribute it as such, I think your qualified "RS" is sufficient. I saw your comment on the article talk, and your just posted comment on the RSN. You said you posted 2 places (other than RSN), what is the other place? Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is " Gun Control". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 15:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
"Raising funds for notable organizations is not the same thing as notability ." And yet, raising funds for non-notable organizations is notable, as evidenced by Kickstarter and others. GrowLab is essentially a venture capital firm, an "accelerator" for small or proposed businesses. I added the entry for reference sake, since it was referred to by other pages: one of its founders is notable and has a page, a crowdfunding service that partnered with it is notable and has a page, and it's referenced in the page for the Economy of Vancouver. With so many references to the organization, should there not be an entry that explains what the organization is?
BTW, since I'd contested the speedy deletion, should there have been a discusson on AfD? Morfusmax ( talk) 05:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi again, we had previously discussed other copies of this page on Wikipedia. The result of the relevant discussion about this page was Delete, and there now remains at least one copy of this page on another user's sandbox. Note, this second user is currently suspected of being a sock of the first user. Can we safely delete the "CeceliaXIV" version of this page? Also, I suspect that the Civilization Jihad will come up again for discussion at DRV, like it has recently. Thanks in advance. Guy1890 ( talk) 19:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your Keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Bush (businessman). This has been a painfully drawn out process and has seen some very odd responses that suggest that editors do little research before casting a "vote". The original call for deletion came within minutes of a confrontation I had with the editor who made the call and at best appeared to be vexatious. For that reason I was very surprised by the calls for Delete from so many. Where does this article go wrong or am I mistaken in finding the subject obviously notable in the Australan business and sporting worlds? Castlemate ( talk) 20:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
What merge? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Since this is your area of expertise (one of them) I thought I'd ask for your input here: [1] Thanks! Jimsteele9999 ( talk) 23:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear DGG: Can you please explain your thinking regarding the above captioned subject:
Understanding your thinking will be important as to whether the modifications you have made will endure.
Kind regards Jono2013 ( talk) 16:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
It's a bit like having a government made up of time share salesmen, to my mind. Oliver is starting to remind me of a character in an as yet unfinished set of stories of mine - oddly enough called Oliver - who talks in enthusiastically motivational 'that's what we're here for, isn't it, team?' style. I'm sure the WP one isn't a green rabbit fluffy toy, though..... Peridon ( talk) 21:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I've got a question for you: I'm participating in an AfD where the other editor is a little overly generous with their typing, to where their arguments take up multiple, multiple paragraphs. ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Vishwanath (author)) Is it, in these cases, permissable to apply a collapse shell to the comments as long as we note in the AfD that the comments were collapsed and that they were further arguments? I'm worried about the AfD looking so long that it deters other editors from contributing. Since I'm involved, as is the other person I asked about this, I thought I'd get the opinion from an uninvolved editor and if it's something that can or should be done, ask if you could do it. I don't want to do it and then have someone say that I'm trying to deliberately hide arguments to sway things to my side. I'm just thinking more about brevity's sake and not scaring off other editors. I'm kind of thinking that it wouldn't really be something doable, but I thought I'd ask just in case. The collapse shell template has become my new best friend, so I'm trying to figure out when and where it's acceptable to use them when it comes to other users. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Please participate in the discussion of Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#Inclusion of Pulitzer Prize for History. Solomon7968 ( talk) 17:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Just came across the Alan Curtis (criminologist) article, which it looks likes you have had some dealing with in the past. I AFDed it. I may do so as well for the Eisenhower Foundation article after I do some WP:BEFORE Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I have a questions about the wp:advert and wp:peacock flags that you recently added to the Sharon A. Hill article. It is a new article that has a pending DYK so I want to help correct the language if I can. You did not leave a note on the Talk page about what part of the text you do not think is neutral enough. Can you point me in the right direction? Allecher ( talk) 13:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I almost marked it for deletion as G11. 'DGG (at NYPL) ( talk) 22:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
|
Hi DGG.
I am the main author of the article “Falsification of history in Azerbaijan” in Russian Wikipedia. The article has many times been reviewed by a special group of mediators which were appointed by the decision of the Arbitrage committee. The mediators confirmed that this article had the right to exist and also that its title was correct. The article was recently translated into English Wikipedia, however administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise deleted it giving the following reason for his deletion: WP:CSD#G10: attack page ( talk). On page I collected all the neutral sources based on which the article was written. As you are dealing with history yourself, I need your advice – what to do with the sources which explicitly say that there is a state program of falsification of history in Azerbaijan? In what article can they be used and is it permissible to have a separate article describing this phenomenon? Divot ( talk) 21:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey DGG; Kaldari has finished scripting a set of potential replacements available to test and give feedback on. Please go to this thread for more detail on how to enable them. Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 15:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
You mentioned this in a few CFDs. Mind swinging by and giving your thoughts here, on a possible band-aid while awaiting wiki-data? Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection#A_working_category_intersection_today? -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 19:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
In the context established by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susumu Shibata, may I ask you to to take a look at two related articles. I wonder how to measure consensus opinion about Tsukasa Kawada and List of Ambassadors from Japan to Algeria? -- Ansei ( talk) 17:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello DGG,
Deleting this article was hasty and rather hostile - Instead of opening a dialogue to discuss changes, you deleted the additions of many different people who are interested in this person. This is a notable designer, and a simple google search can present with enough data on this. It would have been more helpful to discuss these concerns and suggest the adjustments and amendments so that the page could be developed instead of this approach. This article was part of developing the Icelandic wiki project and has had various people contribute to it.
Please reinstate the article so the factual data that you claim is promotional does not have to be resourced, and the page does not have to be restarted from scratch.
Sawwater ( talk ) 23:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Updated, requesting removal of the deletion suggestion
Each point comes directly from a reputable source. There are 93,300 google hits on the subject, as well as published books, including the Gestalten publishing book on Icelandic fashion design, which has a Sruli Recht photograph as the cover. This designer has been noted in some of these articles as the best known designer from Iceland.
For comparison, I suggest to look at the page of
Gudmundur Jorundsson which references the subjects own webpage bio, and is written by and signed by the subject, and also uses quotes referring to other people.
Other very well known fashion designers pages are similarly "unreliable" by your standards, even though Sruli Recht is very well known in the fashion business world. It is possible that the general wiki editor's field of interest are various and rarely fashion oriented, which makes the subjects less covered/ edited by those knowledgeable, and more scrutinized by editors such as yourself.
Please see the following pages for reference - all very well known international fashion designers:
Rick Owens,
Antipodium,
Yigal_Azrouël
Akira_Isogawa It would be good to have an editor who's field of interest is fashion and design weigh in come to think of it.
Recht is mentioned in Time magazine, Fashion Business times, Huffington post, has a dedicated segment on TYT, the worlds biggest online news... the list goes on. We could find and add a heavy amount of references from printed fashion journals if necessary, but there would be more references than text in the article.
I would appreciate help in knowing how to improve this article based on your criteria, as the article is clearly relevant to any reader researching fashion design. Wikipedia is here to educate those not knowledgable on a subject, by those who are.
The only doubt about the notability of the subject is the suggestion of deletion at the top of the page. Otherwise, if the lack of notability of Sruli Recht can't be proved then I propose immediate removal of the deletion suggestion.
Sawwater (
talk) 16:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Notable? I pick up a few hits in multiple books but nothing extensive. He seems to meet WP:Academic ...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#RFC-birth date format conformity when used to disambiguate so I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Birth date format conformity .28second round.29.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 15:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment on the AfD - it does seem strange that notability standards on one continent are not applied to another. Also I feel that if one applies a purely legalistic view to the inclusion criteria then there are enough reasons to deny the deletion. The non-commercial organisation criteria seem to be met.
I had a quick read through your essay on Notability & Inclusion and appreciate the term 'deletionists'
IanMelb ( talk) 21:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)IanMelb
Hello. You had commented a couple of months ago at Success Academy Charter Schools ( Talk), and I was hoping you might weigh in again, or at least offer some additional advice on to how to proceed. Thanks! Grayfell ( talk) 19:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Have you been able to find reviews then? I haven't, but then perhaps my WP:BEFORE skills are inferior. I thought I'd better check with you before taking it to AfD. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 21:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello DGG,
You recently removed an article I wrote about a company. I understand that you considered the language to be advertising focused. Can I submit an updated article to you as a rewrite?
Thank you.
Hi, I wondered if you could provide some input into the discussion at the bottom of the page involving a dispute over a fact in this FA article.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I am the author of the article above, which you reviewed and deleted. I was wondering if I can appeal this decision and explain why I believe that this should go to the community.
Based on my reading of your rationale, the decision to delete (as opposed to holding a vote) was motivated by a lack of independent evidence. However, I would like to raise the following points:
1. You correctly noted that several refs were her own work. However, one ref was merely her written testimony before the Missouri legislature, where she was called as an expert witness on an important policy issue. The second work was a peer-reviewed journal article on higher education policy in a symposium edition on how to successfully run an assessment regime. While she did write the article, it has been validated by other experts as warranting inclusion in a journal to provide guidance.
2. Regarding her APSA position, the webpage clearly showed that she chairs the committee in charge of the conference, and this is a standing committee of the APSA. The chairs are elected, and she has served twice, so for two years now her colleagues from across the nation have elected her to lead the APSA committee with jurisdiction over the discipline's approach to teaching. Yes, she does serve on a panel, but the key part of her position involves: organizing the national conference, determining what papers make the cut, and coordinating the conference summary article that is published each year in PS: Political Science and Politics.
3. You also noted that the Crews article is unpublished. This is not fully accurate. The Crews article was published as a companion piece to the print journal as an online supplement. The piece was still peer reviewed and is considered by the journal to be of the same caliber as physically published pieces. The only difference is that the online articles are geared towards a more narrow audience.
If at all possible, I request that the article be restored so that the community can vote on the issue. As you surely saw, the original article was not particularly geared towards establishing notability based on broad impact. That is, however, the goal of this article. Because the original vote did not consider the issue of broad impact, I think the new article that attempts to establish that deserves a vote so that the community can weigh the evidence. Thank you -- Adamc714 ( talk) 15:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll grant you are right, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Unknown 8 is possibly not intended as a joke. I declined it as WP:OR. I'm sure I could've found several other reasons to fast-decline it as well. Anyway, it's been properly declined now. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 04:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Please correct your AfD Success Academy Charter Schools nominating post quickly and visibly, i.e., not by deleting or striking out parts of it but by posting a separate and affirmative correction or substantiation consistent with my replies at the AfD. Your nominating post has irrecoverably vitiated the AfD, which is probably irrecoverable without starting it over, which is warranted only if supported by policies and guidelines. Nick Levinson ( talk) 15:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Lfdder ( talk) 19:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
It might take me a few days before I get to it. Any help regarding Talk:Lois Herr would be appreciated. Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi David. Can you help me to review the article of Errol Sawyer and get it in Wiki? It is in my sandbox. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred Bokker ( talk • contribs) 22:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
— Anne Delong ( talk) 12:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
as a convenience to you, since they want to send it to AFD, and since this was your suggestion to begin with. Since I knew you would have done the same thing, I just went ahead without seeking permission, confident you would have granted it in this circumstance. Ending that exercise in incivility quickly seemed the prudent course of action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
nonsense ferret 15:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
DGG, I've found that you have declined speedy deletion of my article - thank you. May I ask you to take part into the discussion about this article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th parallel (phenomenon), because, it seems to me that Barney the barney barney and RHaworth are not objective and want to delete my article because its "bizare": ":: You might want to look at 30th parallel (phenomenon) as well, which is a WP:COATRACK for the above, and is extremely bizarre. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 18:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)" (taken from here: User_talk:RHaworth#Dolphin_Embassy)
Soderjanie Pustoti ( talk) 23:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adobe OnLocation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adobe OnLocation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bejnar ( talk) 16:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi DGG. If you have the time, your input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Hersh would be much appreciated, given your expertise with academic bios. The article is about a physician and clinical professor. Bizarrely, someone at AfC passed it yesterday when the references consisted virtually entirely of primary sources, and today proceeded to nominate it for deletion (!). I've cleaned up the article after it was moved into article space as the original version was promotional, repetitious, and actually misleading in places. Voceditenore ( talk) 10:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi DGG. I guess one of the issues with my COI work is that I often have access to a lot of Original Research. I was wondering if you would provide a second opinion at: Talk:MarkMonitor#Research_section regarding the inclusion of information about the company's board members. The organization has since been acquired and no longer has a board, but naturally there will be no sources to explicitly state that the board was dissolved. CorporateM ( Talk) 20:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey there, DGG. Following our last discussion, I did some new research and today I made a series of edits updating the article according to your advice late last month. If you're interested in seeing what I've done, here are a few links:
I'm just interested to hear if you think this looks better or, alternatively, if you have any further suggestions. I'm working on some further changes as well, and when I'm ready, then I'll look for someone else to consider moving it back. Cheers, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 21:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
DGG, You mentioned a strong dislike of "quack" anything on your talk page, a view which I share :) The fact that the page sources holistic medicine journals, the Daily Mail, and is written in an alarmist style, combined with plenty of existing data on the pages Water pollution, Template:Pollution, and Template:Marine_pollution led to me requesting the peer review. The only suggestion I heard back from science article volunteers was a suggested deletion. What do you suggest? respectfully, — Hobart ( talk) 00:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Where I think we may agree: The article consensus is changing or shortly will, as more editors join in editing the article and posting to its talk, resuming the traditional process so the earlier consensus will no longer produce the effect complained of. What I had invited at the talk page will probably now happen because the AfD brought in more people willing to work. (It is interesting to me what complaints were not made about the article.) Your original COI complaint, although mistaken, was made in good faith. Where we differed was in apparently requiring me to proceed in ways that would violate policies and guidelines, not for everything but for much, and, as you know, I had an obligation to refuse. I don't think this needed an AfD since the article's talk page was open, but, with the AfD, now presumably all of us can resume the normal course. Let me know if you think this will be a problem and I'll try to work with you on your remaining concerns. Nick Levinson ( talk) 19:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
FYI
"My grateful acknowledgement to ... Ralph Patt for his valuable assistance in the preparation of the manuscript", wrote
Russell (1959).
Russell, George (1959). "Acknowledgements".
The Lydian chromatic concept of tonal organization for improvisation. 40 Shephard Street; Cambridge, MA 02138: Concept Publishing Company. p. vi (unpaginated). {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)
I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of Mackdonald Language Academy. You nominated it under the A7 criterion, but there it actually specifically states that educational institutions are exempt from that criterion. Since A7 is not an appropriate venue for deleting this article, I would suggest using WP:PROD or WP:AFD to proceed for notability reasons.-- Slon02 ( talk) 02:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
What's the usual way of dealing with AFC submissions like [Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_most_beautiful_girl_in_the_world this one?] Decline and speedy? Or just speedy straight away? Valenciano ( talk) 06:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I think you misread what I said at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Motionless_electromagnetic_generator. I never said the sources were unreliable, IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I renamed Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Questions to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Questions (May 20) because I was tired of the "save" button taking me to the wrong place. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 20:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
May 22 - Thank you for your feedback. I would like to try again based on your recommendations. Is there a way to access the page you deleted, so I can further edit?
Hi DGG, you deleted this page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SpiderCloud Wireless (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement). I'm unclear on what caused you to mark and delete the article. I am eager to remedy the problem and have tried to follow all rules to the best of my knowledge, perhaps I missed something? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbranin ( talk • contribs) 21:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi DGG,
It looks like both User:DGG (NYPL) and User:DGG voted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farhad Mohit. L Faraone 01:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi DGG.
I've tried to improve my -article with some references. If this is not good enouugh, could you try to explain what else I can improve?
Best regards, Marius.Willy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marius.willy ( talk • contribs) 09:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
DGG, thanks for your help with the deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Partisan Republic of Rasony. I wanted to note that it was a multi-article deletion, with Operation Heinrich also ominated. If you wouldn't mind speedy deleting that for consistency, that would wrap things up. Cdtew ( talk) 01:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi DGG. I have one question, is this article F.Godmom notable enough? Sorry for asking this, but I know that GVnayR likes to create pages totally at "random", and has caused (actually still causing) many trouble in the past because of copyright infringements among other "childish" things. When you have some time, please review that article. Regards. -- 46.50.120.95 ( talk) 13:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi David. Thanks for all your many years of generous service volunteering here at Wikipedia. As you are somebody whose opinion I greatly respect, I wanted to ask about some comments that have confused me. This comment of yours seems to sort of conflict with this comment. As the author of the RfC in question, I think I may not have provided enough background or maybe not described the situation properly. Perhaps I didn't make a clear enough connection between the template and the service. Could you possibly let me know if I could improve the situation? Thanks very much. 64.40.54.118 ( talk) 04:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
An editor is interested in the correct title and information pertaining to the article entitled " CSA (database company)". Of course, I am also interested in accuracy. The introduction use to say that the company name is "CSA Illumina" [3] under the ProQuest banner.
However, someone tagged the article, and removed the "Illumina" from "CSA Illumina" in the intro [4]. The editor did leave a query on the talk page. Today I have responded and assembled some links. Although the other editor has not responded (not a lot of time has passed), it seems to me that "CSA Illumina" is not incorrect [5], but it may also be called CSA Illustra [6].
In any case, now that I have wet your whistle with the above external links, maybe you could review the talk page discussion, and links, and maybe you can come up with something (I hope). Thanks in advance. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 15:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi DGG. You recently added an Advert tag to an article I wrote on Qualpro. Any suggestions on what I need to do to make it less promotional?
Also, just as a heads up, I pinged you a few days ago about MarkMonitor (again) to see if you had an opinion on this:"A 2011 opinion piece in Tech Dirt criticized MarkMonitor's research methodology. [7]" I don't mean to pester (and by all means I can ask someone else) just thought it might have gotten lost as your Talk page fills up quickly. CorporateM ( Talk) 23:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear DGG,
I see you proposed for deletion the page of Moravia IT at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravia_IT, which was then deleted. I believe this is because of the alleged infringement of copyright of the logo, which I uploaded. The company (which I work for) has undergone a rebranding in 2012 and uses a new logo now. It may be my mistake in incorrectly marking the property of this logo when updating the page, which I wanted to stay current. Can you please restore the page and I will upload the current logo again (it is normally available at www.moravia.com). I think it is a pity if a valid page should be deleted simply because the entity's current logo is not properly tagged.
Thank you! Vikivik ( talk) 15:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
It might be possible to give permission according to DCM, but remember that this gives permission to the whole world to use and modify it, even for commercial purposes. In my experience, it is almost always easier to rewrite.
To avoid a promotional tone, it's better to avoid all possible adjectives, certainly ones implying quality. I also see that there are no 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. Everything there is a press release. or a listing, or a dead link. Every statement that you have been given an award must be sourced to a reliable source. You might want to remove regional awards, which are minor, and "largest" 20 means less than specifying the rank. And avoid bold face, except in the first sentence. If you want to say "5 out of the 8 Fortune 1000 computer software companies or 4 out of the 7 Fortune 1000 computer hardware manufacturers" you need a 3rd party source, which is tricky, because we also do not allow lists of customers.
Your reply to me at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_May_21 seems to begin in the middle of a sentence. Did the start get cut off somehow? Dricherby ( talk) 21:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. As a contributor to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pundits back in 2009, you may be interested to know I have renominated this article for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pundits (2nd nomination). Robofish ( talk) 21:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi David,
I had created a page on Ayesha Thapar - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ayesha_Thapar. This article was rejected by - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sharafat99. I have complied with the WP guidelines and proved the subject's notability with valid references. I have provided authoritative news sites as references among others. Request you to review the article and make it live as a stub, as you would also agree that this is not good enough to be a featured article. I have been working on it since quite some time now and I feel it will not improve until it is worked upon at a collaborative level.
Thanks, Tushar Taliyan ( talk) 09:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi!
Id appreciate any help, but I dont think my article will be published. Thank you.
Ianlee73 ( talk) 13:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think I'm especially dense (maybe you disagree) but I just don't grok Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Cecil Bisshopp, 10th Baronet. He's no different from any other clergyman born of the gentry who died under 30. I certainly can't find any basis for expansion; even what we have is unsourced. What am I missing? Thanks, as always, Mackensen (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Please consider adding your voice to the new discussion on this page [8] - the Requested Move section. Red Rose 13 ( talk) 01:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I noticed you (and other admins) often tag pages for speedy deletion, even though you can delete them yourselves. Is this out of personal preference for wanting review by another admin or is there some guideline or unspoken rule that calls for review by at least two different people? Ramaksoud2000 ( Talk to me) 00:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
In fact, I've argued that this should be absolutely required, but there are cases where one must act immediately, and it's been difficult to specify exactly the exceptions. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to get a more experienced meat(sock?)puppet-spotter to look at this before I took any other action. I checked and the four "ninety-nines" appear to be in the vicinity of the same large American city. I will say this, sock or not at least their surviving articles appear to be well distant from G11. Your thoughts? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 06:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi DGG,
Thank you for contacting me about the Todd Hauptman article. I believe him to be notable for more than one event; his resignation from working as Mary Polak's campaign manager was one well-documented event, but he is also notable for his anti-human trafficking work and his co-founding of the Fraser Valley Transplant Network. Should I add further sources to demonstrate Hauptman's notability?
Neelix ( talk) 16:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
DGG, can you give me your opinion on the following scientists who recently passed away:
Given it's a BLP, I suggest at least userifying the article until references are mustered. A quick google search didn't find any substantial coverage, so the user's input is required. It won't survive mainspace. The user clearly circumvented AfC after his submission got delayed in the queue. Keen to hear your input. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 02:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I've seen your good cleanup on Gaetano Cozzi: for me too is ok, now. Btw, I'll just watch if some POV sentences, still removed time ago and added again, will be replaced. Regards. -- Dэя- Бøяg 20:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
Thank you for your message. Last night I was so tired to add the proper information to the article. I will add them to the article today to help make the article useful and important. Will this solve the issue? Arsi Warrior ( talk) 06:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Florinel Enache, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The awarding of a medal by the President is enough importance for A7, plus the references. May well not pass through AfD, so you should take it there if you still want it deleted. Thank you. Ged UK 11:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I stumbled across some articles today all written by the same author that are all related and all have seemingly the same issues. The main one being notability. I noticed that you put a PROD tag on one the articles a bit over a week ago and it was subsequently removed by the author. I'm thinking about nominiating some (or all) of the articles for deletion, but I just wanted to get a second opinion first as I haven't been involved in AFD for awhile. Articles in question are: Mark Flood (animator), Jack Morrison (actor), Imraan Ali, Amy Gregson, Two Women, One Heart, and The Freak Next Door. Thanks. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 13:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi DGG. I know you prefer not to proxy edit or approve PR-generated content, but I thought you might be interested in this. I could definitely see you being interested in the requested deletion if nothing else.
Also, let me know if Qualpro needs anything else before removing the Advert tag. CorporateM ( Talk) 16:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)