Topical Archives:
BLP (Biographies of Living People)
Deletion reform,
Speedies,
Notability ,
Sourcing,
In Popular Culture,
Fiction,
Bilateral relations.
Academic things & people,
Journals,
Books & other publications,
General Archives:
2010:
Jan,
Feb,
Mar,
Apr ,
May ,
Jun ,
Jul,
Aug,
Sep,
Oct,
Nov,
Dec
2011:
Jan,
Feb,
Mar,
Apr ,
May ,
Jun ,
Jul,
Aug,
Sep,
Oct,
Nov,
Dec
In December I gave a presentation to librarians in Pittsburgh area. Would you like me to send you my presentation slides? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
you deleted my page stating that no notability was stated on a page that was 15 minutes old???
can we apply the same rules to your page and delete it for being irrellevant??? I think I remember you chiming in when the No Original Research noticeboard was created as it being just an extra page to watch. We've now got the Fringe Theories, Fiction, NOR, and NPOV. I'm wondering if we're not spreading ourselves too thin over too many boards. Any ideas? MBisanz talk 03:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
(Copied over from my talk page:) DGG, many thanks for your comment. I'm glad that my text may be useful for the NYC meet. I'd be pleased to have any feedback or reactions that come out of that. And I do now indeed intend to publish a version of the essay somewhere. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 00:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello again ...
Would you please take a look at User talk:Matthewedwards#Category:Flagged articles, and then add your comments on the cats I have created to compliment the templates?
Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 ( talk · contribs) 07:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello again ... {{
Flag-editor}} now has an
optional assist
parameter that makes a friendly offer to help, for those thus inclined, instead of defaulting with making the offer. :-) —
151.200.237.53 (
talk)
15:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
)
I highly suggest stop altering articles to your bias you have a nasty habit of changing articles you don't like and posting information you like regardless of sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.73.78.193 ( talk) 17:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee, you wrote but situations of a single person with a completely far fringe view are dealt with fairly well already. There are cases where a real-world minority- or fringe-view is overrepresented on Wikipedia. There are also cases where a majority- or wikipedia-majority-view silences a minority view or reduces their weight well below their real-world due weight. This can happen by one side outmaneuvering the other into a behavior violation or by simply driving them away from the project in frustration. I don't think there is a good solution, other than to have affected articles watched by people who are informed about the article's subject matter but with no emotional stake in the article. This tends to happen more on articles on political or social topics, where way too many editors have a personal agenda, and on articles about people, places, or groups, where fanboys may succeed in turning the article into a virtual press release. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 02:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I no longer remember how it was done but if someone knows or wants to talk to the bot operator, look at what's done for the museums project. In archiving it creates an index which includes topic and which archive it's in. I don't know if it can be done retroactively. TravellingCari 12:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
"unreferenced" is not a reason for deletion. Unreferenced and unnotable, maybe."tried but could not find any sources for notability" much more convincing--when you say something like that, I'd probably accept your view. But of the 2 you marked unreferenced, one seems to have had a ref . tho not a good one Blaqstarr--I didnt check further, and the other Esa Maldita Costilla, is probably notable given the performers involved. DGG ( talk) 07:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
You raise an excellent point there. I seem to be averaging a DRV on one of my closures every second day (although the majority are being endorsed). The recent phenomenon of DRVs when one isn't satisfied with the result, but dressed up as "certain arguments weren't addressed, so the admin should have closed it my way" is worrisome, not least because a DRV would have been even more certain if the debate had been closed the other way. This is liable to put good admins off closing AFDs because of a perceived stigma in having your decision posted at DRV, especially when users decline to discuss matters with the closer first as the DRV instructions twice require (a matter about which we have repeatedly butted heads). Where can we go from here? Stifle ( talk) 13:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Since you have had repeated experience with this user's AFDs like, I thought I'd contact you. This user's AFD behavior is appaling especially how he refuses to bundle nominations in the same universe for which he uses identical reasonings. He also continually fails to consider the option to merge or redirect without intervention of deletion and makes no evident efforts to look for sources himself (there's a difference between unverified and unverifiable), instead preferring to force the issue by nominating for AFD (which causes a 5-day deadline for improvement) and which is specifically considered to be improper.
The articles in question might well require care, merging or even deletion, but the way he goes about it is unneccesarily terse and bitey.
I think it's time to launch an RFC. Would you consider helping gather evidence and supporting it? - Mgm| (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Your name came up prominently at Talk:Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia#Prominent inclusionists? I was wondering:
Thank you, Inclusionist ( talk) 00:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry David, but you are apparently me. --David Shankbone 05:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi David, I've started something at Wikipedia:Wikipedia at the Library. Hopefully this can be a space for us to work out our ideas, and I look forward to your contributions.-- Pharos ( talk) 16:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe I used this utility to convert a CSV list into a wiki table. — BRIAN 0918 • 2009-02-26 17:50Z
...to read the article? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought this new article might interest you. Cheers. Thanks for all your help. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 06:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
DGG, I thought you might have something worthwhile to say about this AfD and also a relevant part of " WP:CREATIVE" (on which see also my comment). -- Hoary ( talk) 00:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I ask you because you're active there--am I correct that any enWP admin can deal with things also? DGG ( talk) 05:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed your involvement with Wikipedia:Wikipedia at the Library. I've got a draft of what is called the Wikipedia Student's Guide, which isn't a perfect fit for those getting instruction at the library, but might be useful. In any case, if you have any suggestions, they would be welcomed. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
this must be one of the funniest AfD comments I ever came across! Owen× ☎ 16:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear David, I salute you for the various ideas expressed, and your sense of integrity. Your experiences from Princeton & Berkeley were also significant credentials to bring to bear. I have a comment about your working group for science and academia. Someone in the group lamented on how to distinguish "men from boys". At least in the science world it's quite easy. Below the obvious Nobel level, the next 2 are well known -- Academicians and Fellows. If WP can include all people on these 2 levels, it'd be quite a complete collection. Of course I'm only speaking about the US situation. I suspect that they have similar pecking order in other countries. Now a question unrelated to the above. When you have a chance, take a look at the discussion page for Deep Ng, and see my proposal to delete. Please advise if it's reasonable, and if so, the next step. Much obliged. -- EJohn59 ( talk) 18:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)EJohn59
Thanks. Your comments are reasonable & helpful-- EJohn59 ( talk) 04:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)EJohn59
Just saw your comment on 08:51, 29 May 2009 - excellent! Thanks for taking out precious time to deal with this depressing situation, that a number of editors are so keen on purging fiction articles from Wikipedia. I can sure understand and fully respect if they find the fiction articles to be of such minor importance that they opt not read the articles themselves; but why they so persistently insist on deletion, hindering other people in reading the articles, is a mystery. A sincere appreciation of your work. Power.corrupts ( talk) 14:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
--
Marcel Douwe Dekker (
talk)
21:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thanks you. I have refraised my response, putting this rather black and white, in an attempt to get to the bottum of things. I hope you can take an other look... Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 22:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
... to WP:SJ, a rather old essay of mine that I decided was ready to move to mainspace.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 20:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
With contributions only from me and Drmies, it's not ready to be a revision of guidelines. All it can be at this stage is a counterpoint.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 21:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi David, you can check your email for some recent developments on this. Thanks!-- Pharos ( talk) 18:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I know you had some minor concerns about my AfD work, so could you review my recent closures and let me know if I've addressed the issues you noticed? Cheers. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. In light of recent events and community concerns about the way in which content is transferred I have proposed a new wikiproject which would attempt to address any of the concerns and done in an environment where a major group of editors work together to transfer articles from other wikipedias in the most effective way possible without BLP or referencing problems. Please offer your thoughts at the proposal and whether or not you support or oppose the idea of a wikiproject dedicated to organizing a more efficient process of getting articles in different languages translated into English. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG! Thanks so much for everything this past weekend -- I got home intact, if a couple hours delayed from the storms.
Here's my subpage on my DSB project -- the citations are formatted to link to the Dictionary of Scientific Biography, so if you check the "what links here" from that article you can see the ones I or others have done already. The redlinks on my page are bios that weren't already written that are in the DSB; the bluelinks are bios that have been written since I started the project. There's also a dump of bios in the print version that Ruud Koot did. I haven't been writing down my progress, but I'm somewhere in the middle of the print "B" volume at the moment, so anything starting later than that would be helpful -- we could start keeping track of how many bios we've covered. Best, -- phoebe / ( talk to me) 02:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a reminder: On Wikipedia talk:Coatrack, you wrote "to be continued" in February. — Sebastian 15:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a lot of stuff at the bottom of Wikipedia:CiterSquad#Volunteers, which seems to me should be in on the talk page, would you take a look and let me know if I am mistaken in my apprasial, if it should be moved, please do so. If I move it, there would be conflicts. Thanks Jeepday ( talk) 17:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Could you please send your Email to aarnaiz@med.ucm.es ? AAV has asked me to get in touch with you. Thank you Symbio04 ( talk) 18:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm wondering if it is allowed/discouraged, for users to remove all incoming links to an article that is at AfD, if the outcome is uncertain? I thought I'd seen that action mentioned in the guidelines, but can't find it.
Specifically, a user is removing ( eg) all links leading to -logy, which he nominated at afd. Is that acceptable? -- Quiddity ( talk) 18:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Now that the afd has been closed as keep, who is responsible for reinstating any of the useful links that were preemptively removed? (I won't have time to get to it till at least next week). (You can copy/move this thread to Talk:-logy or elsewhere, if that'd be more appropriate). -- Quiddity ( talk) 18:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Tonxxx ( talk) 01:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Regards, Anthony |talk]] at 01:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I wondered if you might review the deletion of SOD/CAT. I'm concerned about the speed at which the article was deleted after being relisted for review. I am also concerned that the main catalyst--Dr Vickers--behind the deletion effort has made a large number of edits to a competing technology, Protandim which may indicate a COI. I do not know what the next step to appeal for an undelete would be. I appreciate your insights. RGK ( talk) 21:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
restored. Icewedge ( talk) 02:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG. It's absolutely fine with me! If any articles subject to deletion can be salvaged, I would be happy to support the effort. I have restored the page. Cheers, FASTILY (TALK) 03:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
A year and 11 days ago, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolò Giraud resulted in a keep. Today, it is a featured article. You were the first to see value in the page. Ottava Rima ( talk) 23:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello DGG, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to 16th World Economic Forum on Africa has been removed. It was removed by Gallador with the following edit summary '(Enhanced English, updated a bit, removed prod)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Gallador before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 20:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
since I'm not sure if you're watching there. Poke me if you respond - I'm not around much these days. StarM 03:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear DGG,
I thank-you for helpful sugesstions, I have made some needed adjustments for the article. Presently, I do not know how to access the deletion review.
I hope you could please keep in mind, the article is not the same as the old document "criticism of the Talmud." They are unrelated. I worked hard on this article. I am not trying to pick sides here. I am sincerely trying to be fair a wide range of belief. I mentioned the Orthodox party, because if I spoke only of the more critical groups it only be a narrow one-sided debate which would be unfair to Orthodox group. I did so out of respect.
As I hope you noticed, the article barely menetions the Talmud. Which is hard to do, since that where the oral traditions are recorded. I adjusted, and re-adjusted the article based of many of your suggestions. I hope you will please consider once again kindly reviewing it. Please remember, that one must mention the rabbinic party. I not attempting to make an article to fault-find the rabbinic party rather show the wide-range here of different belief regarding the subject. Thank-you!-- Standforder ( talk) 20:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The explanatory comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Greenberg were useful for me.
Pondering the array of views in this thread helped me to step back only slightly; but even small movements do evoke a changed perspective, a new appreciation of our focal point. -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
...since there's a 2007 hello from you on my user page ;-) I'm teaching wikipedia this semester using Lih's book and Phoebe Ayers as a guest speaker. Could not remember how to find you until I saw your 2007 post :-/ Students adding to WP as part of their coursework. regards DGG! Katewill ( talk) 02:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Please have a look at User talk:Orderinchaos#Coombabah State Primary School. This action looks so contrary to policy that, as I said, I am staggered. TerriersFan ( talk) 00:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I recognise that you stated that you had no interest in working on the MTV Generation article, but I've written (rather a long) comment on it in response to Peregrine981's request for comments on the discussion page. I won't ask you to read it, but it struck me that there is also little agreement on what constitutes a pair of shorts (e.g compared to trousers, kneebreeches, knickerbockers etc) , but little controversy in having a decent page about them. If you have time, could you please add any further comments you might have on the MTV Gen issue to the page? I found your previous comment quite helpful. Any response meant for me on my talk page, thanks. Centrepull ( talk) 21:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG, you may be interested in this discussion. -- Crusio ( talk) 00:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG. I nominated Connel Fullenkamp for deletion. You deprodded the article in June 2009, so I thought that your input might be valuable for the discussion. CronopioFlotante ( talk) 21:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
|DGG, Thank you for participating in Chzz's RfA. Many of us suspected that Chzz was a problem user, but it was work by people like you, who saved the day. Rogue Admins. and Bureaucrats pose a real risk to Wikipedia. Thanks Again - Ret.Prof ( talk) 18:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
|
Hey DGG, was hoping you could help me out with this as you seem to be both interested and in the know. I use the A7 CSD category in AfD discussions a lot, because (a) it's one of the most stringest deletion tests on Wikipedia and (b) if it's broken policy it needs attention called to it and discussion. It seems to my view to specifically set a higher bar for an article to exist than WP:N - that is, that not only must sources exist, but that those sources must attest to a claim of notability, not merely existence. That's a position I support, and it's in line with the essay WP:MILL but it doesn't really seem to be in line with any of the other notability policies. Are you able to educate me at all on the reasoning and history behind this controversial CSD category? - DustFormsWords ( talk) 05:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
You are confusing N and V , which is easy to do--attempts to combine them have however never gotten consensus. Even if something would appear to be N, if there are no sources whatsoever, there is no way of writing an article, and it will be deleted. This can happen. But it is never a question for speedy deletion. We can not delete until we have looked for sources, and failed to find them. The condition is unsourceable, not unsourced. If the article is plausible, this is something which requires community input and some time to look. According to WP:BEFORE, we really should look before we put any kind of deletion tag on; if it goes to AfD , people will look--if it goes to prod, the few of us who patrol prod will at least try to look. But if you can find the source yourself, you should, before putting on the tag, or you will be embarrassed at AfD if you have guessed wrong. We don't delete on guesses. The sourcing has no relevance to the A7--except that if something is unclear, we should at least attempt to see if it might be ore important than the author realized, or knew to say. The key word here is asserts, which means indicates, not demonstrates. Think about this, look at that last example, try to source it, and come back tomorrow if you have questions. for now, I'm going to sleep. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
7
An article that you have been involved in editing, Denialism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Unomi ( talk) 06:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG. It looks as if you may have been in the middle of adding content to your user page, but were interrupted before you could finish. You appear to have had this on the page for the last several days. All the best, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought you might find this interesting, considering possible outreach to Yiddishist groups. It's a surprisingly active project.-- Pharos ( talk) 04:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
// Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I just happened to come across this -- in light of recent events, thanks for keeping that article alive.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 15:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
As I mentioned at the new user CSD, I could start scraping this information. Which class A7, A5, etc. would you consider examining first? Ikip ( talk) 00:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Date | Name | Comments |
---|---|---|
2009 11 19 22:40 | Secret | deleted " Developement Centre of East-Iceland" (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion) |
2009 11 19 22:40 | Dlohcierekim | Deleted " JoeBob Mcgee" (A1: Not enough context to identify article's subject: although tere are ghits for person with this name, thic content insfficinet. same article deleted earlier. wold need rewrite from scratch) |
OK, I did some experimenting. The simplest thing is to take the deletions for a day and sort it by deletion reason . Any spreadsheet, or in Wikipedia, if a wikitable that large would work . DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
you be able to fix the name of the Faraday article to the full name (if you agree that is appropriate)? Beyond my skill set, I'm afraid.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 03:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I created resource room, and appreciate your help in making sure it wasn't deleted my a newbie who seems to be trigger happy (a self-described "deletionist"). Also, I did read your note on the fact that it needs to be expanded, but I am new to this, and want to make sure it is done right. Just when I lose my faith in this site, a person like you comes and makes sure good articles stay!
Jim Steele ( talk) 19:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
(UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#BYU Studies. Bongo matic 00:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
See latest results: [2], [3].-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 07:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Please read the replies to your latest posts. Please do not go yet.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 19:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to look again. Wondering what you think of this proposal: [4]-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 12:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Dave, you might want to keep an eye on this user. He or she has been very combative in comments on my talk page regarding spam articles that have been speedied. Thanks. Hope you're doing well. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 08:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey DGG, I responded about your concerns about Adam Lyons on the AfD page. My question is on a slightly different topic- basically about 5 users that voted delete have been blocked now for being sockpuppets and I was wondering if there was any procedure like removing their votes or adding a tag to their votes so an admin who doesn't know they have all been blocked can take that into consideration. I have mentioned it in my lengthy comment, but I don't know if there is anything else that should be done. DRosin ( talk) 10:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Courtesy notification. You were involved here and is now being discussed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Defying_an_AFD_decision Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 00:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The policy question is unresolved (what is the correct process). However, we've swept all conflict away as now I'll just notify people. Whether they want to re-create the article now that merge is off the table is up to them . Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 01:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your insight. I have no problem with West Baltimore but am satisfied that you see that there is a potential manipulation problem, possibly more in fiction. As long as we act nicely and fairly, Wikipedia is for the better. If a few of us are aware that manipulation can exist, then Wikipedia is also for the better. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 02:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the proper tag. The content of the article is based on the notion of a Collaborative Work Systems which is described in the literature as such. I have no objection to changing the name to Collaborative working system if that is within the Google scholar literature review however I did made two searches one for each proposed designation and indeed I notice the term "collaborative work" is much more consistent accross the literature so I propose to stick to the original name "collaborative work systems". As for the proposed merge with "Collaborative Working Environments" that is precisely the reason I have wrote this article in the first place: both notions are different. A "collaborative working environment" is a concept that emereges from a different research point of view, centered in the individual work of professionals that become e-professionals because they perform their work (e-work) within a networked environment, using not only collaborative software, but also videoconferencing systems which are not necessarily software-based. The concept of a collaborative work system on the other hand, is related to the organizational context of the work that occurs whenever two or more individuals collaborate for a given purpose. So the focus is not on the type of computer support to that work, but instead to the non-computer variables that affect that quality of work. It is important that one reads Beyond Teams, to see the difference on perspectives. Also, one needs to admit that a whole series of books dedicated to "Collaborative Work Systems" is sufficiently worth of having such a concept explained in wikipedia, independently of other related notions. Nunesdea ( talk) 22:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The academic students of management may have their own vocabulary for all this, and use words in special meanings. But a vocabulary of this sort is not natural language, and is apt to sound like impenetrable and unnecessary jargon to those outside it. If you're going to use it, you have to define the universe within which it is applicable, and you're going to have to prove, not assert, that it is well established and how it differs from the general use of the English language. In the Wikipedia environment -- or system-- articles that are not clear to ordinary readers tend to be nominated for deletion, and science has very little to do with it. Some fields' jargon is accepted by people here more easily than others, and as a fact of life here, however much you or I may deplore it, it's only fair that I advise you that there tends to be very limited patience with the applied social sciences DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Hope you'll indulge a casual drive-by question. (Saw you comment on a matter at ANI, and followed the link here.)
If I begin with random praise about librarians, it may surely sound like sucking up, but I have little notches in my brain linking the concepts of librarian and "important acts for freedom." (e.g., Not that I'm a huge fan of Michael Moore's, but I always remember the librarians who made sure "Stupid White Men" was published at that time.)
Anyway, my question is do you think there is a (natural?) correlation between the values/temperament of librarians and Equor administrators?
(Feel free to ignore, tis the holiday season and surely you've much else to do, and perhaps you may already answered this somewhere, if so, a link would a blessing.) In any case, happy holidays and many blessings in the coming year. -- Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
However, I wouldn't identify Wikipedia:Eguor admins with intellectual freedom specifically. Admins and other Wikipedians of all dispositions generally are almost all of us here because of our commitment to intellectual freedom in multiple ways--it's even one of our basic principles, as NOT CENSORED. The concept of Equor ( basically, anti-rogue ) is a little different--to use admin powers in a way that as careful and discreet, rather than heavy-handed and authoritarian. I do not actually agree with everything on that page--in one sense, adminship should indeed be regarded as a big deal, for the potential power of admins to harm Wikipedia is very great. But the point I have been trying to remind people of in recent weeks is that we do not exercise admin powers to express our view of what Wikipedia should be, but to enforce the consensus view of what Wikipedia should be. We don't have to agree with it, but we cannot use the tools in opposition to it or regardless of it. I asked for the tools for two reasons originally: to check whether deleted articles could be possibly rescued --with the community given another chance to decide if they were in fact rescuable, and to carry out the implied will of the community in removing ones that they obviously they would never support. Anything else I've done I've done incidentally--I will not pass over vandalism or disruption if I see it, but that's not what I go looking for (many others do, and they certainly should--we don't have to all emphasize the same things.) Unfortunately, all too many admins who work in all areas seem to regard themselves as infallible. They forget that we're not chosen for our great skill in policy--just the general knowledge of policy every active Wikipedian should have, but are needed primarily for having sound judgment and care in expressing it. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I guess my reaction in a nutshell is that most admins (present company excepted, by all means, if you wish exception) often seem to be the wrong animal to calm the waters — many believing there is only one species, and it's their kind. :-)
But I can only say that nut's worth after having written the below, which you can skim if you like, or just gaze across the waters. Cheers.
--
Proofreader77 (
talk)
06:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Dr. Goodman!
I ask you to fix the Nova article; I tried my best today to bring it into a more objective and better shape.
Wikipedia is not the place for the gymnastics of publisher downgrading, if people have a grudge concerning a publisher, they should sort it directly with them in a civilised way.
Franz Weber —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franz weber ( talk • contribs) 18:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG, remember this? Skema Business School . The article is becoming a primary sourced advert edited by a single editor (a former student they state) I mentioned it to them on their talkpage User talk:Julien Schmidwhat do you think is the way forward? Off2riorob ( talk) 18:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
2/0 makes a good point:
Care to make the AFD suggestion a cent/RFC? Seems like support for this proposal is very strong initially. Ikip 00:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC) RE: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Move_a_disputed_merge_to_AfD.2C_retitled_Articles_for_Discussion
You probably already noticed: [5] Ikip 00:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I tried to cut out the violating material. If it's still a copyvio, then tag it again. Bearian ( talk) 06:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
DGG, just to let you know there is a discussion ongoing here. Do you care to weigh in with an opinion? Bus stop ( talk) 22:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Another editor has created Template:Oldcsd, which can be added to the talk page of an article by an administrator who has declined a speedy delete. You may find this a convenient way to discourage repeated csd taggings of the same article for identical reasons. - Eastmain ( talk) 22:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Though actually I've been feeling less deletionist of late, and have been compensating for this with extra evil. I've just come across this. It's in no way blatantly promotional and my guess is that its content is all true. Yeah yeah, not truth but verifiable fact is what matters hereabouts; yet as this is a (sort of) published item, arguably (hmmm) it provides its own verification. Now, I'm all in favor of more and better articles on photography magazines -- Japan has had dozens of demonstrable, verifiable significance -- yet I feel queasy when I see an article on a manufacturer's freebie. As User:Wageless seems to have departed, you'll have to stand in for him as benign inclusionist in the Big Question: Shall we prod? -- Hoary ( talk) 01:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I am in the peculiar position of nominating this article despite preferring to keep it, because the limited sources and BLP issues made it seem like the best course of action. If you're so inclined, I'd be curious to see what you have to say if you weigh in on the debate. You often have "keep" arguments that I hadn't considered.-- otherl left 15:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you.
The Transhumanist 22:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Is The New York Times article an advertisement since it is located in the real estate section? Cunard ( talk) 06:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I quoted you. Ikip 13:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for chiming in on that article (original Sarah E. Meyer). The clarification on unsourced vs. unsourceable is excellent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougluce ( talk • contribs) 05:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
As an admin can you look at this please? I message a couple of other admins too. User_talk:Power.corrupts#Warning. Ikip 05:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for setting me straight and picking up the ball I dropped. I should have known better--BaliUltimate and JBSupreme (interesting, those modifiers in their names) in the edit history of a BLP means valuable stuff may have been cut. Anyway, thanks; I appreciate your due diligence and I mourn my lack thereof. Drmies ( talk) 04:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I was struck by your comments at WP:Requests for comment/Wuhwuzdat and realised that you are a librarian. The whole sad AIP business has made me think hard about how we treat those editors who are the target of WP:GLAM, as I don't think that page does the job we want it to. The more I've thought about it, the more I'm forced to the conclusion that we actually need to provide special treatment for them. There are a lot of people out there who actually have the same goals as wikipedia does, and I suspect we are intellectually arrogant to act as if only wikipedia was in the business of spreading free knowledge. What I think I mean, is that we should have a concept of "Sympathy of Interest" – the antithesis to Conflict of Interest. When new editors are identified as having SoI, surely we should be doing everything possible to encourage them to contribute? Perhaps require other editors to make an absolute assumption of good faith (not the conditional WP:AGF that we use now).
I know I'm "preaching to the choir" here, but I'd appreciate any thoughts you had on what I'm suggesting. Am I hopelessly over-optimistic that we could adopt a SoI policy one day? -- RexxS ( talk) 20:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The conventional place for notices about this is the COI noticeboard, although it is mainly looked at by people having exaggerated ideas of what constitutes COI and spamming. Another channel of communication is the wikipedia-en list; I suppose I must also mention IRC, though many people, including myself, choose to never participate there. I urge anyone who thinks they have been treated unfairly to contact me. I can at least give them advice on whether what they want to do is reasonable, and if so, how to do it without raising unnecessary antagonism. What I of course cannot do is guarantee success in convincing others . DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I wish you well on your current projects
1. Rescuing worthy speedies & prods in all fields & discussing the procedure. As of Jan 2010, I have at least succeeded in changed the time from 5 days to 7 to allow fairer notice and better discussion.
2. keeping articles about academics & academic organizations from deletion.
3. upgrading "list of journals in .." and "...open access journals"
4. adding articles for major ref. sources
5. keeping important "in popular culture" articles from deletion, and upgrading their content
6. Changing AfD to "Articles for Discussion" and considering all good faith disputed merges and redirect there also. As of Jan. 2010, this is about to be adopted.
7. making some possible changes to speedy deletion criteria. I have been reluctant to add to the work at Del Rev by appealing the many incorrect speedies I come across but which are for articles that have no chance of surviving AfD, but perhaps we really should be doing this to make the teaching point.
Btw what is your email ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polysophia ( talk • contribs) 03:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your criterion that is set out in this discussion, and elsewhere. (See my question there.) What am I missing? Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I asked some questions at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_23#Template:EGA_I, which I hope you will be able to answer.
Thanks. — Dominus ( talk) 14:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you care one way or the other any more? Bearian ( talk) 18:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Opinions? PubMed listed, but its reliability has been questioned. Tim Vickers ( talk) 19:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I really don't want to do something like that. I've already had a lot of trouble with admins that go out of process and I wouldn't like to repeat it in a case like this because all that it did was make me look bad. Which it might me look bad again because of the whole unreferenced BLP issue. Joe Chill ( talk) 22:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
[ [6]] :) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. :-)
Please could you restore the page, as it needs to be an admin who does that? (I can't access the relevant archive pages.) thisisace ( talk) 07:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you can comment at the SambaStream AfD. It involves as source a trade journal, Information Today, Inc., which should be familiar to you. Pcap ping 18:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
You are being notified because you participated in a previous Afd regarding this article, either at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Argentina–Singapore_relations or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines–Romania relations, and you deserve a chance to weigh in on this article once again. -- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 00:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I noticed articles created by another editor for two journals published in India which may not be notable, Indian Journal of Botanical Research and Indian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research. The articles may have been deleted by the time you see this message. A handful of citations show up at Google Scholar but not the journals themselves. I don't have access to Ulrich's online. If you think they might be notable, please add any evidence for that to the articles. Many thanks. - Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Once again, Spartaz has relisted a fictional AfD that has overwhelming consensus to keep: Last time was Technology in Stargate at 8 to 3, this time it's Unseen University at 6 to 2. Gotta say, I don't see this as a positive and productive trend. What do you think--am I being too paranoid? Jclemens ( talk) 07:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Just so you know, I've been vocal trying to deal with this unnecessary attack on Wikipedia, but I've also been busy sourcing articles in my area of expertise. I know what these unreferenced stub BLP articles look like. Yes I wish others would too. The big problem is the blowhards who just want to delete the stuff they haven't bothered to look at. Trackinfo ( talk) 02:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
DGG - I’ve just completed drafting my first WP essay in my user space: Creating A Better List. As of yet it is not linked anywhere except through the {{Essay}} template. My ultimate objective is to move this essay to the project space, but at this point, that is premature without some feedback from fellow editors. As such I would appreciate your opinion on the essay, especially on two points. 1) Have I made any statements contradictory to WP policy or guidelines? 2) Are there additional examples that could be included to demonstrate my points more effectively?
Thanks in advance for your review and feel free to make any editorial changes you think would enhance the essay. Please provide comments here, as I am asking several editors to comment and would like to keep them all in the same place.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 00:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. Just wanted to inform you that the editor who has been randomly placing prod-tags into Wikipedia Lists has indicated on his talk page, that in the past 2 weeks he already had 2 articles deleted via prod. It might be a good idea to undelete these 2 lists given the fact that the editor's prod-nomination on these Lists is unnecessary. Amsaim ( talk) 23:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Sparnon, and article whose proposed deletion you objected to. Cnilep ( talk) 18:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Ucucha 18:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Softlink, a maker of library management software apparently. By the way, is there a WikiProject for library-related stuff, so I can post there instead and not look like I'm canvasing a well-known inclusionist? (The only other librarian I know here is User:PamD, but she's not active here anymore). Thanks, Pcap ping 04:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Since you've expressed an interest in these matters before I thought you might be interested to know that I've been working with another editor on this: User:Equazcion/Editing controversial subjects. If you have any input it would be welcome. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 03:57, 19 Feb 2010 (UTC)
This was speedily deleted a couple of times, but as far I can tell it's a division of Information Today, Inc. Can you check if that was the article contents, and if so merge it? If not I'll create a redirect. Also, do you have access to the magazine? It has articles on CMS companies that are regularly brought up at AfD, e.g. Ektron. Thanks, Pcap ping 07:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
You're my go-to guy on scholarly journals. Could you have a look at this new one? -- Orange Mike | Talk 03:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Sigh: [7]
I am so tired of this, and that is what many editors are hoping for. Okip 14:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
DDG - I was reviewing PRODs and chose to remove one from this article. I added appropriate tags and rationale here, and I added a note here for the editor that placed the PROD. I also began some article improvements. Did I apply the process correctly? (Not worried about my rationale here, just whether or not I followed the procedures correctly). Thanks-- Mike Cline ( talk) 16:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi DGG, I am hoping you'll be able to give me some idea of how notable the scholarly journal Slavic Review actually is, which I came across in the Mark D. Steinberg article (I see that the article claims it is quite notable, but I trust your judgment more than our articles when it comes to this kind of issue). If this is a significant journal, then would I be correct in believing Steinberg's status as "Editor" probably meets WP:PROF under "The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area"? Part of what makes me wary here is that the associate editor of the journal is his wife, it's run out of his university, and his article was initially what appears to be his CV from the Slavic Review site; on the other hand, I really haven't the knowledge to assess how "typical" this is of a well-regarded journal. Thanks for any thoughts you may have on the subject. Risker ( talk) 01:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
How is a DRV for an article like Ambarish Srivastava supposed to work ?
I didn't find anything at WP:DRV that addressed this point, and thought you'd perhaps know. Regards. Abecedare ( talk) 20:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, could you stop removing appropriate templates, you can say your opinion in talk page -- Typ932 T· C 21:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
you did not give any good reason for removing the tag, its wrongly removed, you explanations in edit summary was not enough, that article is definately deletable material. -- Typ932 T· C 13:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
DGG, I'd appreciate it if you too continued to keep an eye on Christopher Klim. (See its talk page.) -- Hoary ( talk) 03:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The magazine is at AfD. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Some troll created this, it was Prodded, I found it, and voila! I've nominated it for a certain day's DYK. Please, can you help source it? Bearian ( talk) 01:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what you had in mind when you stated that Wiki2touch was a "major software for a major site" in deprodding the article, but reading that article, it would seem to me that the Wikimedia Foundation was not involved in the making of this software. A jailbreak is even required to run it. -- Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 02:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, DGG. You contested the proposed deletion of List of Presidents of Mexico by longevity with the concern, "needs merging, not deletion -- material not in citd article," but you did not specify which article or articles you think the material should be merged to. Could you either carry out that merger or specify the target you had in mind? The {{ mergeto}} tag may be helpful. Happy editing, Cnilep ( talk) 18:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
DGG, can you comment on the reliability of the publication Journal of Genetic Genealogy at this this RSN thread ? The debate has been active for over two weeks, and input from uninvolved editors essentially drowned by lengthy back and forth between the disputants ( User:Andrew Lancaster, rudra and User:DinDraithou). Abecedare ( talk) 20:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I was wielding the mop and bucket while in the airport in CSD and came across this one CSD-G7, where the nominator is actually not the author of the content and it appears that the author challenged a PROD but blanked the page, then re-added something, that was then blanked by another editor. There's no doubt it needs deletion but CSD-G7 doesn't seem appropriate after an apparently contested PROD. Thoughts for a novice admin??-- Mike Cline ( talk) 14:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
However, a check in Google for the name of his company (which in actuality I tried first, though I cannot say why--perhaps because i unconsciously guessed that tyrenius would possibly have already checked the person name) shows that he is not a real person, but a fictional character in Battlestar Galactic, & thus not covered by A7. Unfortunately, actual reading of the BattleStarWiki page and a search there shows the inventor of the Meta-Cognitive Processor in the story was Tomas Vergis, who might or might not need a separate article, and that there is not actually any character with the name of Jason Sarrio. (Checking yet further, the invention shows up in [[List of Caprica episodes|episode 1 of the prequel Caprica, but the name of the inventor is not mentioned there, nor has anyone ever tried to write an article on him. Thus it would make sense to simply add the name to the description of the episode, which I am about to do, without even making a redirect, as the Battlestar wiki does not indicate that he ever actually appears in the show, which is my criterion for when a redirect is needed. The obvious conclusion is that someone wrote the article as a joke, presumably JS or one or his acquaintances, and that A7 is right after all.
Hi, I posted a proposal a section for deletion [ link title citing the reason it was not relevant to the subject of article. I just noticed you removed the deletion tag without specifying any reason to do so on the discussion page. I would appreciate it, if you could cite a reason as to why this is related to the subject of the article. I thought deletion tags could not be removed without a discussion, perhaps I may be wrong in that. If so I would appreciate a feedback on the same. Cr!mson K!ng ( talk) 13:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the information. It was helpful :). I hope you didn't mind me asking as I have recently joined Wiki. Cr!mson K!ng ( talk) 20:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC) school, it does not sound implausible. The university web site does not seem to be working except for the main page, or it would be much easier. BTW, I do not understand your suggestion to merge to the college page, because if he is not in fact notable, we would not include him there. WP is not a faculty directory. If he does have an article, only then do we list him as one of the distinguished people from the university. I look at a lot of university pages, & one of the things I routinely check is additions of people without articles or not obviously qualified for one, & I always remove them.
Thanks DGG. One more: Recommendation: After writing a new page, it is recommended that, after one month if you think that if someone has flaged it for notability check, you nominate it for an early afd or ask help from admin to nominate. Thx. -- kaeiou ( talk) 17:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I do understand the afd process and I have followed it technically. The difficulty with me and many is how wiki defines the WP:BEFORE. They have failed to list the tools that users need to identify whether a particular page needs the afd process. I recommend wiki listing in WP:BEFORE all the tools such as [9]that wiki admin uses to find out why someone is not wiki notable. That should solve my problems of nominating wiki pages for afd process. Thx.-- kaeiou ( talk) 02:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
How do we get the momentum back to get this implemented? I was reminded of it as Sebwite is getting impatient and is proposing yet another process, see Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal:_Articles_for_merging_.28AfM.29. We've got consensus for a name change of AfD and for it to incorporate merges, so the rest is detail, but it is getting bogged down in people rehashing the arguments that were already resolved. Here's what I think needs to be done:
Have I missed anything? Fences& Windows 17:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I was helping clear out CAT:CSD this evening and found that I was declining a surprising number of tags, especially A7's. Could you take a look at [10] and [11] and make sure that I'm using reasonably criteria. If you don't have time or energy to do it, that's fine too. Thanks! Eluchil404 ( talk) 06:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I have not yet reviewed the ones you did delete, but the proportion that you didn't is no higher than usual. Of course the proportion one finds depends on when one does it and what one looks for. I try to look for the ones there several hours than other admins apparently preferred not to figure out, and i delete only about half of those. But if I do a random assortment, what you found is not at all unusual in my experience. I looked to see if it were perhaps one person tagging them, which would require some advice to them, but this wasn't the case. When it's isolated cases like this I do not notify the person whose tag I removed, because they should be able to figure it out from the edit summary. If tagging by whoever wants to do it gives a 10% or 20% error, it would not be more than would be expected. That's what we admins are here for. the hope is that between their tagging it and our check , there will not be more than a 5% error. This is too high from the point of view of treating new editors properly, but it's as good as can be hopen for by our processes. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, please let me know what portion of the David F. Alfonso page contained copyright infringement, I would like to tighten that up so that I may re-post. Thanks. AcquisitionGuru ( talk) 14:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
If we do want to make a step towards quality that might be compatible with this project, perhaps you can help me figure out a practical method for the periodic revisiting and updating of all our articles. As time goes by, this will be a problem that whose severity will inevitably increase. and it won;t be easy. As only one aspect, essentially every number in the encyclopedia needs to be checked to see if it is still accurate. every author and artist needs to be checked to see they have not produced further work. Every statement with a date after 2000 is likely to need changing, and every statement without a date is needs checking to see if it needs changing. Every reference list needs checking to see if there are newer works, and if the old ones are still the best. Every external links section needs checking to see not just if they are alive, but if they are still the best for the purpose. DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't want my name on these biographies. Please delete them. If you want, recreate them yourself. - Atmoz ( talk) 07:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I liked your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. C. Johnson where you respond to the statement "notability is not inherited" and you frame it as an "improper use of the term" -- I think there's a potential useful wikipedia essay in that.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 02:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
One aspect of mentoring success is demonstrated by the slow process through which your words are captured, studied, parsed and re-examined in a context not anticipated in your original remarks.
I do not know whether imitation is the sincerest form of flattery; but I do know that I have adopted your words as if they were my own here.
I would prefer that you construe no flattery. Rather, I would hope you think that this only shows a recognition of common sense reasoning.-- Tenmei ( talk) 19:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello D - what is the standing of WP:BEFORE, in your view? It's not described as a guideline; I've never seen any AFDs that were speedily closed after an editor posted multiple reliable, online sources in the AFD itself, or pointed to a topic's inherent significance (e.g. Nursing in Pakistan). I also haven't seen that adding refimprove, no refs, etc. templates to an article can prevent or end an AFD, despite BEFORE's wording. The deletion process does sometimes galvanize editors into improving articles. So then it might be framed as a means v. ends issue. If this has been discussed elsewhere, pls let me know. Sincerely, Novickas ( talk) 01:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Greetings, DGG. I have entered the world of academic research rather abruptly, and have amassed in the span of one day this list of articles from JSTOR. Daunting, I know. I should be grateful if you could send me copies of, or otherwise give me the opportunity to read, at least some of those. I am not in a hurry, so if you decide to assist me you can work your way towards the bottom of the list at your own pace; whenever you decide you've had enough, I'll go bother someone else and they can pick up from where you will have left off. What do you think?
PS: Comments about my use of {{ Cite journal}} are also welcome. I have probably included more information than what appears to be the default. Waltham, The Duke of 05:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Goodman,
You kindly offered to rewrite the article (biography) about me Clement Bowman. Reference: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clement_Bowman.
The article does a reasonable job in documenting bibliographic information about me but I wholeheartedly agree with you that it could be improved. In particular, it does not fully portray the global importance of the Canadian oil sands (the resource is of size comparable to the oil in Saudi Arabia), and the role that I was fortunate to play at three key stages (helping to launch the first surface mining projects in the 1960s, initiating joint government/ industry projects on the deeply buried oil sands in the 1970s, and currently addressing the major environmental issues as Energy Task Force Chair for the Canadian Academy of Engineering). There are also a small number of facts, patents, supporting citations and 3rd party references that do not appear in the article yet are of significance to the organizations I worked for.
If you are still interested in rewriting the article, I will gladly assist you in whatever way I can. I have references for the items mentioned above as well as other supporting information that may be of use or interest to you. I must admit that at 80, I am not comfortable attempting to edit an article on Wikipedia. I am however, most willing to assist someone who is.
Thank you for considering my request.
Kind regards,
Clem Bowman (
e-mail) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Clembowman (
talk •
contribs)
16:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Goodman, thank you for your time, questions and revisions. I have posted responses (references) to your questions on the article's talk page
User talk:Clement_Bowman. I welcome any further questions or requests to verify the content.
Kind regards,
Clem
Clembowman (
talk)
15:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
DGG - I just put this essay in my user space. It still needs some work, but would appreciate any thoughts. Also, who else might I ask to weigh-in to help improve it? Am on the road this week in Pittsburgh and South Carolina so I'll have some time to work on it. Thanks-- Mike Cline ( talk) 17:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Socratic Barnstar | |
for your eloquent, well reasoned statement at Request for clarification: Summary out-of-process deletions [13] Pohick2 ( talk) 20:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC) |
it seems to me, that lacking leadership, we need to provide leadership such as you. i've been looking for a Wikipedia:Improvement Cabal, modeled on the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, building on Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive; Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Reform/Attrition/Study. (adding to your statement) some of the problem is the peter principle, where editors who have become admins are not trained, or experienced in the management of an organization or process.
we need to improve quality using the principles of Edwards Deming; a cabal could implement continuous wiki improvement, apart from "official" channels, using consensus.
do you agree? how would we recruit like minded users, and implement some quality improvement? Pohick2 ( talk) 20:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
We need a way for information on Chippewa Middle School to be shown on Wikipedia. Go to Talk:Chippewa Middle School, Shoreview, MN for more info. Ratburntro44 ( talk) 21:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
My advice is to write expanded sections in the article on the school district for each of these schools, including the ones with existing articles, and then make a redirect from the school name. The first step in expanding them would then be to make a separate combination article for the elementary schools, and one for the middle schools. It will be possible to expand these eventually.
I'm just saying what we normally do, and giving you the best advice I can as an editor with considerable experience here with all sorts of school articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Taking up your offer, I have closed this MfD as "keep for DGG to improve and restore to main space". Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 22:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm really glad I stopped by to read people's comments at an important discussion at ArbCom.
I hope you'll forgive me posting a short positive critical comment here on your ideas offered for community consideration.
You made a number of points, several struck me as very practical and positive, even if a bit of a challenge for us to actually embrace as a project. The first point that I want to highlight is: "the entire thrust of Wikipedia policy should be devoted to the encouragement of new people". I think that is very much in keeping with modern management best-practice. A deliberate strategy of recruiting and mentoring new staff has been advocated and proven to be effective in organizations for something like a decade now, and I think it's enlightened of you to see how the Wiki project screams for some such deliberate policy. Now I'm phrasing this positively, but I think it is salutory for us to appreciate that we not only fail to encourage new people, we have bad habits that work precisely against this aim.
The next point I'd like to note I appreciated was: "The proper reaction to an unsourced article is to source it, ideally by teaching the author how to do so". This follows as a very practical implementation of the policy of encouraging and mentoring new people. Of course, the truth of this is obvious. What is valuable imo about your comment is that you dare to point out that the Emperor has no clothes. What I mean is, we permit people to be "Wikilawyers" and use policy standards to delete things, which is very short-sighted. The policy standards are not grounds for obstruction, they are pointers to what kinds of additions are necessary. In many cases, sadly, we see tendencies in the current (hopefully temporary) culture of the project that mean we are shooting ourselves in the foot, destroying content and intimidating potential recruits from being partners in the project.
Even more practical, a third point struck me as absolutely spot on: we need more stubs and fewer lists. A stub invites contribution, it demonstrates care, it sets an example. A list looks daunting, it feels like work. Perhaps, if the truth be known, people who don't want certain kinds of material at Wiki, will content themselves if sketchy articles and stubs are removed and simply become redlinks on lists.
Returning to an abstraction, but perhaps the most profoundly good suggestion among all your points, you said: "the thought that we would want to remove what we have not looked at is about as rational as removing every tenth article from the encyclopedia blindly". You said this in a context that made it clear that you believe there should be some kinds of qualifications for those who'd propose deletion. As it stands, people can propose deletion in seconds, waving an arm in the general direction of a policy somewhere. Of course, that'll be fine in obvious speedy cases, but in other cases, it simply precipates unnecessary disharmony, between people who know something about the content and care that content remains available to readers, and those who insist that unless they are personally satisfied a topic is worthy it should fall to the censor's pen. It's a conflict systematically biased in favour of pedants and interest groups who want to silence "the opposition".
Although your solution is not fleshed out in detail, I like what I can pick up: essentially, if deletion proposers are required to actually "write for the enemy" first and seek sources and so on (precisely what academic standards normally presuppose), although this might not lead to a change of perspective, it would lead to more information being made available for decision making (delete or not), hence the possibility of rational conclusions based on common sense (read consensus), rather than the council of despair: "we don't know, so it must go!"
To draw what has already become too long to some kind of conclusion, you also boldly said: "the only people qualified to judge are those who are prepared themselves to work". Of course, I expect you recognize well enough that there are plenty of places where willingness to work can be presumed on the evidence of contribution-history and so on, but I, for one, really take to heart your point, even in the specific case of any individual deletion discussion. I'd offer the following refinement of your argument. The reason only those who've worked can be qualified to judge is because at Wikipedia editors must be presumed ignorant and their opinions irrelevant, only those who've worked sufficiently will know the reliable opinions that can be discerned from sources. Donors expect the Foundation to uphold processes and the volunteers who staff those processes, who will provide access to reliable sources, not censorship, nor decisions that reflect the inexpert opinions of volunteer amateur editors, however good their faith.
To conclude, I must thank you Dave, because you articulate ideals that I thought transparently obvious from the policies I read when joining the project some years ago. Very early on, however, I observed that there were plenty of administrators and editors who did not seem to be clear about these principles. So be it, thought I, we are all learning together. Policy describes ideals. Getting the policies right is only step one. Working together to help one another strive for and progress towards those ideals is, as in "real life", an ongoing imperfect work. But that's precisely what Wiki is and always will be. At least until human beings know everything there is to know, and everyone is a Wiki editor, that is.
Thanks for your service to readers, donors, Foundation and editors, Dave. Keep it up! Alastair Haines ( talk) 04:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi DGG. That test you did seems interesting. Please keep me in the loop about the results. The reason I'm trying to address this as a whole is because the way we're handling it isn't scaling. If we rely on editors to use current methods of deletion, and require people to investigate each article they nominate (while 10x more articles are being created) we'll hardly make a dent in the backlog and it won't stop new unreferenced articles from being created which basically fill the backlog right back up. Do you have a suggestion that can improve our rate of cleaning out the backlog that is in line with the views you expressed in the discussion regaring new users? If we can somehow get article creators to use good practices without stepping on their toes, we can have the best of both worlds. -
Mgm|
(talk)
08:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I will be rewording the David Alfonso page (22:05, 12 March 2010 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted "David F. Alfonso" (Speedy deleted per CSD G12, was an unambiguous copyright infringement. using TW)) and then will seek to repost the article. Wiki asks that I contact you first. Is there a way to revive the deleted page? As for the reason for deletion, I can fix that easily. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AcquisitionGuru ( talk • contribs)
I did receive your email, thanks. The reason I ask is that the entire article cleary wasn't copied from the FIU site, thus saving me the time difference between rewriting the entire thing versus correcting the copyvio issue. Last, your recommendations are well received and noted. Thanks again AcquisitionGuru ( talk) 18:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
DGG - You made the following statement in the AfD - Every major work of a famous artist is notable. Given that statement, would the statement Every major work by a famous author is notable be equally valid? Not debating the statement you made, because I like its simplicity, but can we take this logic further into other genera? Thanks-- Mike Cline ( talk) 16:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi DGG
Last year, what appears to be the communications department of SAIS Bologna made this edit, which despite some promotional-sounding stuff, I didn't revert.
Now they have done this number on the article. Is a wholesale reversion appropriate? Would you be willing to have a word with the editor? I feel your nuanced approach is likely to have better results than other avenues.
Thanks, Bongo matic 00:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I edited the SAIS Bologna Center Wikipedia page and am confused as to the problem with my edits. I am a current student and am beefing up the article to make it more like the SAIS DC page. I understand if there is a problem with linking to the faculty pages on the BC website, but am confused as to why it is promotional to list the available concentrations and languages taught. All of this information is on the SAIS DC Wikipedia page, which I used as a guide. I'm just trying to make the two pages more similar in their format and include more information on the BC page as it is significantly less robust than the DC page.
Best,
Rebekah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Communications-BC-SAIS ( talk • contribs) 01:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
Understood. I've changed the username. I am a student at SAIS BC who works for the Communications office. I was tasked with making our Wikipedia page more substantial by making it mirror the SAIS DC page. Please let me know what is acceptable/unacceptable so I don't waste time making edits that will just be deleted. Is is OK to list faculty, concentrations, and languages as long as I don't put the levels offered or link to the BC page? Can I put in a section on our Speaker Series and/or the History of the school? I'm just confused as to what is considered OK/not since I'm merely reformatting the DC page for our program.
Thank you for your help!
Rebekah —Preceding unsigned comment added by OdetteBR ( talk • contribs) 16:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
One more quick question. There are some factual errors on the page that I would like to change, but I can't figure out how to edit the sidebar/overview. They are: 1) the building renovation was completed in 2006 and 2) there are 190 students in the program (sidebar). Additionally, can I change the main heading to: "The Johns Hopkins University SAIS Bologna Center" instead of 'SAIS Bologna Center' since that is our official name?
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by OdetteBR ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
It is not OK to list faculty, unless you limit it to those who have a Wikipedia page, or are so notable that they would be clearly entitled to one, ether for their academic distinction, or for other aspects of their career. Call the section "Notable faculty" not "Faculty". for the ones with WP pages, just give the link to that page. Check the page to make sure the link to their current official page at the Center is given in the external links & add or adjust it as necessary--that's where the link belongs. For the ones without pages, you need to give a link to some evidence to show their obvious fitness--you might want to consider making pages for them, but see WP:BIO for the standards-- academic distinction in the social sciences is normally shown by having a number of published books from major university presses, or major national level awards. Notability in public service is normally shown by being an ambassador, or a civil servant of similar rank, and having references to reliable published sources about them.
Personally, I think that a foreign service school offers languages is a matter for its own web site. Similarly, the various concentrations tend to be fairly obvious, and are best suited for that also--I cannot see how any of the encyclopedia users not considering applying to the school would care, but some articles do include it. . I will be removing the various promotional wordings unless you get there first, as well as the picture of the city. And the reference cited for ranking seems to refer to the entire school, not this center, & is therefore irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Dear DGG,
Thanks for your help! A few more questions: 1. Since the Bologna Center is a part of JHU SAIS rather than a separate entity (about half of all incoming students spend their first year in Bologna and their second year in DC), it is appropriate to have the ranking up as it encompasses all of SAIS' campuses (DC, Bologna, and Nanjing). We are one institution with multiple campuses, not separate universities like CSU- Long Beach/CSU- Fullerton. 2. How can I upload a photo of the school? I understand that the view from the terrace isn't necessarily relevant, but I'd like to upload a panorama of the school building.
Thanks!
Rebekah —Preceding unsigned comment added by OdetteBR ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Dear DGG,
A quick update that I changed the photo on the SAIS Bologna Center Wikipedia page from the view from Abernathy Terrace (which there were concerns about its relevance) to a panorama of the school itself (seemed more "encyclopedia" and relevant). The photo was taken by Elizabeth Garvey and we have secured her permission to use it on the site. She is currently writing an official letter of permission to send to Wikipedia. Please let me know if I need to do anything else to make sure that the photo complies with Wikipedia's policies.
Best,
Rebekah —Preceding unsigned comment added by OdetteBR ( talk • contribs) 09:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
At this AFD [16] I seem to be pursuing something along the lines of a tip-of-the iceberg argument; that is, if an editor can find multiple Gbook search results on an article's topic, it's presumed worth an article. There's an underlying assumption there - that Gbook search results are always only a partial representation of what's been written - and so (especially during an AFD) showing some Gbook results implies wider coverage. Yes, there is the issue of only passing mentions in those results (which IMO doesn't apply in that AFD case); but am seeking your opinion, links to precedents, Gbook cultural under-representation that would lend more weight in some cases, general thoughts, etc. Sincerely, Novickas ( talk) 23:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, perhaps you can have a look at this (marginally-notable) journal, where two editors are butting heads... -- Crusio ( talk) 22:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Socratic Barnstar | |
For your comment made at WP:AN here. I am not able to say what you said there any clearer than what you said right there. – MuZemike 07:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC) |
I was musing on this with BLPs after the discussion here. I had never heard of this character (now deleted) and found the page amusing due to my background (psychiatry) and interest in observing how people relate to others, but concede that there is precious little 'encyclopedic' I guess apart from his notability. You mention GNG - and it got me thinking - one sort of refinement could be that a BLP has to be related to or be an example of somehow otherwise notable content? - either part of a notable list (eg list of elected politicians) or related - we already have authors have to be notable for writing something of a certain standard, actors, sportspeople etc. The more I think of these the more we have covered, are there any gaps then? I guess there were for this person...pardon the stream-of-consciousness writing though, I suspect this discussion has been had elsewhere (??) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
DGG, this stuff is complete gobbledy-gook to me: User talk:SandyGeorgia#Gustav Mahler FAC closure. The information in those External links at Gustav Mahler means nothing to me. Would you have time to put a plain English explanation on my talk, where others will see your explanation, so we'll know what to do with these at FAC? Or perhaps work on getting some plain English into Authority control so non-librarians can understand what purpose this info serves? Is this an appropriate External link? I just don't get it. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Please visit User:MichaelQSchmidt/The GNG and notability for actors and share your thoughts. Thank you, --10:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
All of these pages were deleted. I think all of them had NPOV. There were also explanations of notoriety for all of them. There was no process or debate before any of these were deleted.
1. (Deletion log); 17:56 . . JzG (talk | contribs) deleted "The Bargainist" (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
2. (Deletion log); 17:56 . . JzG (talk | contribs) deleted "Ben's Bargains" (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
3. (Deletion log); 17:56 . . JzG (talk | contribs) deleted "Tjoos" (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
4. (Deletion log); 17:53 . . JzG (talk | contribs) deleted "KidsCamps" (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
5. (Deletion log); 17:52 . . JzG (talk | contribs) deleted "CruiseMates" (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
6. (Deletion log); 13:26 . . Redvers (talk | contribs) deleted "3FatChicks" (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))
7. (Deletion log); 13:23 . . Redvers (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:GrooveJob" (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)
8. (Deletion log); 13:22 . . Redvers (talk | contribs) deleted "GrooveJob" (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))
9. (Deletion log); 13:22 . . Redvers (talk | contribs) deleted "Dave's Garden" (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))
10. (Deletion log); 13:22 . . Redvers (talk | contribs) deleted "Splitcoaststampers" (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))
11. (Deletion log); 13:21 . . Redvers (talk | contribs) deleted "HuntingNet" (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))
12. (Deletion log); 13:19 . . Redvers (talk | contribs) deleted "ExpertHub" (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))
Also: World66 page.
This seems very unfair. Any help and advice welcome. LuvWikis ( talk) 03:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuvWikis ( talk • contribs)
It is my intention to go back to these after I finish dealing with the ones that are still here, and meet any challenges to them at afd. It is however quite possible that some of these should be combined.There is no need for anyone to ask permission to put in a better article that meets the objections, to replace a deleted one. But I need to warn you that I think you would be well advised not to do it yourself--the material that you have been adding , both the articles and the links, is so promotional that you will probably be quite justifiably blocked if you continue. I support removing spam and fixing articles. I do not support keeping spam, far from it. I do not think the admins who removed the other articles were necessarily wrong, but my approach is to fix when possible. I do it for the good of the encyclopedia, not for anyone personally, and there is no need to thank me. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello David – can you stop by the deletion discussion going on here The Irving Literary Society. Discussions are being moved - !votes are being moved. On one hand I can understand the editors reasoning behind the reformatting. On the other, it could be construed as stacking the deck. Appreciate your thoughts and input. Regards - ShoesssS Talk 17:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Stillwaterising ( talk) 10:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC) ructions. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
For telling the truth at AN/I about AfDs. -- Cyclopia talk 18:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
GregJackP ( talk) 17:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
This is about the provision in BLP PROD at [22], that a blp prod can be replaced if anyone thinks there is a policy based reason why a source is not reliable. As I see it, this section is still disputed. It will be a sad day when it becomes WP policy that the mere dispute over the reliability of a source is reason enough to delete an article. The place to resolved such disputes is afd, or if more focused discussion is needed, at the RS noticeboard. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, DGG. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2#Bullshido.net, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination). Cunard ( talk) 21:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
DGG - I trust you are well - Your comments (and others as well) at an ongoing DRV inspired me to finally bring this essay Archimedes was deleted to light. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 13:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
If you have a few minutes, would you please consider explaining the concept of self-publication over at WT:V? I've been told repeatedly today that multinational corporations do not publish their own websites, and are, in fact, incapable of authoring or publishing anything because there are too many lawyers and marketing professionals involved.
Apparently a couple of ignorant editors believe that the number of employees at the publisher is the primary factor for figuring out whether the name under "author" is the same as the name under "publisher" -- so that a small, but properly published, traditional newspaper is probably "self-published", but corporate websites are published by someone other than the corporation that wrote it, published it, and is legally liable for its contents. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. A discussion has opened at Wikipedia talk:College and university article guidelines#notability of non-accredited and non-degree granting institutions on a topic about which you have historically expressed opinions. You might wish to comment there. -- Orlady ( talk) 16:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Would you be willing to put this article on your watch list for a while? There has been a dispute over the right version, and editing is locked. But instead of talk page discussion to resolve the issues, perhaps with a compromise, there was started a vote to merge....which has not been properly done. A look at current discussion will make it clear why merging without resolving the editing dispute is problematic. 173.52.182.160 ( talk) 12:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
So you don't have to keep making it from scratch:
How is an unreferenced article written by one of the writers of the play who has spammed two other articles with self-promotional blurbs anything other than spam? Are You The Cow Of Pain? ( talk) 01:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear DGG,
Thanks for your comment that the Soho Center's inclusion in Wikipedia is not entirely promotional. I have a question.
A LOT of the local and regional coverage of the work the Soho Center has done appears in local and small regional newspapers and newsletters - everything from the Madison (VA) Eagle to the UN's Secretariat News). Unfortunately little (if any) of this coverage is on-line to be cited. We have extensive files of this coverage in print form but little that can be linked. As such can we create PDF or graphics files of these articles, store them on one of our servers, and then create links to them? They will be true copies of printed articles and might serve as third party verifications of Soho's efforts as well as inform readers of Wikipedia of our work as seen by outsiders. Any thoughts you have would be very much appreciated.
Thanks! George Beker -- Wikigbjgb ( talk) 11:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am currently involved in a proposal for a guideline on primary, secondary and tertiary sources. I have just discovered that you were once involved in a similar proposal a while ago - either in contributing to it directly or in discussing it on its talk page. You may wish to get involved in the current proposal and I would encourage you to do so - even if you just want to point out where we have gone wrong! Yaris678 ( talk) 23:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Good call on the keep for this article. I was a bit lax deciding on notability (one Google search and I missed the publishers page :(). I did some work massaging what you added to make ammends. Cheers. --Errant Tmorton166( Talk) 08:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
David, I was out deproding this morning and removed the PROD on this one: Air University Library's Index to Military Periodicals. I am intimately familar with this index as I was on the faculty at the Air Command and Staff College for 3 years and used the library extensively for research for many years. As a Librarian, where should I be looking to find references about the importance and usefulness of this index. Am certain it is notable within the context of military (especially Airpower) research, but don't have a clue where to start looking for that kind of recognition. Any thoughts would be useful. As well, do any other projects come to mind that might be appropriate for the article? Thanks and hope all is well in NYC. PS, I will be in NYC on 27-30 June and may have some time on the 27th or 30th to get together if you are available. I'd be delighted to meet you in person. I will be in the Greenwich/Soho area of Manhattan on business. If interested, let me know by email.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 17:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
First, would you mind doing some serious archiving here? 250 sections is kind of ridiculous and the page is 436kb. Second, do you have any interest (or wherewithal!) to revisit the stalled Articles for Deletion proposal and try to effect its implementation? ÷ seresin 00:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
This is what comes of fire-fighting. I've been trying to rescue every possible BLP Prod, but they've gotten too many for me. Real pity, as 80% can be saved. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists (television). Taric25 ( talk) 02:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
Hi. If and when you get a chance please look at this [24] I and another editor have taken the time to edit the special education article. Also see the novella that is the talk page. Apparently someone think it is biased towards the U.S., though we have presented numerous evidence to the contrary. Including research articles from journals from all over the world. In my opinion it's someone with an axe to grind. You've got a great eye for detail so I'd like your input. I'm assuming good faith but patience is wearing thin... Jim Steele ( talk) 14:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC) C)
Hello David. Recently I saw an AFD closure rationale that analyzed 'to what extent were WP policies and guidelines cited'. I saw that as a Good Thing, but after several years here, while I have a general sense of the existence of many policies and guidelines governing deletion, I still find it hard to navigate among them. Probably newcomers would find it even harder. What do you think of creating a List of Wikipedia deletion policies and guidelines and linking to that from the lead of the Wikipedia:AfD page? It could go: ' WP:Verifiability is a core principle of the project. Other policies and guidelines governing the question can be found in (list article)'. Deletion policies are currently a section within Wikipedia:List of policies; but topic-specific guidelines are often cited in AFDs too, which is why I think a stand-alone list of both would be useful. Would you support its creation and its inclusion in the lead of WP:AfD? Sincerely, Novickas ( talk) 21:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it fact it might be a good role for new editors, who are not bound by our preconceptions. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you not know me well enough as an editor to know that I look for sources before PRODing? Do you get how insulting it is for you to remove tags with edit summaries that imply that I don't? Is there really any point in editors PRODing articles given your propensity for kneejerk removing the tags? Otto4711 ( talk) 12:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've commented at the above concerning List of Gilligan's Island episodes and issues I see with this article. I've also commented on the note you left on the thing's talk page back in March. That whole subpage is a sort of workshop for an RfC (or multiple RfCs) concerning the whole issue of colour use, and wikiproject authority. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
[25] -- Mike Cline ( talk) 18:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The RfC we've been discussing on color and consensus is launched and located at Wikipedia talk:Consensus/RfC. I am in the process of publicizing. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see User talk:Alin (Public Policy)#Princeton ambassadors and Wikimedia NYC. I think Gabriel has also expressed some interest in being involved in the Syracuse one.-- Pharos ( talk) 04:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi DGG
If you have a chance, could you please look at this entry and its deletion discussion? As I commented in the discussion, establishing notability for books from this era is not straightforward with online sources only, but I thought your knowledge as a librarian might come in handy.
Thanks, Bongo matic 04:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
David, I was out and about reviewing and closing old AfDs and this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Bird (TV character) was one of the last ones for July 6. I relisted it mainly because it confuses me. The nom claims non-notable (OK maybe) but argues for brief discussion in main article Sea Patrol (TV series). Yet the character is already listed in both the main article and season article Sea Patrol (season 4). Another editor argues to merge into a list that doesn't yet exist except as an embedded list in each of the main articles. What confuses me is that all the other main characters in the show have standalone articles (not all that well sourced) but they have not been nominated for deletion. My gut tells me this is a keep, primarily because it is part and parcel of a family of articles that cover the Sea Patrol show reasonable well. Notability/referencing issues aside, it would seem that all the main characters sould be handled in a consistent manner and deleting this article would begin to break down that consistency. I need to bone up on TV fictional character guidelines I guess, but do you have any thoughts? Thanks-- Mike Cline ( talk) 19:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Of the like or similar lists and/or similar article construction that have gone through AFD, at least that I have record of: (Format: Name - List date - Close date - Result)
And the related PRODs that never went to AFD:
- J Greb ( talk) 17:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
IAR is to improve the encyclopedia; the article in question is blatantly unencyclopedic. Having a process doesn't need to result in process wonkery- give me one good reason why that article should stay besides it not exactly fitting into a CSD category. By the way, read WP:SNOW. It basically says that if an article doesn't have a chance in hell of surviving, it should just be deleted, even if it doesn't fit into one category. Why waste time on this nonsense, when it can be dealt with infinitely more efficiently with the exact same result? (and yes, I know WP:SNOW isn't a policy, but it's meant to prevent the time sinks that result from situations like this) The Blade of the Northern Lights ( talk) 02:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
You may want to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of white nationalist organizations. Is there an essay somewhere that discusses this subject? I am inclined to support all three types of navigation aid, but recognize there is a maintenance problem with keeping them in sync. Aymatth2 ( talk) 14:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like to hear your opinion on an issue that I noticed today. Some journals (like most published by Medknow Publications or The Open Virology Journal) seem to meet our notability guidelines by claiming that they are included in PubMed. If I go into PubMed's journal database [26], I indeed see these journals, but with the remark that they are not currently indexed for Medline. If I do a PubMed search, I find articles published in these journals. However, these are all marked "Free PMC article". Does this mean that PubMedCentral is less selective (or perhaps even not selective at all) than PubMed itself? Do you think these journals are notable? -- Crusio ( talk) 15:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi DGG! I have come across this edit you made, and the edit summary puzzled me greatly. I was always under the impression that not all high schools were notable for Wikipedia purposes, and indeed most were not (as per WP:CORP). Is there a new or updated guideline that I missed? Thanks, Ynhockey ( Talk) 11:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, DGG. What is your opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual Choose Your Own Adventure Books, where 50 articles have been nominated for deletion? I'm inclined to believe that the discussion should be speedily closed for being an improper mass nomination of articles that does not give editors the chance to individually evaluate whether each one is notable or not. Cunard ( talk) 05:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:GongolaStateGovernors. I thought this was a neat trick, but now am not so sure, although I can't see anything wrong with it. Whatever the merits of this particular case, it raises a more general question, related to the ongoing debate about redundancy of lists vs templates vs categories. Should it be debated in a broader forum? Aymatth2 ( talk) 02:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I sense your frustration at having to explain this for the 137th time. Thanks, Aymatth2 ( talk) 15:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear DGG, Just a little note to say I have quoted you - perhaps unsuccesfully - in an attempt to prevent Tia Keyes from being deleted. Hope it is OK and best wishes, ( Msrasnw ( talk) 14:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC))
Dear DGG, sorry to bother you again. I just thought I might bring to your attention that while trying to defend this article I found what might be an error in our use of Web of Science. I think we missed out on Tia E Keyes' first publication which seems to have been written as ET Keyes with 135 citations. (So we should use something like Author=(Keyes T E OR Keyes E T)) I obviously hope to nudge into having another look at this case if you have time but best wishes anyway ( Msrasnw ( talk) 09:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)) PS: Would you know, as someone knowledgeable about Chemistry, if her having written an entry in Encyclopedia of Analytical Chemistry(Forster, R. J. and Keyes, T. E. 2001. Ion Selective Electrode for Environmental Analysis Encyclopedia of Analytical Chemistry) was of much use for notability?
I really appreciate it! I always value your contributions to such discussions (including, and especially, this particular one) so I really appreciate your comment. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey did you see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#Category:American_novels, the discussion is kindof stalling and we could use some new thoughts. Sadads ( talk) 16:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
If I did barnstars, you'd get one for this. Sadly, the quality of being willing to admit we are wrong is one strangely lacking in most Wikipedians. We ought to have an essay WP:IAMWRONG, although I could be wrong about that too. All power to you.-- Scott Mac 09:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
What's the best way to look into how many libraries carry a given journal? I've tried WorldCat, but without much success. I'm looking at a couple of relatively obscure journals, and I'd like to find out a) the nearest library which might hold the journal, and b) some measure of how widely carried the journal is, as an indicator of its prominence/obscurity. I figured you'd have some good suggestions on the topic. Thanks, and happy editing... MastCell Talk 19:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
True library subscription figures are for most publishers a closely held trade secret. The reason they're a trade secret, is that they tend to be considerably lower than people would think. I & others have in a few instances been able to figure it out, using our own knowledge of the business. So what's the journal(s)? DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I have revived a discussion you took part in back in 2008. It's about improving watchlists to allow a little more user control. Perhaps you would like to contribute? -- bodnotbod ( talk) 08:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Hiya,
Re. this article, I do understand your removal of the PROD, as I pretty much said in the PROD reasoning itself [36] and I did debate what to do with it - ie, I did realise that it was 'potentially notable'.
The difficulty arose, really, through the speedy / advert being declined, which I queried; please see User talk:Extransit#ChinaJoy.
I'm genuinely interested in your opinion on this sort of thing. Chzz ► 09:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChinaJoy. thanks, Chzz ► 14:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I notice you've been poring through my PRODs again contesting them with some spiel about how being unreferenced isn't a reason for deletion. It is. Quotes: "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source", "This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace", and "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed", "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". If you actually find a source for something, please feel free to add it, but I must insist that you stop interfering with my work enforcing the verifiability policy citing nonexistent requirements that I have to prove I've searched for sources and not found any before nominating deletions. Stifle ( talk) 11:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
== Question about DRV ==
I'm seriously considering this one for DRV for various reasons (See Good Ol'Factory's talk page).
What do you think? - jc37 02:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, do we normally make articles on university departments? -- Crusio ( talk) 10:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
For information: I have set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography, since the time has certainly come when there should be a place for collective discussion of the DNB adaptation effort. Please come and participate. Charles Matthews ( talk) 09:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
You deproded lists of scientists, could you weigh in why you think it should be kept and what kind of an article it could be on the talk page? I think it would make the most sense moved to list of scientists and similar to list of inventors. But I'm open to other options. Thanks, — sligocki ( talk) 03:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
DGG, could you help me understand how libraries alphabeticize book titles? Over time, WP:FA gets out of alpha order due to article name changes; in trying to correct that, I'm discovering my ignorance.
See in particular the Art and Literature sections at WP:FA. Since WP:MSH has us avoid "The" or "An" in article titles, my confusion mostly occurs in books and works of art. The two issues combine iin El Señor Presidente, which is a book with "The" as part of the title; do I put that under "El" (as in "The") or Señor?. What about the Artwork An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump, and all of the others beginning with "The"? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that many titles sound really weird in English (and even more so in other languages) without the initial articles. However, it helps find things to have a uniform rule, even if it does sound weird sometimes. The traditional library rules in American libraries are:
Hi DGG
What number of citations as a reasonable rule of thumb would demonstrate notability? I suppose it depends on what topic (number of scholars working in a topic will determine how many might cite an article), but is there a general rule? What do you think of this?
Thanks, Bongo matic 14:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 29#Bookland pls. ╟─ Treasury Tag► inspectorate─╢ 17:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
You might like this; http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/sep/24/1 Abductive ( reasoning) 07:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello! You recently deprodded the deletion proposal for Peter Lang Publishing--a proposal I made on the grounds that it was not notable. You claimed that the subject is an "important academic publisher". You seem to be experienced with these matters, so I understand I might be missing something, but I thought that Wikipedia articles must be notable and demonstrable as such, and this article does not seem to meet the standards for a notable organization, specifically that "'Notable' is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance,' and even organizations that editors personally believe are 'important' are only accepted as notable if they can be shown to have attracted notice. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is." It would be helpful for me to know your reasoning. Please explain. It might be best if we have this conversation on the talk page of the article in question in case the issue comes up again later. I'll look for your response there. Thank you. -- Lhakthong ( talk) 03:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
A long time ago you were part of the discussion on the WP:BELIEFS proposal. I went away for a while and I am trying to come back slowly, so I thought I would start with updating that page and reactivating the conversation. Please join in if you still would like to be part of that discussion. Low Sea ( talk) 20:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, what do you think of this journal and in particular the list of journals that is mentioned in it? -- Crusio ( talk) 21:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
As a practical solution, I wonder if the organization sponsoring the journal is important enough for an article? DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Helping Hand Barnstar | |
Thanks for giving User:Rangoon11 a second chance. Colonel Warden ( talk) 22:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC) |
We seldom agree in AfD discussions, so it's nice to see one on which I suspect we both agree. -- EEMIV ( talk) 03:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
A discussion as to whether law reviews are RSs it taking place here. Given the apparent confusion and lack of familiarity of some editors with the review and fact-checking process of a typical law review, I wonder whether at some point it may be helpful to clarify at the guideline?-- Epeefleche ( talk) 21:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I know I'm not seen as the most co-operative Wikipedian. However, I'm beginning to wonder if there's any possibility of exploring common ground and seeing if there's any way to build coalition behind some modest agreements. I've set out my thoughts at User:Scott MacDonald/Pragmatic BLP. I'm thinking to invite some thinking people who radically disagree with me, and see what's possible. Do you think this has any merit?-- Scott Mac 10:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I've been meaning to ask you whether there's some organized system in the real world that would help us determine what normal is for WP:PROF's "more notable than average" rule of thumb. I have the impression that the number of papers written, quantity of citations, etc. varies by academic field, so that what is "barely any papers published" according to one field might be "quite a lot of papers published" in another.
On the assumption that such a system exists for bureaucratic evaluation of academic employees, is there any way we could get a list that says something like "Professor of economics: Median publications, 12; typical range, 4 to 24. Professor of mathematics: Median publications, 8; typical range, 6 to 12."? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I don't know where you will come out on this, but as you give matters great thought, and this seems to be a combustible one, I thought I would mention it to you.
There is currently an energetic effort afoot to delete lists of Jews. Some of the lists have withstood such efforts in the past. This is taking place even where there are articles and entire books about the intersections. I'm not sure that the AfD process works best here, as the same discussions are repeated again and again, in various AfDs ... it would seem, until an AfD is successful somewhere. The number of participants in any discussion can vary, and the core issues are generally the same, though secondary issues differ. Any thoughts? For example, does this call for a more focused discussion of the core principles? It seems to me that what we have is a less than sensible process, open to vagaries that we might want to avoid. Some current such AfDs are efforts to delete the lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 04:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
(restart indents) There is a proposal to create some unified RfC on these topics, which I would welcome. Speaking for many if not all of the people seeking to delete List of Jewish Nobel laureates, the goal is not to suppress ethnicity information in Wikipedia, it is to end putting a Wikipedia stamp of approval onto ethnicity misinformation from partial and prejudiced sources. After that AfD was started, 2 more were created by one of the laureate-list's supporters, and other list supporters egged on Bulldog to demonstrate his sincerity by filing more AfDs. Of course all those AfDs are now being used as "evidence" for "an energetic effort afoot to delete lists of Jews," as Epeefleche worded his request for your assistance. Again, i would welcome a unified RfC. I think that if such lists used a public and defensible criterion for "Who is a Jew?" and respected the BLP-privacy rights of living people, such lists could be a useful feature of Wikipedia. betsythedevine ( talk) 18:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I've always felt there's a conundrum here. Lists of "British people" or "Mexican people" are not a problem as generally they can be predicated on the objective criteria of citizenship. If reliable sources say "x is an American citizen" there you go. So nationality is not a problem. The problem comes with ethnicity, religion and (I suppose) sexuality - where there's a subjective element, at least at the margins. How do you settle it. You can't settle it by saying "it simply needs sourced", because then all you've got is the subjective opinion of one source. There's a Jewish daily calling Andre Geim Jewish, so there's a reliable source. Except other reliable sources don't mention it, and the subject himself disowns it. I can find a source that says George Bush is an evangelical Christian, but your mileage may vary. From BLP perspective, self-identification would seem the least problematic way. Except, it fails two tests. Firstly the "Pope test" - if the Pope had never, in fact, self-described as a Roman Catholic, can we call him one? (I realise he may well have done so, but you get the point). The other test is the Ida Amin test. Amin claimed to be Scottish, in fact the rightful king of Scotland. So, there's self-description. Except.... I've never quite worked out how you square this circle.
Of course, we could go with common sense, and simply exclude any dubious examples altogether. However, Wikipedia is just too full of POV-pushers determined to get anyone with a Moldavian grandmother on that list. What to do? Dunno.-- Scott Mac 21:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
/// I have referenced Epeefleche's outreach to you, which I think is part of a more extensive canvassing effort, at [42]. betsythedevine ( talk) 01:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
See here. 1978 Holiday Inn Fire is up for deletion. I created an article History of hotel fires in the United States which I'm currently writing as a proposition to merge this article into it as Orange Mike believes it non notable. I found a list by the national fire association of a relatively low number of hotel fires with ten or more fatalities since 1934. I believe that to be an assertion that they arenotable fire events, given that thousand sof fires obviously have broken out in total over the years. The 1978 fire is the least notable on that list with 10 fatalities but with the sources provided just scrapes it in my view even though I initially thought delete it. I am using the material I wrote for it in the history article anyway, but should it be redirected?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Especially if you consider how many fires have likely taken place throughout history in hotels I'd say the list contains the most notable fires. And in researching most of them there is an abundance of sources and many of them were the worst fire disasters in the given cities so are definately notable. Obviously the least notable ones are the 10-15 death toll ones but i think they should qualify given that the national fire association thinks them notable and that many of them are mentioned in books and magazines. I'm usually pretty good actually with deciding the best way to use information. I'd imagine there is actually a great dea more about such fires if somebody did some research into the local archives..♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC) I've emailed you. Can you check your email?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
You are one extraordinarily odd, unpredictable person... I have no idea what exactly your intentions are on here but you go from extreme inclusionist to all out delete with very little moderation... DO you really think an ideal solution to improving wikipedia is to stick deletion tags on every article needing work and open up the possibility of any admin deleting them if they haven;t been improved within a short amount of time. Because I think it is potentially highly damaging. I cannot but try to understand why you think it would be a greater idea but for the chance that editors will actually improve them and source them. Its very risky.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
And for some types of things I am inclusive only as a temporary measure: characters and episodes, until it is accepted that the sections of combination articles on them should be considerably detailed. (And there are some areas I do not work much in where I think the rules should be different, but have indefinitely deferred challenging them in order to deal with the areas I do concentrate on.) And I make mistakes also, so what have I done lately that you think I should have done otherwise? DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Do you think prodding articles with a big fat ugly PROD deletion tag in your face, even ones which are clearly notable like mountains/populated places etc is a better solution than an editor like Jeep actually asking me or another active editor politely to source/improve it myself? Because I'd be more than happy to if I'm asked to improve it rather than threats. Providing I don't get too many requests thrown at me at once I'd be willing to improve articles people request. Maybe if I ignored the request after a week or so then a prod might be neccesary. But do you realise how many people have ever actually asked me to improve an article first before taking it to AFD or prodding it? I just find it very odd you are happy to see big prod warnings on valid stubs like Knúkur which just require a few sources and a bit of expansion and then in annther instance you will say that populated places every tiny hamlet is inherently notable like you did with the Scottish villages. Well do you think if I went and drilled every unreferenced British village sub stub with prod threatening warnings the article creators with deletion this would be a great thing? Probably not, so why then did you actually encourage Jeep to continue doing so and said you;d do it yourself some time? Very strange DGG... [♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
What I encouraged J. to do was, when he does prod, to leave notice on the project talk pages as well as to the editors. I think that is often a good idea, I should indeed be doing it more, & I'd like to find an scripted way to do it. A few people such as you & I patrol unexpired prods, but we cannot do it all, so the project pages seems a way to attract people who know and care about the subject. And except for BLP PROD, it is perfectly permissible to remove a prod and say in the edit summary something like, First look for sources, & if not found, only then nominate for deletion. See WP:BEFORE.
Of course when the problem is no references to support notability, prodding without checking is usually not a good thing to do. But too many editors here do this to make it impractical to confront each of them, and in any case I do not like to confront people if it is unlikely to change things. I'll typically find a way to show I am paying attention, as I think I did there, & see if it does some good. A newcomer is another matter--there's hope, so I'll instruct them. There is no practical way to enforce good behavior in established Wikipedians when it is something many people ignore. Even when they do something clearly wrong, AN/I has become a drum-head court martial, for RfC to accomplish anything it is a rare exception, and arb com is a place nobody comes away from the better. The only hope is that new people will join & dilute them. At least prod is less likely to scare them away than speedy.
DGG (
talk )
00:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
FYI I have recommended a change to the language of the guideline for schools Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#School. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi DGG. I'm a bit concerned about User talk:Jeepday's campaign of PRODDING long standing, innocuous pages, such as mainline railway stations, just because they may not, in his view, be adequately sourced. I would have thought that admin time could be better used in serious areas such as BLP. I'm not an admin, I don't know how to approach this. I want to avoid hurting anyone's feelings, but this kind of thing makes me feel I'm wasting my time on Wikipedia. Season's greetings, -- Kudpung ( talk) 03:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)PS, I've come across other instances of this admin wanting to revert accepted guidelines, such as schools, for example, and where you have kindly come to the defence of these policies.-- Kudpung ( talk) 03:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Do you know any examples of journals that are generally accepted as being academic journals or scholarly journals, but not peer reviewed? To me, academic journal is more or less synonymous with "peer reviewed", but perhaps I'm too much of a purist... -- Crusio ( talk) 05:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I have proposed the renaming of a category, and wanted to know if you would consider commenting on the proposed renaming over at that link? --- My Core Competency is Competency ( talk) 04:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
If you have a minute, could you look at [44]? I don't do much with journals, and so I don't know what the usual notability standards are for journals. Thanks, — Carl ( CBM · talk) 21:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, the upmerging of lists of scientific and medical journals is being discussed. I thought you might have an opinion on which way to go. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 06:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Topical Archives:
BLP (Biographies of Living People)
Deletion reform,
Speedies,
Notability ,
Sourcing,
In Popular Culture,
Fiction,
Bilateral relations.
Academic things & people,
Journals,
Books & other publications,
General Archives:
2010:
Jan,
Feb,
Mar,
Apr ,
May ,
Jun ,
Jul,
Aug,
Sep,
Oct,
Nov,
Dec
2011:
Jan,
Feb,
Mar,
Apr ,
May ,
Jun ,
Jul,
Aug,
Sep,
Oct,
Nov,
Dec
In December I gave a presentation to librarians in Pittsburgh area. Would you like me to send you my presentation slides? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
you deleted my page stating that no notability was stated on a page that was 15 minutes old???
can we apply the same rules to your page and delete it for being irrellevant??? I think I remember you chiming in when the No Original Research noticeboard was created as it being just an extra page to watch. We've now got the Fringe Theories, Fiction, NOR, and NPOV. I'm wondering if we're not spreading ourselves too thin over too many boards. Any ideas? MBisanz talk 03:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
(Copied over from my talk page:) DGG, many thanks for your comment. I'm glad that my text may be useful for the NYC meet. I'd be pleased to have any feedback or reactions that come out of that. And I do now indeed intend to publish a version of the essay somewhere. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 00:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello again ...
Would you please take a look at User talk:Matthewedwards#Category:Flagged articles, and then add your comments on the cats I have created to compliment the templates?
Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 ( talk · contribs) 07:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello again ... {{
Flag-editor}} now has an
optional assist
parameter that makes a friendly offer to help, for those thus inclined, instead of defaulting with making the offer. :-) —
151.200.237.53 (
talk)
15:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
)
I highly suggest stop altering articles to your bias you have a nasty habit of changing articles you don't like and posting information you like regardless of sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.73.78.193 ( talk) 17:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee, you wrote but situations of a single person with a completely far fringe view are dealt with fairly well already. There are cases where a real-world minority- or fringe-view is overrepresented on Wikipedia. There are also cases where a majority- or wikipedia-majority-view silences a minority view or reduces their weight well below their real-world due weight. This can happen by one side outmaneuvering the other into a behavior violation or by simply driving them away from the project in frustration. I don't think there is a good solution, other than to have affected articles watched by people who are informed about the article's subject matter but with no emotional stake in the article. This tends to happen more on articles on political or social topics, where way too many editors have a personal agenda, and on articles about people, places, or groups, where fanboys may succeed in turning the article into a virtual press release. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 02:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I no longer remember how it was done but if someone knows or wants to talk to the bot operator, look at what's done for the museums project. In archiving it creates an index which includes topic and which archive it's in. I don't know if it can be done retroactively. TravellingCari 12:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
"unreferenced" is not a reason for deletion. Unreferenced and unnotable, maybe."tried but could not find any sources for notability" much more convincing--when you say something like that, I'd probably accept your view. But of the 2 you marked unreferenced, one seems to have had a ref . tho not a good one Blaqstarr--I didnt check further, and the other Esa Maldita Costilla, is probably notable given the performers involved. DGG ( talk) 07:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
You raise an excellent point there. I seem to be averaging a DRV on one of my closures every second day (although the majority are being endorsed). The recent phenomenon of DRVs when one isn't satisfied with the result, but dressed up as "certain arguments weren't addressed, so the admin should have closed it my way" is worrisome, not least because a DRV would have been even more certain if the debate had been closed the other way. This is liable to put good admins off closing AFDs because of a perceived stigma in having your decision posted at DRV, especially when users decline to discuss matters with the closer first as the DRV instructions twice require (a matter about which we have repeatedly butted heads). Where can we go from here? Stifle ( talk) 13:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Since you have had repeated experience with this user's AFDs like, I thought I'd contact you. This user's AFD behavior is appaling especially how he refuses to bundle nominations in the same universe for which he uses identical reasonings. He also continually fails to consider the option to merge or redirect without intervention of deletion and makes no evident efforts to look for sources himself (there's a difference between unverified and unverifiable), instead preferring to force the issue by nominating for AFD (which causes a 5-day deadline for improvement) and which is specifically considered to be improper.
The articles in question might well require care, merging or even deletion, but the way he goes about it is unneccesarily terse and bitey.
I think it's time to launch an RFC. Would you consider helping gather evidence and supporting it? - Mgm| (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Your name came up prominently at Talk:Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia#Prominent inclusionists? I was wondering:
Thank you, Inclusionist ( talk) 00:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry David, but you are apparently me. --David Shankbone 05:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi David, I've started something at Wikipedia:Wikipedia at the Library. Hopefully this can be a space for us to work out our ideas, and I look forward to your contributions.-- Pharos ( talk) 16:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe I used this utility to convert a CSV list into a wiki table. — BRIAN 0918 • 2009-02-26 17:50Z
...to read the article? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought this new article might interest you. Cheers. Thanks for all your help. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 06:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
DGG, I thought you might have something worthwhile to say about this AfD and also a relevant part of " WP:CREATIVE" (on which see also my comment). -- Hoary ( talk) 00:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I ask you because you're active there--am I correct that any enWP admin can deal with things also? DGG ( talk) 05:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed your involvement with Wikipedia:Wikipedia at the Library. I've got a draft of what is called the Wikipedia Student's Guide, which isn't a perfect fit for those getting instruction at the library, but might be useful. In any case, if you have any suggestions, they would be welcomed. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
this must be one of the funniest AfD comments I ever came across! Owen× ☎ 16:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear David, I salute you for the various ideas expressed, and your sense of integrity. Your experiences from Princeton & Berkeley were also significant credentials to bring to bear. I have a comment about your working group for science and academia. Someone in the group lamented on how to distinguish "men from boys". At least in the science world it's quite easy. Below the obvious Nobel level, the next 2 are well known -- Academicians and Fellows. If WP can include all people on these 2 levels, it'd be quite a complete collection. Of course I'm only speaking about the US situation. I suspect that they have similar pecking order in other countries. Now a question unrelated to the above. When you have a chance, take a look at the discussion page for Deep Ng, and see my proposal to delete. Please advise if it's reasonable, and if so, the next step. Much obliged. -- EJohn59 ( talk) 18:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)EJohn59
Thanks. Your comments are reasonable & helpful-- EJohn59 ( talk) 04:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)EJohn59
Just saw your comment on 08:51, 29 May 2009 - excellent! Thanks for taking out precious time to deal with this depressing situation, that a number of editors are so keen on purging fiction articles from Wikipedia. I can sure understand and fully respect if they find the fiction articles to be of such minor importance that they opt not read the articles themselves; but why they so persistently insist on deletion, hindering other people in reading the articles, is a mystery. A sincere appreciation of your work. Power.corrupts ( talk) 14:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
--
Marcel Douwe Dekker (
talk)
21:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thanks you. I have refraised my response, putting this rather black and white, in an attempt to get to the bottum of things. I hope you can take an other look... Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 22:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
... to WP:SJ, a rather old essay of mine that I decided was ready to move to mainspace.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 20:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
With contributions only from me and Drmies, it's not ready to be a revision of guidelines. All it can be at this stage is a counterpoint.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 21:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi David, you can check your email for some recent developments on this. Thanks!-- Pharos ( talk) 18:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I know you had some minor concerns about my AfD work, so could you review my recent closures and let me know if I've addressed the issues you noticed? Cheers. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. In light of recent events and community concerns about the way in which content is transferred I have proposed a new wikiproject which would attempt to address any of the concerns and done in an environment where a major group of editors work together to transfer articles from other wikipedias in the most effective way possible without BLP or referencing problems. Please offer your thoughts at the proposal and whether or not you support or oppose the idea of a wikiproject dedicated to organizing a more efficient process of getting articles in different languages translated into English. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG! Thanks so much for everything this past weekend -- I got home intact, if a couple hours delayed from the storms.
Here's my subpage on my DSB project -- the citations are formatted to link to the Dictionary of Scientific Biography, so if you check the "what links here" from that article you can see the ones I or others have done already. The redlinks on my page are bios that weren't already written that are in the DSB; the bluelinks are bios that have been written since I started the project. There's also a dump of bios in the print version that Ruud Koot did. I haven't been writing down my progress, but I'm somewhere in the middle of the print "B" volume at the moment, so anything starting later than that would be helpful -- we could start keeping track of how many bios we've covered. Best, -- phoebe / ( talk to me) 02:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a reminder: On Wikipedia talk:Coatrack, you wrote "to be continued" in February. — Sebastian 15:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a lot of stuff at the bottom of Wikipedia:CiterSquad#Volunteers, which seems to me should be in on the talk page, would you take a look and let me know if I am mistaken in my apprasial, if it should be moved, please do so. If I move it, there would be conflicts. Thanks Jeepday ( talk) 17:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Could you please send your Email to aarnaiz@med.ucm.es ? AAV has asked me to get in touch with you. Thank you Symbio04 ( talk) 18:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm wondering if it is allowed/discouraged, for users to remove all incoming links to an article that is at AfD, if the outcome is uncertain? I thought I'd seen that action mentioned in the guidelines, but can't find it.
Specifically, a user is removing ( eg) all links leading to -logy, which he nominated at afd. Is that acceptable? -- Quiddity ( talk) 18:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Now that the afd has been closed as keep, who is responsible for reinstating any of the useful links that were preemptively removed? (I won't have time to get to it till at least next week). (You can copy/move this thread to Talk:-logy or elsewhere, if that'd be more appropriate). -- Quiddity ( talk) 18:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Tonxxx ( talk) 01:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Regards, Anthony |talk]] at 01:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I wondered if you might review the deletion of SOD/CAT. I'm concerned about the speed at which the article was deleted after being relisted for review. I am also concerned that the main catalyst--Dr Vickers--behind the deletion effort has made a large number of edits to a competing technology, Protandim which may indicate a COI. I do not know what the next step to appeal for an undelete would be. I appreciate your insights. RGK ( talk) 21:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
restored. Icewedge ( talk) 02:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG. It's absolutely fine with me! If any articles subject to deletion can be salvaged, I would be happy to support the effort. I have restored the page. Cheers, FASTILY (TALK) 03:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
A year and 11 days ago, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolò Giraud resulted in a keep. Today, it is a featured article. You were the first to see value in the page. Ottava Rima ( talk) 23:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello DGG, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to 16th World Economic Forum on Africa has been removed. It was removed by Gallador with the following edit summary '(Enhanced English, updated a bit, removed prod)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Gallador before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 20:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
since I'm not sure if you're watching there. Poke me if you respond - I'm not around much these days. StarM 03:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear DGG,
I thank-you for helpful sugesstions, I have made some needed adjustments for the article. Presently, I do not know how to access the deletion review.
I hope you could please keep in mind, the article is not the same as the old document "criticism of the Talmud." They are unrelated. I worked hard on this article. I am not trying to pick sides here. I am sincerely trying to be fair a wide range of belief. I mentioned the Orthodox party, because if I spoke only of the more critical groups it only be a narrow one-sided debate which would be unfair to Orthodox group. I did so out of respect.
As I hope you noticed, the article barely menetions the Talmud. Which is hard to do, since that where the oral traditions are recorded. I adjusted, and re-adjusted the article based of many of your suggestions. I hope you will please consider once again kindly reviewing it. Please remember, that one must mention the rabbinic party. I not attempting to make an article to fault-find the rabbinic party rather show the wide-range here of different belief regarding the subject. Thank-you!-- Standforder ( talk) 20:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The explanatory comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Greenberg were useful for me.
Pondering the array of views in this thread helped me to step back only slightly; but even small movements do evoke a changed perspective, a new appreciation of our focal point. -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
...since there's a 2007 hello from you on my user page ;-) I'm teaching wikipedia this semester using Lih's book and Phoebe Ayers as a guest speaker. Could not remember how to find you until I saw your 2007 post :-/ Students adding to WP as part of their coursework. regards DGG! Katewill ( talk) 02:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Please have a look at User talk:Orderinchaos#Coombabah State Primary School. This action looks so contrary to policy that, as I said, I am staggered. TerriersFan ( talk) 00:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I recognise that you stated that you had no interest in working on the MTV Generation article, but I've written (rather a long) comment on it in response to Peregrine981's request for comments on the discussion page. I won't ask you to read it, but it struck me that there is also little agreement on what constitutes a pair of shorts (e.g compared to trousers, kneebreeches, knickerbockers etc) , but little controversy in having a decent page about them. If you have time, could you please add any further comments you might have on the MTV Gen issue to the page? I found your previous comment quite helpful. Any response meant for me on my talk page, thanks. Centrepull ( talk) 21:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG, you may be interested in this discussion. -- Crusio ( talk) 00:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG. I nominated Connel Fullenkamp for deletion. You deprodded the article in June 2009, so I thought that your input might be valuable for the discussion. CronopioFlotante ( talk) 21:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
|DGG, Thank you for participating in Chzz's RfA. Many of us suspected that Chzz was a problem user, but it was work by people like you, who saved the day. Rogue Admins. and Bureaucrats pose a real risk to Wikipedia. Thanks Again - Ret.Prof ( talk) 18:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
|
Hey DGG, was hoping you could help me out with this as you seem to be both interested and in the know. I use the A7 CSD category in AfD discussions a lot, because (a) it's one of the most stringest deletion tests on Wikipedia and (b) if it's broken policy it needs attention called to it and discussion. It seems to my view to specifically set a higher bar for an article to exist than WP:N - that is, that not only must sources exist, but that those sources must attest to a claim of notability, not merely existence. That's a position I support, and it's in line with the essay WP:MILL but it doesn't really seem to be in line with any of the other notability policies. Are you able to educate me at all on the reasoning and history behind this controversial CSD category? - DustFormsWords ( talk) 05:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
You are confusing N and V , which is easy to do--attempts to combine them have however never gotten consensus. Even if something would appear to be N, if there are no sources whatsoever, there is no way of writing an article, and it will be deleted. This can happen. But it is never a question for speedy deletion. We can not delete until we have looked for sources, and failed to find them. The condition is unsourceable, not unsourced. If the article is plausible, this is something which requires community input and some time to look. According to WP:BEFORE, we really should look before we put any kind of deletion tag on; if it goes to AfD , people will look--if it goes to prod, the few of us who patrol prod will at least try to look. But if you can find the source yourself, you should, before putting on the tag, or you will be embarrassed at AfD if you have guessed wrong. We don't delete on guesses. The sourcing has no relevance to the A7--except that if something is unclear, we should at least attempt to see if it might be ore important than the author realized, or knew to say. The key word here is asserts, which means indicates, not demonstrates. Think about this, look at that last example, try to source it, and come back tomorrow if you have questions. for now, I'm going to sleep. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
7
An article that you have been involved in editing, Denialism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Unomi ( talk) 06:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG. It looks as if you may have been in the middle of adding content to your user page, but were interrupted before you could finish. You appear to have had this on the page for the last several days. All the best, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought you might find this interesting, considering possible outreach to Yiddishist groups. It's a surprisingly active project.-- Pharos ( talk) 04:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
// Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I just happened to come across this -- in light of recent events, thanks for keeping that article alive.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 15:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
As I mentioned at the new user CSD, I could start scraping this information. Which class A7, A5, etc. would you consider examining first? Ikip ( talk) 00:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Date | Name | Comments |
---|---|---|
2009 11 19 22:40 | Secret | deleted " Developement Centre of East-Iceland" (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion) |
2009 11 19 22:40 | Dlohcierekim | Deleted " JoeBob Mcgee" (A1: Not enough context to identify article's subject: although tere are ghits for person with this name, thic content insfficinet. same article deleted earlier. wold need rewrite from scratch) |
OK, I did some experimenting. The simplest thing is to take the deletions for a day and sort it by deletion reason . Any spreadsheet, or in Wikipedia, if a wikitable that large would work . DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
you be able to fix the name of the Faraday article to the full name (if you agree that is appropriate)? Beyond my skill set, I'm afraid.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 03:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I created resource room, and appreciate your help in making sure it wasn't deleted my a newbie who seems to be trigger happy (a self-described "deletionist"). Also, I did read your note on the fact that it needs to be expanded, but I am new to this, and want to make sure it is done right. Just when I lose my faith in this site, a person like you comes and makes sure good articles stay!
Jim Steele ( talk) 19:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
(UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#BYU Studies. Bongo matic 00:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
See latest results: [2], [3].-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 07:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Please read the replies to your latest posts. Please do not go yet.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 19:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to look again. Wondering what you think of this proposal: [4]-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 12:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Dave, you might want to keep an eye on this user. He or she has been very combative in comments on my talk page regarding spam articles that have been speedied. Thanks. Hope you're doing well. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 08:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey DGG, I responded about your concerns about Adam Lyons on the AfD page. My question is on a slightly different topic- basically about 5 users that voted delete have been blocked now for being sockpuppets and I was wondering if there was any procedure like removing their votes or adding a tag to their votes so an admin who doesn't know they have all been blocked can take that into consideration. I have mentioned it in my lengthy comment, but I don't know if there is anything else that should be done. DRosin ( talk) 10:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Courtesy notification. You were involved here and is now being discussed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Defying_an_AFD_decision Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 00:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The policy question is unresolved (what is the correct process). However, we've swept all conflict away as now I'll just notify people. Whether they want to re-create the article now that merge is off the table is up to them . Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 01:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your insight. I have no problem with West Baltimore but am satisfied that you see that there is a potential manipulation problem, possibly more in fiction. As long as we act nicely and fairly, Wikipedia is for the better. If a few of us are aware that manipulation can exist, then Wikipedia is also for the better. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 02:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the proper tag. The content of the article is based on the notion of a Collaborative Work Systems which is described in the literature as such. I have no objection to changing the name to Collaborative working system if that is within the Google scholar literature review however I did made two searches one for each proposed designation and indeed I notice the term "collaborative work" is much more consistent accross the literature so I propose to stick to the original name "collaborative work systems". As for the proposed merge with "Collaborative Working Environments" that is precisely the reason I have wrote this article in the first place: both notions are different. A "collaborative working environment" is a concept that emereges from a different research point of view, centered in the individual work of professionals that become e-professionals because they perform their work (e-work) within a networked environment, using not only collaborative software, but also videoconferencing systems which are not necessarily software-based. The concept of a collaborative work system on the other hand, is related to the organizational context of the work that occurs whenever two or more individuals collaborate for a given purpose. So the focus is not on the type of computer support to that work, but instead to the non-computer variables that affect that quality of work. It is important that one reads Beyond Teams, to see the difference on perspectives. Also, one needs to admit that a whole series of books dedicated to "Collaborative Work Systems" is sufficiently worth of having such a concept explained in wikipedia, independently of other related notions. Nunesdea ( talk) 22:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The academic students of management may have their own vocabulary for all this, and use words in special meanings. But a vocabulary of this sort is not natural language, and is apt to sound like impenetrable and unnecessary jargon to those outside it. If you're going to use it, you have to define the universe within which it is applicable, and you're going to have to prove, not assert, that it is well established and how it differs from the general use of the English language. In the Wikipedia environment -- or system-- articles that are not clear to ordinary readers tend to be nominated for deletion, and science has very little to do with it. Some fields' jargon is accepted by people here more easily than others, and as a fact of life here, however much you or I may deplore it, it's only fair that I advise you that there tends to be very limited patience with the applied social sciences DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Hope you'll indulge a casual drive-by question. (Saw you comment on a matter at ANI, and followed the link here.)
If I begin with random praise about librarians, it may surely sound like sucking up, but I have little notches in my brain linking the concepts of librarian and "important acts for freedom." (e.g., Not that I'm a huge fan of Michael Moore's, but I always remember the librarians who made sure "Stupid White Men" was published at that time.)
Anyway, my question is do you think there is a (natural?) correlation between the values/temperament of librarians and Equor administrators?
(Feel free to ignore, tis the holiday season and surely you've much else to do, and perhaps you may already answered this somewhere, if so, a link would a blessing.) In any case, happy holidays and many blessings in the coming year. -- Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
However, I wouldn't identify Wikipedia:Eguor admins with intellectual freedom specifically. Admins and other Wikipedians of all dispositions generally are almost all of us here because of our commitment to intellectual freedom in multiple ways--it's even one of our basic principles, as NOT CENSORED. The concept of Equor ( basically, anti-rogue ) is a little different--to use admin powers in a way that as careful and discreet, rather than heavy-handed and authoritarian. I do not actually agree with everything on that page--in one sense, adminship should indeed be regarded as a big deal, for the potential power of admins to harm Wikipedia is very great. But the point I have been trying to remind people of in recent weeks is that we do not exercise admin powers to express our view of what Wikipedia should be, but to enforce the consensus view of what Wikipedia should be. We don't have to agree with it, but we cannot use the tools in opposition to it or regardless of it. I asked for the tools for two reasons originally: to check whether deleted articles could be possibly rescued --with the community given another chance to decide if they were in fact rescuable, and to carry out the implied will of the community in removing ones that they obviously they would never support. Anything else I've done I've done incidentally--I will not pass over vandalism or disruption if I see it, but that's not what I go looking for (many others do, and they certainly should--we don't have to all emphasize the same things.) Unfortunately, all too many admins who work in all areas seem to regard themselves as infallible. They forget that we're not chosen for our great skill in policy--just the general knowledge of policy every active Wikipedian should have, but are needed primarily for having sound judgment and care in expressing it. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I guess my reaction in a nutshell is that most admins (present company excepted, by all means, if you wish exception) often seem to be the wrong animal to calm the waters — many believing there is only one species, and it's their kind. :-)
But I can only say that nut's worth after having written the below, which you can skim if you like, or just gaze across the waters. Cheers.
--
Proofreader77 (
talk)
06:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Dr. Goodman!
I ask you to fix the Nova article; I tried my best today to bring it into a more objective and better shape.
Wikipedia is not the place for the gymnastics of publisher downgrading, if people have a grudge concerning a publisher, they should sort it directly with them in a civilised way.
Franz Weber —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franz weber ( talk • contribs) 18:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG, remember this? Skema Business School . The article is becoming a primary sourced advert edited by a single editor (a former student they state) I mentioned it to them on their talkpage User talk:Julien Schmidwhat do you think is the way forward? Off2riorob ( talk) 18:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
2/0 makes a good point:
Care to make the AFD suggestion a cent/RFC? Seems like support for this proposal is very strong initially. Ikip 00:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC) RE: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Move_a_disputed_merge_to_AfD.2C_retitled_Articles_for_Discussion
You probably already noticed: [5] Ikip 00:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I tried to cut out the violating material. If it's still a copyvio, then tag it again. Bearian ( talk) 06:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
DGG, just to let you know there is a discussion ongoing here. Do you care to weigh in with an opinion? Bus stop ( talk) 22:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Another editor has created Template:Oldcsd, which can be added to the talk page of an article by an administrator who has declined a speedy delete. You may find this a convenient way to discourage repeated csd taggings of the same article for identical reasons. - Eastmain ( talk) 22:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Though actually I've been feeling less deletionist of late, and have been compensating for this with extra evil. I've just come across this. It's in no way blatantly promotional and my guess is that its content is all true. Yeah yeah, not truth but verifiable fact is what matters hereabouts; yet as this is a (sort of) published item, arguably (hmmm) it provides its own verification. Now, I'm all in favor of more and better articles on photography magazines -- Japan has had dozens of demonstrable, verifiable significance -- yet I feel queasy when I see an article on a manufacturer's freebie. As User:Wageless seems to have departed, you'll have to stand in for him as benign inclusionist in the Big Question: Shall we prod? -- Hoary ( talk) 01:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I am in the peculiar position of nominating this article despite preferring to keep it, because the limited sources and BLP issues made it seem like the best course of action. If you're so inclined, I'd be curious to see what you have to say if you weigh in on the debate. You often have "keep" arguments that I hadn't considered.-- otherl left 15:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you.
The Transhumanist 22:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Is The New York Times article an advertisement since it is located in the real estate section? Cunard ( talk) 06:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I quoted you. Ikip 13:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for chiming in on that article (original Sarah E. Meyer). The clarification on unsourced vs. unsourceable is excellent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougluce ( talk • contribs) 05:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
As an admin can you look at this please? I message a couple of other admins too. User_talk:Power.corrupts#Warning. Ikip 05:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for setting me straight and picking up the ball I dropped. I should have known better--BaliUltimate and JBSupreme (interesting, those modifiers in their names) in the edit history of a BLP means valuable stuff may have been cut. Anyway, thanks; I appreciate your due diligence and I mourn my lack thereof. Drmies ( talk) 04:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I was struck by your comments at WP:Requests for comment/Wuhwuzdat and realised that you are a librarian. The whole sad AIP business has made me think hard about how we treat those editors who are the target of WP:GLAM, as I don't think that page does the job we want it to. The more I've thought about it, the more I'm forced to the conclusion that we actually need to provide special treatment for them. There are a lot of people out there who actually have the same goals as wikipedia does, and I suspect we are intellectually arrogant to act as if only wikipedia was in the business of spreading free knowledge. What I think I mean, is that we should have a concept of "Sympathy of Interest" – the antithesis to Conflict of Interest. When new editors are identified as having SoI, surely we should be doing everything possible to encourage them to contribute? Perhaps require other editors to make an absolute assumption of good faith (not the conditional WP:AGF that we use now).
I know I'm "preaching to the choir" here, but I'd appreciate any thoughts you had on what I'm suggesting. Am I hopelessly over-optimistic that we could adopt a SoI policy one day? -- RexxS ( talk) 20:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The conventional place for notices about this is the COI noticeboard, although it is mainly looked at by people having exaggerated ideas of what constitutes COI and spamming. Another channel of communication is the wikipedia-en list; I suppose I must also mention IRC, though many people, including myself, choose to never participate there. I urge anyone who thinks they have been treated unfairly to contact me. I can at least give them advice on whether what they want to do is reasonable, and if so, how to do it without raising unnecessary antagonism. What I of course cannot do is guarantee success in convincing others . DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I wish you well on your current projects
1. Rescuing worthy speedies & prods in all fields & discussing the procedure. As of Jan 2010, I have at least succeeded in changed the time from 5 days to 7 to allow fairer notice and better discussion.
2. keeping articles about academics & academic organizations from deletion.
3. upgrading "list of journals in .." and "...open access journals"
4. adding articles for major ref. sources
5. keeping important "in popular culture" articles from deletion, and upgrading their content
6. Changing AfD to "Articles for Discussion" and considering all good faith disputed merges and redirect there also. As of Jan. 2010, this is about to be adopted.
7. making some possible changes to speedy deletion criteria. I have been reluctant to add to the work at Del Rev by appealing the many incorrect speedies I come across but which are for articles that have no chance of surviving AfD, but perhaps we really should be doing this to make the teaching point.
Btw what is your email ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polysophia ( talk • contribs) 03:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your criterion that is set out in this discussion, and elsewhere. (See my question there.) What am I missing? Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I asked some questions at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_23#Template:EGA_I, which I hope you will be able to answer.
Thanks. — Dominus ( talk) 14:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you care one way or the other any more? Bearian ( talk) 18:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Opinions? PubMed listed, but its reliability has been questioned. Tim Vickers ( talk) 19:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I really don't want to do something like that. I've already had a lot of trouble with admins that go out of process and I wouldn't like to repeat it in a case like this because all that it did was make me look bad. Which it might me look bad again because of the whole unreferenced BLP issue. Joe Chill ( talk) 22:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
[ [6]] :) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. :-)
Please could you restore the page, as it needs to be an admin who does that? (I can't access the relevant archive pages.) thisisace ( talk) 07:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you can comment at the SambaStream AfD. It involves as source a trade journal, Information Today, Inc., which should be familiar to you. Pcap ping 18:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
You are being notified because you participated in a previous Afd regarding this article, either at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Argentina–Singapore_relations or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines–Romania relations, and you deserve a chance to weigh in on this article once again. -- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 00:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I noticed articles created by another editor for two journals published in India which may not be notable, Indian Journal of Botanical Research and Indian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research. The articles may have been deleted by the time you see this message. A handful of citations show up at Google Scholar but not the journals themselves. I don't have access to Ulrich's online. If you think they might be notable, please add any evidence for that to the articles. Many thanks. - Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Once again, Spartaz has relisted a fictional AfD that has overwhelming consensus to keep: Last time was Technology in Stargate at 8 to 3, this time it's Unseen University at 6 to 2. Gotta say, I don't see this as a positive and productive trend. What do you think--am I being too paranoid? Jclemens ( talk) 07:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Just so you know, I've been vocal trying to deal with this unnecessary attack on Wikipedia, but I've also been busy sourcing articles in my area of expertise. I know what these unreferenced stub BLP articles look like. Yes I wish others would too. The big problem is the blowhards who just want to delete the stuff they haven't bothered to look at. Trackinfo ( talk) 02:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
DGG - I’ve just completed drafting my first WP essay in my user space: Creating A Better List. As of yet it is not linked anywhere except through the {{Essay}} template. My ultimate objective is to move this essay to the project space, but at this point, that is premature without some feedback from fellow editors. As such I would appreciate your opinion on the essay, especially on two points. 1) Have I made any statements contradictory to WP policy or guidelines? 2) Are there additional examples that could be included to demonstrate my points more effectively?
Thanks in advance for your review and feel free to make any editorial changes you think would enhance the essay. Please provide comments here, as I am asking several editors to comment and would like to keep them all in the same place.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 00:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. Just wanted to inform you that the editor who has been randomly placing prod-tags into Wikipedia Lists has indicated on his talk page, that in the past 2 weeks he already had 2 articles deleted via prod. It might be a good idea to undelete these 2 lists given the fact that the editor's prod-nomination on these Lists is unnecessary. Amsaim ( talk) 23:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Sparnon, and article whose proposed deletion you objected to. Cnilep ( talk) 18:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Ucucha 18:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Softlink, a maker of library management software apparently. By the way, is there a WikiProject for library-related stuff, so I can post there instead and not look like I'm canvasing a well-known inclusionist? (The only other librarian I know here is User:PamD, but she's not active here anymore). Thanks, Pcap ping 04:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Since you've expressed an interest in these matters before I thought you might be interested to know that I've been working with another editor on this: User:Equazcion/Editing controversial subjects. If you have any input it would be welcome. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 03:57, 19 Feb 2010 (UTC)
This was speedily deleted a couple of times, but as far I can tell it's a division of Information Today, Inc. Can you check if that was the article contents, and if so merge it? If not I'll create a redirect. Also, do you have access to the magazine? It has articles on CMS companies that are regularly brought up at AfD, e.g. Ektron. Thanks, Pcap ping 07:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
You're my go-to guy on scholarly journals. Could you have a look at this new one? -- Orange Mike | Talk 03:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Sigh: [7]
I am so tired of this, and that is what many editors are hoping for. Okip 14:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
DDG - I was reviewing PRODs and chose to remove one from this article. I added appropriate tags and rationale here, and I added a note here for the editor that placed the PROD. I also began some article improvements. Did I apply the process correctly? (Not worried about my rationale here, just whether or not I followed the procedures correctly). Thanks-- Mike Cline ( talk) 16:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi DGG, I am hoping you'll be able to give me some idea of how notable the scholarly journal Slavic Review actually is, which I came across in the Mark D. Steinberg article (I see that the article claims it is quite notable, but I trust your judgment more than our articles when it comes to this kind of issue). If this is a significant journal, then would I be correct in believing Steinberg's status as "Editor" probably meets WP:PROF under "The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area"? Part of what makes me wary here is that the associate editor of the journal is his wife, it's run out of his university, and his article was initially what appears to be his CV from the Slavic Review site; on the other hand, I really haven't the knowledge to assess how "typical" this is of a well-regarded journal. Thanks for any thoughts you may have on the subject. Risker ( talk) 01:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
How is a DRV for an article like Ambarish Srivastava supposed to work ?
I didn't find anything at WP:DRV that addressed this point, and thought you'd perhaps know. Regards. Abecedare ( talk) 20:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, could you stop removing appropriate templates, you can say your opinion in talk page -- Typ932 T· C 21:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
you did not give any good reason for removing the tag, its wrongly removed, you explanations in edit summary was not enough, that article is definately deletable material. -- Typ932 T· C 13:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
DGG, I'd appreciate it if you too continued to keep an eye on Christopher Klim. (See its talk page.) -- Hoary ( talk) 03:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The magazine is at AfD. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Some troll created this, it was Prodded, I found it, and voila! I've nominated it for a certain day's DYK. Please, can you help source it? Bearian ( talk) 01:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what you had in mind when you stated that Wiki2touch was a "major software for a major site" in deprodding the article, but reading that article, it would seem to me that the Wikimedia Foundation was not involved in the making of this software. A jailbreak is even required to run it. -- Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 02:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, DGG. You contested the proposed deletion of List of Presidents of Mexico by longevity with the concern, "needs merging, not deletion -- material not in citd article," but you did not specify which article or articles you think the material should be merged to. Could you either carry out that merger or specify the target you had in mind? The {{ mergeto}} tag may be helpful. Happy editing, Cnilep ( talk) 18:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
DGG, can you comment on the reliability of the publication Journal of Genetic Genealogy at this this RSN thread ? The debate has been active for over two weeks, and input from uninvolved editors essentially drowned by lengthy back and forth between the disputants ( User:Andrew Lancaster, rudra and User:DinDraithou). Abecedare ( talk) 20:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I was wielding the mop and bucket while in the airport in CSD and came across this one CSD-G7, where the nominator is actually not the author of the content and it appears that the author challenged a PROD but blanked the page, then re-added something, that was then blanked by another editor. There's no doubt it needs deletion but CSD-G7 doesn't seem appropriate after an apparently contested PROD. Thoughts for a novice admin??-- Mike Cline ( talk) 14:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
However, a check in Google for the name of his company (which in actuality I tried first, though I cannot say why--perhaps because i unconsciously guessed that tyrenius would possibly have already checked the person name) shows that he is not a real person, but a fictional character in Battlestar Galactic, & thus not covered by A7. Unfortunately, actual reading of the BattleStarWiki page and a search there shows the inventor of the Meta-Cognitive Processor in the story was Tomas Vergis, who might or might not need a separate article, and that there is not actually any character with the name of Jason Sarrio. (Checking yet further, the invention shows up in [[List of Caprica episodes|episode 1 of the prequel Caprica, but the name of the inventor is not mentioned there, nor has anyone ever tried to write an article on him. Thus it would make sense to simply add the name to the description of the episode, which I am about to do, without even making a redirect, as the Battlestar wiki does not indicate that he ever actually appears in the show, which is my criterion for when a redirect is needed. The obvious conclusion is that someone wrote the article as a joke, presumably JS or one or his acquaintances, and that A7 is right after all.
Hi, I posted a proposal a section for deletion [ link title citing the reason it was not relevant to the subject of article. I just noticed you removed the deletion tag without specifying any reason to do so on the discussion page. I would appreciate it, if you could cite a reason as to why this is related to the subject of the article. I thought deletion tags could not be removed without a discussion, perhaps I may be wrong in that. If so I would appreciate a feedback on the same. Cr!mson K!ng ( talk) 13:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the information. It was helpful :). I hope you didn't mind me asking as I have recently joined Wiki. Cr!mson K!ng ( talk) 20:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC) school, it does not sound implausible. The university web site does not seem to be working except for the main page, or it would be much easier. BTW, I do not understand your suggestion to merge to the college page, because if he is not in fact notable, we would not include him there. WP is not a faculty directory. If he does have an article, only then do we list him as one of the distinguished people from the university. I look at a lot of university pages, & one of the things I routinely check is additions of people without articles or not obviously qualified for one, & I always remove them.
Thanks DGG. One more: Recommendation: After writing a new page, it is recommended that, after one month if you think that if someone has flaged it for notability check, you nominate it for an early afd or ask help from admin to nominate. Thx. -- kaeiou ( talk) 17:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I do understand the afd process and I have followed it technically. The difficulty with me and many is how wiki defines the WP:BEFORE. They have failed to list the tools that users need to identify whether a particular page needs the afd process. I recommend wiki listing in WP:BEFORE all the tools such as [9]that wiki admin uses to find out why someone is not wiki notable. That should solve my problems of nominating wiki pages for afd process. Thx.-- kaeiou ( talk) 02:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
How do we get the momentum back to get this implemented? I was reminded of it as Sebwite is getting impatient and is proposing yet another process, see Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal:_Articles_for_merging_.28AfM.29. We've got consensus for a name change of AfD and for it to incorporate merges, so the rest is detail, but it is getting bogged down in people rehashing the arguments that were already resolved. Here's what I think needs to be done:
Have I missed anything? Fences& Windows 17:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I was helping clear out CAT:CSD this evening and found that I was declining a surprising number of tags, especially A7's. Could you take a look at [10] and [11] and make sure that I'm using reasonably criteria. If you don't have time or energy to do it, that's fine too. Thanks! Eluchil404 ( talk) 06:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I have not yet reviewed the ones you did delete, but the proportion that you didn't is no higher than usual. Of course the proportion one finds depends on when one does it and what one looks for. I try to look for the ones there several hours than other admins apparently preferred not to figure out, and i delete only about half of those. But if I do a random assortment, what you found is not at all unusual in my experience. I looked to see if it were perhaps one person tagging them, which would require some advice to them, but this wasn't the case. When it's isolated cases like this I do not notify the person whose tag I removed, because they should be able to figure it out from the edit summary. If tagging by whoever wants to do it gives a 10% or 20% error, it would not be more than would be expected. That's what we admins are here for. the hope is that between their tagging it and our check , there will not be more than a 5% error. This is too high from the point of view of treating new editors properly, but it's as good as can be hopen for by our processes. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, please let me know what portion of the David F. Alfonso page contained copyright infringement, I would like to tighten that up so that I may re-post. Thanks. AcquisitionGuru ( talk) 14:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
If we do want to make a step towards quality that might be compatible with this project, perhaps you can help me figure out a practical method for the periodic revisiting and updating of all our articles. As time goes by, this will be a problem that whose severity will inevitably increase. and it won;t be easy. As only one aspect, essentially every number in the encyclopedia needs to be checked to see if it is still accurate. every author and artist needs to be checked to see they have not produced further work. Every statement with a date after 2000 is likely to need changing, and every statement without a date is needs checking to see if it needs changing. Every reference list needs checking to see if there are newer works, and if the old ones are still the best. Every external links section needs checking to see not just if they are alive, but if they are still the best for the purpose. DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't want my name on these biographies. Please delete them. If you want, recreate them yourself. - Atmoz ( talk) 07:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I liked your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. C. Johnson where you respond to the statement "notability is not inherited" and you frame it as an "improper use of the term" -- I think there's a potential useful wikipedia essay in that.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 02:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
One aspect of mentoring success is demonstrated by the slow process through which your words are captured, studied, parsed and re-examined in a context not anticipated in your original remarks.
I do not know whether imitation is the sincerest form of flattery; but I do know that I have adopted your words as if they were my own here.
I would prefer that you construe no flattery. Rather, I would hope you think that this only shows a recognition of common sense reasoning.-- Tenmei ( talk) 19:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello D - what is the standing of WP:BEFORE, in your view? It's not described as a guideline; I've never seen any AFDs that were speedily closed after an editor posted multiple reliable, online sources in the AFD itself, or pointed to a topic's inherent significance (e.g. Nursing in Pakistan). I also haven't seen that adding refimprove, no refs, etc. templates to an article can prevent or end an AFD, despite BEFORE's wording. The deletion process does sometimes galvanize editors into improving articles. So then it might be framed as a means v. ends issue. If this has been discussed elsewhere, pls let me know. Sincerely, Novickas ( talk) 01:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Greetings, DGG. I have entered the world of academic research rather abruptly, and have amassed in the span of one day this list of articles from JSTOR. Daunting, I know. I should be grateful if you could send me copies of, or otherwise give me the opportunity to read, at least some of those. I am not in a hurry, so if you decide to assist me you can work your way towards the bottom of the list at your own pace; whenever you decide you've had enough, I'll go bother someone else and they can pick up from where you will have left off. What do you think?
PS: Comments about my use of {{ Cite journal}} are also welcome. I have probably included more information than what appears to be the default. Waltham, The Duke of 05:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Goodman,
You kindly offered to rewrite the article (biography) about me Clement Bowman. Reference: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clement_Bowman.
The article does a reasonable job in documenting bibliographic information about me but I wholeheartedly agree with you that it could be improved. In particular, it does not fully portray the global importance of the Canadian oil sands (the resource is of size comparable to the oil in Saudi Arabia), and the role that I was fortunate to play at three key stages (helping to launch the first surface mining projects in the 1960s, initiating joint government/ industry projects on the deeply buried oil sands in the 1970s, and currently addressing the major environmental issues as Energy Task Force Chair for the Canadian Academy of Engineering). There are also a small number of facts, patents, supporting citations and 3rd party references that do not appear in the article yet are of significance to the organizations I worked for.
If you are still interested in rewriting the article, I will gladly assist you in whatever way I can. I have references for the items mentioned above as well as other supporting information that may be of use or interest to you. I must admit that at 80, I am not comfortable attempting to edit an article on Wikipedia. I am however, most willing to assist someone who is.
Thank you for considering my request.
Kind regards,
Clem Bowman (
e-mail) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Clembowman (
talk •
contribs)
16:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Goodman, thank you for your time, questions and revisions. I have posted responses (references) to your questions on the article's talk page
User talk:Clement_Bowman. I welcome any further questions or requests to verify the content.
Kind regards,
Clem
Clembowman (
talk)
15:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
DGG - I just put this essay in my user space. It still needs some work, but would appreciate any thoughts. Also, who else might I ask to weigh-in to help improve it? Am on the road this week in Pittsburgh and South Carolina so I'll have some time to work on it. Thanks-- Mike Cline ( talk) 17:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Socratic Barnstar | |
for your eloquent, well reasoned statement at Request for clarification: Summary out-of-process deletions [13] Pohick2 ( talk) 20:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC) |
it seems to me, that lacking leadership, we need to provide leadership such as you. i've been looking for a Wikipedia:Improvement Cabal, modeled on the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, building on Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive; Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Reform/Attrition/Study. (adding to your statement) some of the problem is the peter principle, where editors who have become admins are not trained, or experienced in the management of an organization or process.
we need to improve quality using the principles of Edwards Deming; a cabal could implement continuous wiki improvement, apart from "official" channels, using consensus.
do you agree? how would we recruit like minded users, and implement some quality improvement? Pohick2 ( talk) 20:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
We need a way for information on Chippewa Middle School to be shown on Wikipedia. Go to Talk:Chippewa Middle School, Shoreview, MN for more info. Ratburntro44 ( talk) 21:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
My advice is to write expanded sections in the article on the school district for each of these schools, including the ones with existing articles, and then make a redirect from the school name. The first step in expanding them would then be to make a separate combination article for the elementary schools, and one for the middle schools. It will be possible to expand these eventually.
I'm just saying what we normally do, and giving you the best advice I can as an editor with considerable experience here with all sorts of school articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Taking up your offer, I have closed this MfD as "keep for DGG to improve and restore to main space". Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 22:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm really glad I stopped by to read people's comments at an important discussion at ArbCom.
I hope you'll forgive me posting a short positive critical comment here on your ideas offered for community consideration.
You made a number of points, several struck me as very practical and positive, even if a bit of a challenge for us to actually embrace as a project. The first point that I want to highlight is: "the entire thrust of Wikipedia policy should be devoted to the encouragement of new people". I think that is very much in keeping with modern management best-practice. A deliberate strategy of recruiting and mentoring new staff has been advocated and proven to be effective in organizations for something like a decade now, and I think it's enlightened of you to see how the Wiki project screams for some such deliberate policy. Now I'm phrasing this positively, but I think it is salutory for us to appreciate that we not only fail to encourage new people, we have bad habits that work precisely against this aim.
The next point I'd like to note I appreciated was: "The proper reaction to an unsourced article is to source it, ideally by teaching the author how to do so". This follows as a very practical implementation of the policy of encouraging and mentoring new people. Of course, the truth of this is obvious. What is valuable imo about your comment is that you dare to point out that the Emperor has no clothes. What I mean is, we permit people to be "Wikilawyers" and use policy standards to delete things, which is very short-sighted. The policy standards are not grounds for obstruction, they are pointers to what kinds of additions are necessary. In many cases, sadly, we see tendencies in the current (hopefully temporary) culture of the project that mean we are shooting ourselves in the foot, destroying content and intimidating potential recruits from being partners in the project.
Even more practical, a third point struck me as absolutely spot on: we need more stubs and fewer lists. A stub invites contribution, it demonstrates care, it sets an example. A list looks daunting, it feels like work. Perhaps, if the truth be known, people who don't want certain kinds of material at Wiki, will content themselves if sketchy articles and stubs are removed and simply become redlinks on lists.
Returning to an abstraction, but perhaps the most profoundly good suggestion among all your points, you said: "the thought that we would want to remove what we have not looked at is about as rational as removing every tenth article from the encyclopedia blindly". You said this in a context that made it clear that you believe there should be some kinds of qualifications for those who'd propose deletion. As it stands, people can propose deletion in seconds, waving an arm in the general direction of a policy somewhere. Of course, that'll be fine in obvious speedy cases, but in other cases, it simply precipates unnecessary disharmony, between people who know something about the content and care that content remains available to readers, and those who insist that unless they are personally satisfied a topic is worthy it should fall to the censor's pen. It's a conflict systematically biased in favour of pedants and interest groups who want to silence "the opposition".
Although your solution is not fleshed out in detail, I like what I can pick up: essentially, if deletion proposers are required to actually "write for the enemy" first and seek sources and so on (precisely what academic standards normally presuppose), although this might not lead to a change of perspective, it would lead to more information being made available for decision making (delete or not), hence the possibility of rational conclusions based on common sense (read consensus), rather than the council of despair: "we don't know, so it must go!"
To draw what has already become too long to some kind of conclusion, you also boldly said: "the only people qualified to judge are those who are prepared themselves to work". Of course, I expect you recognize well enough that there are plenty of places where willingness to work can be presumed on the evidence of contribution-history and so on, but I, for one, really take to heart your point, even in the specific case of any individual deletion discussion. I'd offer the following refinement of your argument. The reason only those who've worked can be qualified to judge is because at Wikipedia editors must be presumed ignorant and their opinions irrelevant, only those who've worked sufficiently will know the reliable opinions that can be discerned from sources. Donors expect the Foundation to uphold processes and the volunteers who staff those processes, who will provide access to reliable sources, not censorship, nor decisions that reflect the inexpert opinions of volunteer amateur editors, however good their faith.
To conclude, I must thank you Dave, because you articulate ideals that I thought transparently obvious from the policies I read when joining the project some years ago. Very early on, however, I observed that there were plenty of administrators and editors who did not seem to be clear about these principles. So be it, thought I, we are all learning together. Policy describes ideals. Getting the policies right is only step one. Working together to help one another strive for and progress towards those ideals is, as in "real life", an ongoing imperfect work. But that's precisely what Wiki is and always will be. At least until human beings know everything there is to know, and everyone is a Wiki editor, that is.
Thanks for your service to readers, donors, Foundation and editors, Dave. Keep it up! Alastair Haines ( talk) 04:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi DGG. That test you did seems interesting. Please keep me in the loop about the results. The reason I'm trying to address this as a whole is because the way we're handling it isn't scaling. If we rely on editors to use current methods of deletion, and require people to investigate each article they nominate (while 10x more articles are being created) we'll hardly make a dent in the backlog and it won't stop new unreferenced articles from being created which basically fill the backlog right back up. Do you have a suggestion that can improve our rate of cleaning out the backlog that is in line with the views you expressed in the discussion regaring new users? If we can somehow get article creators to use good practices without stepping on their toes, we can have the best of both worlds. -
Mgm|
(talk)
08:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I will be rewording the David Alfonso page (22:05, 12 March 2010 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted "David F. Alfonso" (Speedy deleted per CSD G12, was an unambiguous copyright infringement. using TW)) and then will seek to repost the article. Wiki asks that I contact you first. Is there a way to revive the deleted page? As for the reason for deletion, I can fix that easily. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AcquisitionGuru ( talk • contribs)
I did receive your email, thanks. The reason I ask is that the entire article cleary wasn't copied from the FIU site, thus saving me the time difference between rewriting the entire thing versus correcting the copyvio issue. Last, your recommendations are well received and noted. Thanks again AcquisitionGuru ( talk) 18:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
DGG - You made the following statement in the AfD - Every major work of a famous artist is notable. Given that statement, would the statement Every major work by a famous author is notable be equally valid? Not debating the statement you made, because I like its simplicity, but can we take this logic further into other genera? Thanks-- Mike Cline ( talk) 16:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi DGG
Last year, what appears to be the communications department of SAIS Bologna made this edit, which despite some promotional-sounding stuff, I didn't revert.
Now they have done this number on the article. Is a wholesale reversion appropriate? Would you be willing to have a word with the editor? I feel your nuanced approach is likely to have better results than other avenues.
Thanks, Bongo matic 00:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I edited the SAIS Bologna Center Wikipedia page and am confused as to the problem with my edits. I am a current student and am beefing up the article to make it more like the SAIS DC page. I understand if there is a problem with linking to the faculty pages on the BC website, but am confused as to why it is promotional to list the available concentrations and languages taught. All of this information is on the SAIS DC Wikipedia page, which I used as a guide. I'm just trying to make the two pages more similar in their format and include more information on the BC page as it is significantly less robust than the DC page.
Best,
Rebekah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Communications-BC-SAIS ( talk • contribs) 01:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
Understood. I've changed the username. I am a student at SAIS BC who works for the Communications office. I was tasked with making our Wikipedia page more substantial by making it mirror the SAIS DC page. Please let me know what is acceptable/unacceptable so I don't waste time making edits that will just be deleted. Is is OK to list faculty, concentrations, and languages as long as I don't put the levels offered or link to the BC page? Can I put in a section on our Speaker Series and/or the History of the school? I'm just confused as to what is considered OK/not since I'm merely reformatting the DC page for our program.
Thank you for your help!
Rebekah —Preceding unsigned comment added by OdetteBR ( talk • contribs) 16:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
One more quick question. There are some factual errors on the page that I would like to change, but I can't figure out how to edit the sidebar/overview. They are: 1) the building renovation was completed in 2006 and 2) there are 190 students in the program (sidebar). Additionally, can I change the main heading to: "The Johns Hopkins University SAIS Bologna Center" instead of 'SAIS Bologna Center' since that is our official name?
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by OdetteBR ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
It is not OK to list faculty, unless you limit it to those who have a Wikipedia page, or are so notable that they would be clearly entitled to one, ether for their academic distinction, or for other aspects of their career. Call the section "Notable faculty" not "Faculty". for the ones with WP pages, just give the link to that page. Check the page to make sure the link to their current official page at the Center is given in the external links & add or adjust it as necessary--that's where the link belongs. For the ones without pages, you need to give a link to some evidence to show their obvious fitness--you might want to consider making pages for them, but see WP:BIO for the standards-- academic distinction in the social sciences is normally shown by having a number of published books from major university presses, or major national level awards. Notability in public service is normally shown by being an ambassador, or a civil servant of similar rank, and having references to reliable published sources about them.
Personally, I think that a foreign service school offers languages is a matter for its own web site. Similarly, the various concentrations tend to be fairly obvious, and are best suited for that also--I cannot see how any of the encyclopedia users not considering applying to the school would care, but some articles do include it. . I will be removing the various promotional wordings unless you get there first, as well as the picture of the city. And the reference cited for ranking seems to refer to the entire school, not this center, & is therefore irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Dear DGG,
Thanks for your help! A few more questions: 1. Since the Bologna Center is a part of JHU SAIS rather than a separate entity (about half of all incoming students spend their first year in Bologna and their second year in DC), it is appropriate to have the ranking up as it encompasses all of SAIS' campuses (DC, Bologna, and Nanjing). We are one institution with multiple campuses, not separate universities like CSU- Long Beach/CSU- Fullerton. 2. How can I upload a photo of the school? I understand that the view from the terrace isn't necessarily relevant, but I'd like to upload a panorama of the school building.
Thanks!
Rebekah —Preceding unsigned comment added by OdetteBR ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Dear DGG,
A quick update that I changed the photo on the SAIS Bologna Center Wikipedia page from the view from Abernathy Terrace (which there were concerns about its relevance) to a panorama of the school itself (seemed more "encyclopedia" and relevant). The photo was taken by Elizabeth Garvey and we have secured her permission to use it on the site. She is currently writing an official letter of permission to send to Wikipedia. Please let me know if I need to do anything else to make sure that the photo complies with Wikipedia's policies.
Best,
Rebekah —Preceding unsigned comment added by OdetteBR ( talk • contribs) 09:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
At this AFD [16] I seem to be pursuing something along the lines of a tip-of-the iceberg argument; that is, if an editor can find multiple Gbook search results on an article's topic, it's presumed worth an article. There's an underlying assumption there - that Gbook search results are always only a partial representation of what's been written - and so (especially during an AFD) showing some Gbook results implies wider coverage. Yes, there is the issue of only passing mentions in those results (which IMO doesn't apply in that AFD case); but am seeking your opinion, links to precedents, Gbook cultural under-representation that would lend more weight in some cases, general thoughts, etc. Sincerely, Novickas ( talk) 23:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, perhaps you can have a look at this (marginally-notable) journal, where two editors are butting heads... -- Crusio ( talk) 22:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Socratic Barnstar | |
For your comment made at WP:AN here. I am not able to say what you said there any clearer than what you said right there. – MuZemike 07:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC) |
I was musing on this with BLPs after the discussion here. I had never heard of this character (now deleted) and found the page amusing due to my background (psychiatry) and interest in observing how people relate to others, but concede that there is precious little 'encyclopedic' I guess apart from his notability. You mention GNG - and it got me thinking - one sort of refinement could be that a BLP has to be related to or be an example of somehow otherwise notable content? - either part of a notable list (eg list of elected politicians) or related - we already have authors have to be notable for writing something of a certain standard, actors, sportspeople etc. The more I think of these the more we have covered, are there any gaps then? I guess there were for this person...pardon the stream-of-consciousness writing though, I suspect this discussion has been had elsewhere (??) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
DGG, this stuff is complete gobbledy-gook to me: User talk:SandyGeorgia#Gustav Mahler FAC closure. The information in those External links at Gustav Mahler means nothing to me. Would you have time to put a plain English explanation on my talk, where others will see your explanation, so we'll know what to do with these at FAC? Or perhaps work on getting some plain English into Authority control so non-librarians can understand what purpose this info serves? Is this an appropriate External link? I just don't get it. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Please visit User:MichaelQSchmidt/The GNG and notability for actors and share your thoughts. Thank you, --10:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
All of these pages were deleted. I think all of them had NPOV. There were also explanations of notoriety for all of them. There was no process or debate before any of these were deleted.
1. (Deletion log); 17:56 . . JzG (talk | contribs) deleted "The Bargainist" (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
2. (Deletion log); 17:56 . . JzG (talk | contribs) deleted "Ben's Bargains" (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
3. (Deletion log); 17:56 . . JzG (talk | contribs) deleted "Tjoos" (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
4. (Deletion log); 17:53 . . JzG (talk | contribs) deleted "KidsCamps" (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
5. (Deletion log); 17:52 . . JzG (talk | contribs) deleted "CruiseMates" (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
6. (Deletion log); 13:26 . . Redvers (talk | contribs) deleted "3FatChicks" (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))
7. (Deletion log); 13:23 . . Redvers (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:GrooveJob" (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)
8. (Deletion log); 13:22 . . Redvers (talk | contribs) deleted "GrooveJob" (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))
9. (Deletion log); 13:22 . . Redvers (talk | contribs) deleted "Dave's Garden" (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))
10. (Deletion log); 13:22 . . Redvers (talk | contribs) deleted "Splitcoaststampers" (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))
11. (Deletion log); 13:21 . . Redvers (talk | contribs) deleted "HuntingNet" (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))
12. (Deletion log); 13:19 . . Redvers (talk | contribs) deleted "ExpertHub" (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))
Also: World66 page.
This seems very unfair. Any help and advice welcome. LuvWikis ( talk) 03:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuvWikis ( talk • contribs)
It is my intention to go back to these after I finish dealing with the ones that are still here, and meet any challenges to them at afd. It is however quite possible that some of these should be combined.There is no need for anyone to ask permission to put in a better article that meets the objections, to replace a deleted one. But I need to warn you that I think you would be well advised not to do it yourself--the material that you have been adding , both the articles and the links, is so promotional that you will probably be quite justifiably blocked if you continue. I support removing spam and fixing articles. I do not support keeping spam, far from it. I do not think the admins who removed the other articles were necessarily wrong, but my approach is to fix when possible. I do it for the good of the encyclopedia, not for anyone personally, and there is no need to thank me. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello David – can you stop by the deletion discussion going on here The Irving Literary Society. Discussions are being moved - !votes are being moved. On one hand I can understand the editors reasoning behind the reformatting. On the other, it could be construed as stacking the deck. Appreciate your thoughts and input. Regards - ShoesssS Talk 17:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Stillwaterising ( talk) 10:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC) ructions. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
For telling the truth at AN/I about AfDs. -- Cyclopia talk 18:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
GregJackP ( talk) 17:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
This is about the provision in BLP PROD at [22], that a blp prod can be replaced if anyone thinks there is a policy based reason why a source is not reliable. As I see it, this section is still disputed. It will be a sad day when it becomes WP policy that the mere dispute over the reliability of a source is reason enough to delete an article. The place to resolved such disputes is afd, or if more focused discussion is needed, at the RS noticeboard. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, DGG. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2#Bullshido.net, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination). Cunard ( talk) 21:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
DGG - I trust you are well - Your comments (and others as well) at an ongoing DRV inspired me to finally bring this essay Archimedes was deleted to light. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 13:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
If you have a few minutes, would you please consider explaining the concept of self-publication over at WT:V? I've been told repeatedly today that multinational corporations do not publish their own websites, and are, in fact, incapable of authoring or publishing anything because there are too many lawyers and marketing professionals involved.
Apparently a couple of ignorant editors believe that the number of employees at the publisher is the primary factor for figuring out whether the name under "author" is the same as the name under "publisher" -- so that a small, but properly published, traditional newspaper is probably "self-published", but corporate websites are published by someone other than the corporation that wrote it, published it, and is legally liable for its contents. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. A discussion has opened at Wikipedia talk:College and university article guidelines#notability of non-accredited and non-degree granting institutions on a topic about which you have historically expressed opinions. You might wish to comment there. -- Orlady ( talk) 16:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Would you be willing to put this article on your watch list for a while? There has been a dispute over the right version, and editing is locked. But instead of talk page discussion to resolve the issues, perhaps with a compromise, there was started a vote to merge....which has not been properly done. A look at current discussion will make it clear why merging without resolving the editing dispute is problematic. 173.52.182.160 ( talk) 12:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
So you don't have to keep making it from scratch:
How is an unreferenced article written by one of the writers of the play who has spammed two other articles with self-promotional blurbs anything other than spam? Are You The Cow Of Pain? ( talk) 01:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear DGG,
Thanks for your comment that the Soho Center's inclusion in Wikipedia is not entirely promotional. I have a question.
A LOT of the local and regional coverage of the work the Soho Center has done appears in local and small regional newspapers and newsletters - everything from the Madison (VA) Eagle to the UN's Secretariat News). Unfortunately little (if any) of this coverage is on-line to be cited. We have extensive files of this coverage in print form but little that can be linked. As such can we create PDF or graphics files of these articles, store them on one of our servers, and then create links to them? They will be true copies of printed articles and might serve as third party verifications of Soho's efforts as well as inform readers of Wikipedia of our work as seen by outsiders. Any thoughts you have would be very much appreciated.
Thanks! George Beker -- Wikigbjgb ( talk) 11:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am currently involved in a proposal for a guideline on primary, secondary and tertiary sources. I have just discovered that you were once involved in a similar proposal a while ago - either in contributing to it directly or in discussing it on its talk page. You may wish to get involved in the current proposal and I would encourage you to do so - even if you just want to point out where we have gone wrong! Yaris678 ( talk) 23:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Good call on the keep for this article. I was a bit lax deciding on notability (one Google search and I missed the publishers page :(). I did some work massaging what you added to make ammends. Cheers. --Errant Tmorton166( Talk) 08:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
David, I was out deproding this morning and removed the PROD on this one: Air University Library's Index to Military Periodicals. I am intimately familar with this index as I was on the faculty at the Air Command and Staff College for 3 years and used the library extensively for research for many years. As a Librarian, where should I be looking to find references about the importance and usefulness of this index. Am certain it is notable within the context of military (especially Airpower) research, but don't have a clue where to start looking for that kind of recognition. Any thoughts would be useful. As well, do any other projects come to mind that might be appropriate for the article? Thanks and hope all is well in NYC. PS, I will be in NYC on 27-30 June and may have some time on the 27th or 30th to get together if you are available. I'd be delighted to meet you in person. I will be in the Greenwich/Soho area of Manhattan on business. If interested, let me know by email.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 17:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
First, would you mind doing some serious archiving here? 250 sections is kind of ridiculous and the page is 436kb. Second, do you have any interest (or wherewithal!) to revisit the stalled Articles for Deletion proposal and try to effect its implementation? ÷ seresin 00:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
This is what comes of fire-fighting. I've been trying to rescue every possible BLP Prod, but they've gotten too many for me. Real pity, as 80% can be saved. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists (television). Taric25 ( talk) 02:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
Hi. If and when you get a chance please look at this [24] I and another editor have taken the time to edit the special education article. Also see the novella that is the talk page. Apparently someone think it is biased towards the U.S., though we have presented numerous evidence to the contrary. Including research articles from journals from all over the world. In my opinion it's someone with an axe to grind. You've got a great eye for detail so I'd like your input. I'm assuming good faith but patience is wearing thin... Jim Steele ( talk) 14:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC) C)
Hello David. Recently I saw an AFD closure rationale that analyzed 'to what extent were WP policies and guidelines cited'. I saw that as a Good Thing, but after several years here, while I have a general sense of the existence of many policies and guidelines governing deletion, I still find it hard to navigate among them. Probably newcomers would find it even harder. What do you think of creating a List of Wikipedia deletion policies and guidelines and linking to that from the lead of the Wikipedia:AfD page? It could go: ' WP:Verifiability is a core principle of the project. Other policies and guidelines governing the question can be found in (list article)'. Deletion policies are currently a section within Wikipedia:List of policies; but topic-specific guidelines are often cited in AFDs too, which is why I think a stand-alone list of both would be useful. Would you support its creation and its inclusion in the lead of WP:AfD? Sincerely, Novickas ( talk) 21:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it fact it might be a good role for new editors, who are not bound by our preconceptions. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you not know me well enough as an editor to know that I look for sources before PRODing? Do you get how insulting it is for you to remove tags with edit summaries that imply that I don't? Is there really any point in editors PRODing articles given your propensity for kneejerk removing the tags? Otto4711 ( talk) 12:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've commented at the above concerning List of Gilligan's Island episodes and issues I see with this article. I've also commented on the note you left on the thing's talk page back in March. That whole subpage is a sort of workshop for an RfC (or multiple RfCs) concerning the whole issue of colour use, and wikiproject authority. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
[25] -- Mike Cline ( talk) 18:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The RfC we've been discussing on color and consensus is launched and located at Wikipedia talk:Consensus/RfC. I am in the process of publicizing. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see User talk:Alin (Public Policy)#Princeton ambassadors and Wikimedia NYC. I think Gabriel has also expressed some interest in being involved in the Syracuse one.-- Pharos ( talk) 04:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi DGG
If you have a chance, could you please look at this entry and its deletion discussion? As I commented in the discussion, establishing notability for books from this era is not straightforward with online sources only, but I thought your knowledge as a librarian might come in handy.
Thanks, Bongo matic 04:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
David, I was out and about reviewing and closing old AfDs and this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Bird (TV character) was one of the last ones for July 6. I relisted it mainly because it confuses me. The nom claims non-notable (OK maybe) but argues for brief discussion in main article Sea Patrol (TV series). Yet the character is already listed in both the main article and season article Sea Patrol (season 4). Another editor argues to merge into a list that doesn't yet exist except as an embedded list in each of the main articles. What confuses me is that all the other main characters in the show have standalone articles (not all that well sourced) but they have not been nominated for deletion. My gut tells me this is a keep, primarily because it is part and parcel of a family of articles that cover the Sea Patrol show reasonable well. Notability/referencing issues aside, it would seem that all the main characters sould be handled in a consistent manner and deleting this article would begin to break down that consistency. I need to bone up on TV fictional character guidelines I guess, but do you have any thoughts? Thanks-- Mike Cline ( talk) 19:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Of the like or similar lists and/or similar article construction that have gone through AFD, at least that I have record of: (Format: Name - List date - Close date - Result)
And the related PRODs that never went to AFD:
- J Greb ( talk) 17:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
IAR is to improve the encyclopedia; the article in question is blatantly unencyclopedic. Having a process doesn't need to result in process wonkery- give me one good reason why that article should stay besides it not exactly fitting into a CSD category. By the way, read WP:SNOW. It basically says that if an article doesn't have a chance in hell of surviving, it should just be deleted, even if it doesn't fit into one category. Why waste time on this nonsense, when it can be dealt with infinitely more efficiently with the exact same result? (and yes, I know WP:SNOW isn't a policy, but it's meant to prevent the time sinks that result from situations like this) The Blade of the Northern Lights ( talk) 02:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
You may want to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of white nationalist organizations. Is there an essay somewhere that discusses this subject? I am inclined to support all three types of navigation aid, but recognize there is a maintenance problem with keeping them in sync. Aymatth2 ( talk) 14:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like to hear your opinion on an issue that I noticed today. Some journals (like most published by Medknow Publications or The Open Virology Journal) seem to meet our notability guidelines by claiming that they are included in PubMed. If I go into PubMed's journal database [26], I indeed see these journals, but with the remark that they are not currently indexed for Medline. If I do a PubMed search, I find articles published in these journals. However, these are all marked "Free PMC article". Does this mean that PubMedCentral is less selective (or perhaps even not selective at all) than PubMed itself? Do you think these journals are notable? -- Crusio ( talk) 15:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi DGG! I have come across this edit you made, and the edit summary puzzled me greatly. I was always under the impression that not all high schools were notable for Wikipedia purposes, and indeed most were not (as per WP:CORP). Is there a new or updated guideline that I missed? Thanks, Ynhockey ( Talk) 11:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, DGG. What is your opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual Choose Your Own Adventure Books, where 50 articles have been nominated for deletion? I'm inclined to believe that the discussion should be speedily closed for being an improper mass nomination of articles that does not give editors the chance to individually evaluate whether each one is notable or not. Cunard ( talk) 05:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:GongolaStateGovernors. I thought this was a neat trick, but now am not so sure, although I can't see anything wrong with it. Whatever the merits of this particular case, it raises a more general question, related to the ongoing debate about redundancy of lists vs templates vs categories. Should it be debated in a broader forum? Aymatth2 ( talk) 02:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I sense your frustration at having to explain this for the 137th time. Thanks, Aymatth2 ( talk) 15:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear DGG, Just a little note to say I have quoted you - perhaps unsuccesfully - in an attempt to prevent Tia Keyes from being deleted. Hope it is OK and best wishes, ( Msrasnw ( talk) 14:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC))
Dear DGG, sorry to bother you again. I just thought I might bring to your attention that while trying to defend this article I found what might be an error in our use of Web of Science. I think we missed out on Tia E Keyes' first publication which seems to have been written as ET Keyes with 135 citations. (So we should use something like Author=(Keyes T E OR Keyes E T)) I obviously hope to nudge into having another look at this case if you have time but best wishes anyway ( Msrasnw ( talk) 09:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)) PS: Would you know, as someone knowledgeable about Chemistry, if her having written an entry in Encyclopedia of Analytical Chemistry(Forster, R. J. and Keyes, T. E. 2001. Ion Selective Electrode for Environmental Analysis Encyclopedia of Analytical Chemistry) was of much use for notability?
I really appreciate it! I always value your contributions to such discussions (including, and especially, this particular one) so I really appreciate your comment. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey did you see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#Category:American_novels, the discussion is kindof stalling and we could use some new thoughts. Sadads ( talk) 16:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
If I did barnstars, you'd get one for this. Sadly, the quality of being willing to admit we are wrong is one strangely lacking in most Wikipedians. We ought to have an essay WP:IAMWRONG, although I could be wrong about that too. All power to you.-- Scott Mac 09:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
What's the best way to look into how many libraries carry a given journal? I've tried WorldCat, but without much success. I'm looking at a couple of relatively obscure journals, and I'd like to find out a) the nearest library which might hold the journal, and b) some measure of how widely carried the journal is, as an indicator of its prominence/obscurity. I figured you'd have some good suggestions on the topic. Thanks, and happy editing... MastCell Talk 19:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
True library subscription figures are for most publishers a closely held trade secret. The reason they're a trade secret, is that they tend to be considerably lower than people would think. I & others have in a few instances been able to figure it out, using our own knowledge of the business. So what's the journal(s)? DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I have revived a discussion you took part in back in 2008. It's about improving watchlists to allow a little more user control. Perhaps you would like to contribute? -- bodnotbod ( talk) 08:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Hiya,
Re. this article, I do understand your removal of the PROD, as I pretty much said in the PROD reasoning itself [36] and I did debate what to do with it - ie, I did realise that it was 'potentially notable'.
The difficulty arose, really, through the speedy / advert being declined, which I queried; please see User talk:Extransit#ChinaJoy.
I'm genuinely interested in your opinion on this sort of thing. Chzz ► 09:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChinaJoy. thanks, Chzz ► 14:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I notice you've been poring through my PRODs again contesting them with some spiel about how being unreferenced isn't a reason for deletion. It is. Quotes: "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source", "This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace", and "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed", "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". If you actually find a source for something, please feel free to add it, but I must insist that you stop interfering with my work enforcing the verifiability policy citing nonexistent requirements that I have to prove I've searched for sources and not found any before nominating deletions. Stifle ( talk) 11:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
== Question about DRV ==
I'm seriously considering this one for DRV for various reasons (See Good Ol'Factory's talk page).
What do you think? - jc37 02:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, do we normally make articles on university departments? -- Crusio ( talk) 10:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
For information: I have set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography, since the time has certainly come when there should be a place for collective discussion of the DNB adaptation effort. Please come and participate. Charles Matthews ( talk) 09:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
You deproded lists of scientists, could you weigh in why you think it should be kept and what kind of an article it could be on the talk page? I think it would make the most sense moved to list of scientists and similar to list of inventors. But I'm open to other options. Thanks, — sligocki ( talk) 03:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
DGG, could you help me understand how libraries alphabeticize book titles? Over time, WP:FA gets out of alpha order due to article name changes; in trying to correct that, I'm discovering my ignorance.
See in particular the Art and Literature sections at WP:FA. Since WP:MSH has us avoid "The" or "An" in article titles, my confusion mostly occurs in books and works of art. The two issues combine iin El Señor Presidente, which is a book with "The" as part of the title; do I put that under "El" (as in "The") or Señor?. What about the Artwork An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump, and all of the others beginning with "The"? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that many titles sound really weird in English (and even more so in other languages) without the initial articles. However, it helps find things to have a uniform rule, even if it does sound weird sometimes. The traditional library rules in American libraries are:
Hi DGG
What number of citations as a reasonable rule of thumb would demonstrate notability? I suppose it depends on what topic (number of scholars working in a topic will determine how many might cite an article), but is there a general rule? What do you think of this?
Thanks, Bongo matic 14:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 29#Bookland pls. ╟─ Treasury Tag► inspectorate─╢ 17:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
You might like this; http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/sep/24/1 Abductive ( reasoning) 07:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello! You recently deprodded the deletion proposal for Peter Lang Publishing--a proposal I made on the grounds that it was not notable. You claimed that the subject is an "important academic publisher". You seem to be experienced with these matters, so I understand I might be missing something, but I thought that Wikipedia articles must be notable and demonstrable as such, and this article does not seem to meet the standards for a notable organization, specifically that "'Notable' is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance,' and even organizations that editors personally believe are 'important' are only accepted as notable if they can be shown to have attracted notice. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is." It would be helpful for me to know your reasoning. Please explain. It might be best if we have this conversation on the talk page of the article in question in case the issue comes up again later. I'll look for your response there. Thank you. -- Lhakthong ( talk) 03:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
A long time ago you were part of the discussion on the WP:BELIEFS proposal. I went away for a while and I am trying to come back slowly, so I thought I would start with updating that page and reactivating the conversation. Please join in if you still would like to be part of that discussion. Low Sea ( talk) 20:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, what do you think of this journal and in particular the list of journals that is mentioned in it? -- Crusio ( talk) 21:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
As a practical solution, I wonder if the organization sponsoring the journal is important enough for an article? DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Helping Hand Barnstar | |
Thanks for giving User:Rangoon11 a second chance. Colonel Warden ( talk) 22:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC) |
We seldom agree in AfD discussions, so it's nice to see one on which I suspect we both agree. -- EEMIV ( talk) 03:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
A discussion as to whether law reviews are RSs it taking place here. Given the apparent confusion and lack of familiarity of some editors with the review and fact-checking process of a typical law review, I wonder whether at some point it may be helpful to clarify at the guideline?-- Epeefleche ( talk) 21:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I know I'm not seen as the most co-operative Wikipedian. However, I'm beginning to wonder if there's any possibility of exploring common ground and seeing if there's any way to build coalition behind some modest agreements. I've set out my thoughts at User:Scott MacDonald/Pragmatic BLP. I'm thinking to invite some thinking people who radically disagree with me, and see what's possible. Do you think this has any merit?-- Scott Mac 10:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I've been meaning to ask you whether there's some organized system in the real world that would help us determine what normal is for WP:PROF's "more notable than average" rule of thumb. I have the impression that the number of papers written, quantity of citations, etc. varies by academic field, so that what is "barely any papers published" according to one field might be "quite a lot of papers published" in another.
On the assumption that such a system exists for bureaucratic evaluation of academic employees, is there any way we could get a list that says something like "Professor of economics: Median publications, 12; typical range, 4 to 24. Professor of mathematics: Median publications, 8; typical range, 6 to 12."? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I don't know where you will come out on this, but as you give matters great thought, and this seems to be a combustible one, I thought I would mention it to you.
There is currently an energetic effort afoot to delete lists of Jews. Some of the lists have withstood such efforts in the past. This is taking place even where there are articles and entire books about the intersections. I'm not sure that the AfD process works best here, as the same discussions are repeated again and again, in various AfDs ... it would seem, until an AfD is successful somewhere. The number of participants in any discussion can vary, and the core issues are generally the same, though secondary issues differ. Any thoughts? For example, does this call for a more focused discussion of the core principles? It seems to me that what we have is a less than sensible process, open to vagaries that we might want to avoid. Some current such AfDs are efforts to delete the lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 04:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
(restart indents) There is a proposal to create some unified RfC on these topics, which I would welcome. Speaking for many if not all of the people seeking to delete List of Jewish Nobel laureates, the goal is not to suppress ethnicity information in Wikipedia, it is to end putting a Wikipedia stamp of approval onto ethnicity misinformation from partial and prejudiced sources. After that AfD was started, 2 more were created by one of the laureate-list's supporters, and other list supporters egged on Bulldog to demonstrate his sincerity by filing more AfDs. Of course all those AfDs are now being used as "evidence" for "an energetic effort afoot to delete lists of Jews," as Epeefleche worded his request for your assistance. Again, i would welcome a unified RfC. I think that if such lists used a public and defensible criterion for "Who is a Jew?" and respected the BLP-privacy rights of living people, such lists could be a useful feature of Wikipedia. betsythedevine ( talk) 18:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I've always felt there's a conundrum here. Lists of "British people" or "Mexican people" are not a problem as generally they can be predicated on the objective criteria of citizenship. If reliable sources say "x is an American citizen" there you go. So nationality is not a problem. The problem comes with ethnicity, religion and (I suppose) sexuality - where there's a subjective element, at least at the margins. How do you settle it. You can't settle it by saying "it simply needs sourced", because then all you've got is the subjective opinion of one source. There's a Jewish daily calling Andre Geim Jewish, so there's a reliable source. Except other reliable sources don't mention it, and the subject himself disowns it. I can find a source that says George Bush is an evangelical Christian, but your mileage may vary. From BLP perspective, self-identification would seem the least problematic way. Except, it fails two tests. Firstly the "Pope test" - if the Pope had never, in fact, self-described as a Roman Catholic, can we call him one? (I realise he may well have done so, but you get the point). The other test is the Ida Amin test. Amin claimed to be Scottish, in fact the rightful king of Scotland. So, there's self-description. Except.... I've never quite worked out how you square this circle.
Of course, we could go with common sense, and simply exclude any dubious examples altogether. However, Wikipedia is just too full of POV-pushers determined to get anyone with a Moldavian grandmother on that list. What to do? Dunno.-- Scott Mac 21:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
/// I have referenced Epeefleche's outreach to you, which I think is part of a more extensive canvassing effort, at [42]. betsythedevine ( talk) 01:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
See here. 1978 Holiday Inn Fire is up for deletion. I created an article History of hotel fires in the United States which I'm currently writing as a proposition to merge this article into it as Orange Mike believes it non notable. I found a list by the national fire association of a relatively low number of hotel fires with ten or more fatalities since 1934. I believe that to be an assertion that they arenotable fire events, given that thousand sof fires obviously have broken out in total over the years. The 1978 fire is the least notable on that list with 10 fatalities but with the sources provided just scrapes it in my view even though I initially thought delete it. I am using the material I wrote for it in the history article anyway, but should it be redirected?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Especially if you consider how many fires have likely taken place throughout history in hotels I'd say the list contains the most notable fires. And in researching most of them there is an abundance of sources and many of them were the worst fire disasters in the given cities so are definately notable. Obviously the least notable ones are the 10-15 death toll ones but i think they should qualify given that the national fire association thinks them notable and that many of them are mentioned in books and magazines. I'm usually pretty good actually with deciding the best way to use information. I'd imagine there is actually a great dea more about such fires if somebody did some research into the local archives..♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC) I've emailed you. Can you check your email?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
You are one extraordinarily odd, unpredictable person... I have no idea what exactly your intentions are on here but you go from extreme inclusionist to all out delete with very little moderation... DO you really think an ideal solution to improving wikipedia is to stick deletion tags on every article needing work and open up the possibility of any admin deleting them if they haven;t been improved within a short amount of time. Because I think it is potentially highly damaging. I cannot but try to understand why you think it would be a greater idea but for the chance that editors will actually improve them and source them. Its very risky.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
And for some types of things I am inclusive only as a temporary measure: characters and episodes, until it is accepted that the sections of combination articles on them should be considerably detailed. (And there are some areas I do not work much in where I think the rules should be different, but have indefinitely deferred challenging them in order to deal with the areas I do concentrate on.) And I make mistakes also, so what have I done lately that you think I should have done otherwise? DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Do you think prodding articles with a big fat ugly PROD deletion tag in your face, even ones which are clearly notable like mountains/populated places etc is a better solution than an editor like Jeep actually asking me or another active editor politely to source/improve it myself? Because I'd be more than happy to if I'm asked to improve it rather than threats. Providing I don't get too many requests thrown at me at once I'd be willing to improve articles people request. Maybe if I ignored the request after a week or so then a prod might be neccesary. But do you realise how many people have ever actually asked me to improve an article first before taking it to AFD or prodding it? I just find it very odd you are happy to see big prod warnings on valid stubs like Knúkur which just require a few sources and a bit of expansion and then in annther instance you will say that populated places every tiny hamlet is inherently notable like you did with the Scottish villages. Well do you think if I went and drilled every unreferenced British village sub stub with prod threatening warnings the article creators with deletion this would be a great thing? Probably not, so why then did you actually encourage Jeep to continue doing so and said you;d do it yourself some time? Very strange DGG... [♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
What I encouraged J. to do was, when he does prod, to leave notice on the project talk pages as well as to the editors. I think that is often a good idea, I should indeed be doing it more, & I'd like to find an scripted way to do it. A few people such as you & I patrol unexpired prods, but we cannot do it all, so the project pages seems a way to attract people who know and care about the subject. And except for BLP PROD, it is perfectly permissible to remove a prod and say in the edit summary something like, First look for sources, & if not found, only then nominate for deletion. See WP:BEFORE.
Of course when the problem is no references to support notability, prodding without checking is usually not a good thing to do. But too many editors here do this to make it impractical to confront each of them, and in any case I do not like to confront people if it is unlikely to change things. I'll typically find a way to show I am paying attention, as I think I did there, & see if it does some good. A newcomer is another matter--there's hope, so I'll instruct them. There is no practical way to enforce good behavior in established Wikipedians when it is something many people ignore. Even when they do something clearly wrong, AN/I has become a drum-head court martial, for RfC to accomplish anything it is a rare exception, and arb com is a place nobody comes away from the better. The only hope is that new people will join & dilute them. At least prod is less likely to scare them away than speedy.
DGG (
talk )
00:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
FYI I have recommended a change to the language of the guideline for schools Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#School. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi DGG. I'm a bit concerned about User talk:Jeepday's campaign of PRODDING long standing, innocuous pages, such as mainline railway stations, just because they may not, in his view, be adequately sourced. I would have thought that admin time could be better used in serious areas such as BLP. I'm not an admin, I don't know how to approach this. I want to avoid hurting anyone's feelings, but this kind of thing makes me feel I'm wasting my time on Wikipedia. Season's greetings, -- Kudpung ( talk) 03:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)PS, I've come across other instances of this admin wanting to revert accepted guidelines, such as schools, for example, and where you have kindly come to the defence of these policies.-- Kudpung ( talk) 03:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Do you know any examples of journals that are generally accepted as being academic journals or scholarly journals, but not peer reviewed? To me, academic journal is more or less synonymous with "peer reviewed", but perhaps I'm too much of a purist... -- Crusio ( talk) 05:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I have proposed the renaming of a category, and wanted to know if you would consider commenting on the proposed renaming over at that link? --- My Core Competency is Competency ( talk) 04:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
If you have a minute, could you look at [44]? I don't do much with journals, and so I don't know what the usual notability standards are for journals. Thanks, — Carl ( CBM · talk) 21:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, the upmerging of lists of scientific and medical journals is being discussed. I thought you might have an opinion on which way to go. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 06:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)