Jan. 08 Archive March 08 Archive

I contested your contesting of a prod ( AfD here). I don't know if it's considered bad form not to mention that to you or not, but I remember reading something like that long, long ago, so I thought I'd err on the side of politeness. -- Haikon 14:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

thanks. Commented at the afd. I think this is slightly tricky--I cannot recall ever seeing an article constructed quite this way. DGG ( talk) 16:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I was browsing AfD and noticed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaar Mohammad. Thought I'd give you another FYI (wish I could give you a source for the article... there's not a lot out there on Mysore officers in the Anglo-Mysore war :/).-- Haikon 19:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

There probably is, in the right print sources. DGG ( talk) 20:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

DGG, I thought you might be interested to know that there has been a discussion of the closure of the most recent deletion review on the talk page of GRBerry here. In it, I asked for a response to your comments. The response was:
"DGG's appears to have completely missed DRV#1, which wasn't linked in this discussion, because he speaks of "the DRV" - singular, when there were two. How he missed it when the close of the most recent prior DRV begins "Deletion endorsed again." is beyond me - but it doesn't speak to a solid examination of DRV#2 on his part - or to memory of his participation in DRV#1. When he missed such a basic point, it is hard to take his evaluation of the close of DRV#2 seriously. Since the "interested in" category was created immediately following the close of DRV#2 and had been suggested and argued for therein, it's existence is as close as possible for DRV to come to a compromise on a category.
At the core, DGG is questioning the overall consensus about these policies. (This is incidentally not a new opinion from him; in DRV#1 he said "Overturn there is no consistent consensus about these categories.") Again, the close reflects that what the policy is and should be is a legitimate question for a policy page discussion or policy change can be evidenced at the daily grind of UCFD, but it is not one that can be resolved at DRV. As far as I can tell, there is a settled consensus here, which consensus is reflected in the many endorse deletion opinions in the DRVs and in Xoloz's, Chick Bowen's, and my closes of the three DRVs. Evidence of any change in that consensus was not offered in any of the DRVs."
I am including a note for you here as I thought you might like to comment. Regards, Jay*Jay ( talk) 12:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC) commented there. DGG ( talk) 18:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Great, I'll have a look - I just thought you should be informed. :) Jay*Jay ( talk) 21:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks, I probably would not have seen it otherwise. DGG ( talk) 21:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Exactly when did I become female? :) I got a bit of a laugh out of that; now I'm curious to know why you thought so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

pure irrelevant association--I have always internally thought of Seraphim as female--even though I know they are not generally considered to be sexed at all and are not usually depicted as female--it's still my internal image and I automatically used it. DGG ( talk) 13:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC). reply

(Bear in mind i go there) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankun ( talk • contribs) 03:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC) I think I said the business school was a major business school, and that was the point at issue. But I should have specified major research university, which is more objective. Actually, i was waiting for someone to spot this. :) DGG ( talk) 03:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I hope you received my email address when i contacted you. Dbmoodb ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC) sent. DGG ( talk) 06:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulong Buhangin, Santa Maria there's no automatic link (as there usually is for second-time afd's) to the previos afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulong Buhangin, Sta. Maria . I guess it's because at the previous afd the article had a different name. Do you know how one goes about fixing that?-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 11:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC) no., unfortunately, I dont. Try the Afd talk page. Bu you can always add a manual link and say what it is. DGG ( talk) 17:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply

FYI. Meta Knight is unprotected and efforts could not be made to make the page strong article rather than a redirectd, and then to encourage later editors to discuss the merge prior to making disruptive edits. No response needed just and FYI. - 66.109.248.114 ( talk) 02:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC). reply

I have commented on the List of Kirby characters talk page, about reestablishing consensus to unmerge it. DGG ( talk) 02:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG. I notice you declined my speedy nomination for heptalogy. Although I can't see the old page I believe the recreated page is basically the same, perhaps even less detailed. The citations that have been added do nothing to meet the concerns expressed in the deletion nomination (that articles based on words formed on a predictable numeric system are not encyclopedic and that this is a neologism). According to G4 criteria, these concerns ought to be addressed. I appreciate that, even if I persuade you that the page deserved its speedy nomination, it probably can't be overturned, but perhaps you could tell me how I renominate a page given that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Heptalogy is taken. -- Lo2u ^{( T • C)} 23:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Legitimate concerns--taking another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heptalogy your nom. said "a nonce word formed on a predictable numeric system with almost no precedent in published material." Mandsford commented "a made-up word for 7 things, analogous to trilogy for three things. As Lo2u points out, there's no indication that this is a common term."

You then nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pentalogy using the same rationale, saying also "the fact that there exist books and films that have had four sequels is not relevant. An example of how a word might be used isn't a citation."

I noticed one of the AfDs--I do not remember which-- & did not defend the article--because I agreed with your rationale, and I continue to consider it correct. But it appears to me that if the term is in fact used, the article is defensible. The CBALL guideline says "Similarly, articles about words formed on a predictable numeric system... are not encyclopedic unless they are defined on good authority, or genuinely in use", not ""articles based on words formed on a predictable numeric system are not encyclopedic". If they are genuinely in use, the article is appropriate. I have not however checked the references. If you do, and you don't think they demonstrate sufficient or relevant use, the way to take it to Afd is to place an AfD2 according to WP:AFD, and we will see what the community thinks. If you have problems doing that, let me know. DGG ( talk) 01:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks. You're right, it probably is occassionally used. I suppose the fact that it is formed on a predictable sytem makes this inevitable (there are even instances of hendecalogy out there). Nevertheless we are probably looking at a word that appears about once a year in the media so I don't feel my nomination per CBALL was inappropriate. The fact that the earliest mention in the Times is eight years old is more telling than the fact that the Times has possibly used it. Most of the citations are very difficult to verify and I've removed one of the few I could actually find on the internet because I didn't think it is appropriate per Wikipedia:Avoid_self-references. Thanks for the information. -- Lo2u ^{( T • C)} 14:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply

DGG, I would greatly appreciate your time for another review of Wilmington Montessori School. On the advice of another editor, I have moved the detailed discussion out of the AfD and relocated it to the article's talk page. Most recently, I have been reviewing the Wikipedia:Notability (schools)

I understand you declined AutoSimSport Magazine since it is a publication, but since it is a web-only publication, wouldn't it fall under the web-content rules (pot calling kettle black kind thing). Not contesting it, I'll just wait a couple weeks and prod/afd it. MBisanz ^talk 16:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

DGG... please explain 'reference to it'. I have added readership, circulation, and download stats. Ljmagyar ( talk) 18:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The stats as to readership/downloads need to be sourced from a reliable outside source, such as SiteMeter or www.alexa.com IMHO. MBisanz ^talk 19:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The source of the stats is the log files from the web host, analyzed with Webalizer and compiled into a spreadsheet... are you questioning the integrity of the data? In my opinion, it would appear to an outside viewer that you have a grudge against AutoSimSport Magazine. Ljmagyar ( talk) 19:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

No, never heard of this publication until today, so it would be pretty hard for me to already not like it. And I was willing to give it a couple of weeks before nominating it for deletion, another user was the nominator. I just strongly question all articles that seem like they could be ads for a site or promoting a certain point of view. I'm not questioning the data, but from a quick look at Webalizer's site, you'd need to have access to the web host to get the log files, and you'd have to analyze them with Webalizer to get the stats, which is original research and can't be a source. MBisanz ^talk 19:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Also, I took a look at http://autosimsport.net/staff.php , and from your user name, I'm guessing you might be Lou Magyar, an employee of the publication whose job is to market it, so I'm going to refer you to our Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy. MBisanz ^talk 19:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I am that person. Yes. And I do have access to the web logs. That seems to preclude any viability for you that AutoSimSport Magazine is actually a relevant topic. I contend that if Sim Racing is a relevant topic, so is AutoSimSport Magazine. Also, you said that you were willing to give it a couple of weeks, yet you put the AutoSimSport Magazine entry up for Speedy Deletion. Ljmagyar ( talk) 19:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Once DGG pointed out that Publication and not Web Content guidlines were the most applicable, I agreed to "Not contesting it, I'll just wait a couple weeks and prod/afd it." MBisanz ^talk 19:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Fair enough, however, Pollytyred has already done that as well. I would like to bring this article to your attention for comment and comparison to the AutoSimSport entry... PC_Gamer. Every article has to start SOMEWHERE. AutoSimSport Magazine is the ONLY source dedicated to sim racing content and IMO needed a wiki. So I started one. When you gave it an SD candidacy, I tried to add information so it would be allowed to grow. It is currently being edited by an E_Dog95... In all honesty, I have no idea who that is, but they are editing the entry to be more appropriate. Ljmagyar ( talk) 19:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

May I suggest moving this to the article talk page? But we judge each article on its own merits, not by comparisons, and "needing" a W{ entry is not enough of a criterion--it has to be already notable enough for a WP entry. If you can give some reference that it is the only or major magazine in the field, as show so by some sort of a third party published references, the article would probably be acceptable. I share MBisanz's view that we need to carefully examine all articles that look like they might be promoting a product, to see among other things whether the product is notable, and whether the article is objective. COI is not a reason to reject out of hand,but avery good reason to look closely. We are an encyclopedia, not an adverting medium. DGG ( talk) 20:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

David, at what point does the keep/delete vote get decided? I see that you voted to keep. Does that mean that the AfD can be removed or does it require further consideration?

Regarding the COI, the article has changed substantially by other contributors since I created it. What determines if/when that can be removed? Thanks, Ljmagyar ( talk) 14:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I have no more voice there than anyone else who participates in the discussion, the community decides, and the discussion will be closed by some other admin, one who has not joined in the discussion, who will see what people there say, and evaluate what policy position has general support. This normally happens 5 days after the discussion has opened, if there has been sufficient participation. Anyone can remove the COI tag, but then anyone can put it back. First lets see if it will be kept. What the article really needs is some reference from a already well-known publication talking about it in a significant way, or someone from the field saying in an already established published source that it is important. DGG ( talk) 14:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi David. An IP left a note on my talk page pointing out User talk:DGG#American Journal Experts. I wonder if you were aware of User talk:Bduke#Regarding deleting of American Jour...? There was also something very brief at ANI: see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive123#American Journal Experts. Possibly there wasn't anything on the talk page, and I'm sure you looked first, but just wanted to make sure things were OK here. I've left a note for Bduke as well. I haven't notified Blue1 (see Special:Contributions/Blue1). Do you know what is going on here? Carcharoth ( talk) 01:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Missed the following: [1] and [2]. Have left a note for JForget as well. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Failing any other location, User talk:Carcharoth#American Journal Experts (started by Jforget) seems as good a place as any to centralise discussion. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Moved my answer there. DGG ( talk) 03:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Well indeed it is hard to tell (although portions of it looks neutral), most of the content including the criticism section was full of OR/unsourced material (some of it borderline attack) or simply just poor sources (which in the last version that was deleted by AFD was consisting of mostly advertising links) Previously there was no third-party sources before the additions of those ad links, so basically it was basically weak on WP:V/ WP:RS.-- JForget 04:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply

these services are fairly new--there will probably be materials for real articles in another few months as they get discussed in usable sources. We can wait till then for them. DGG ( talk) 04:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply

FYI this is my vote at the AfD: Comment I agree with DGG, Edison, and Silly Rabbit. But the article that Wikipedia has is not that article on that topic and as long as it is here, it is an embarassment to the encyclopedia. I find it hard to vote "delete" because we ought to have an article pon psychohistory - the psychohistory DGG, Edison, and Silly Rabbit refer to. But I find it hard to vote "keep" because this AfD is not referring to that (as yet hypothetical) article but a changeling that is unencyclopedically pushing a fringe POV. If DGG, Edison, and Silly Rabbit want to blnk the page and start writing the article they are imagining, I would definitely be for keeping it. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I am not entirely clear about POV--what exactly is the fringe nature of it, and how would you demonstrate that? DGG ( talk) 20:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The only people who cite de Mause are his own followers, who of course cite one another. You and others at the AfD mentioned other journals and university courses. If you look at the people who teach those university courses, and the books and articles they assign, you see that they are not publishing in de Mause's journal but in other journals, and they are citing books and article that are not by de mause or his followers or from his journal. I am looking at people who teach "psychohistory" courses at major universities. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

See Varieties of Phychohistory by George M. Kren; Leon H. Rappoport which does not feature de Mause; the article "Psychohistory as History" by Thomas A. Kohut in The American Historical Review Vol. 91, No. 2 (Apr., 1986), pp. 336-354, a detailed review in one of the leading journals of history in the US, which does not mention de Mause once, nor cites any article from his "Journal of Psychohistory." The psychohistory that is taught in universities and that is represented in academic articles and books just appears to have no connection, whatsoever, to de Mause or his theories. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

According to Psychohistory: Theory and Practice by Jacques Szaluta, psychohistory was founded by Erik Erikson; Szaluta reviews a wide range of works by psychohistorians. Again, no mention of de Mause. Slrubenstein | [User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 20:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

This is clearly an academic dispute between two schools of thought. to help us, what is the actual basic difference between their theories? There are many such separate trends in all fields of study, where frequently the publications of each school do not refer to the other one. You clearly support one school--that does not invalidate the other, per NPOV. It sounds like all we have to do is add additional sources, and explain the different lines of thought. DGG ( talk) 20:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[ reply

Well, just to be clear, I do not support either school. My concern is, what is notable and what is fringe. When I first saw this site, I asked friends of mine who are academic historians and psychologists if they ever heard of Lloyd de Mause. They all said no. I asked them what they knew of psychohistory and they just said it was a diverse set of attempts to apply psychoanalytic theory to history and several mentioned Erikson. When I did a J-stor search of academic journals using "psychohistory" as the sole search term (j-stor is a major collection of and search engine for academic journals), I discovered a few articles that mentioned one book by de Mause ... one article specifically said something like when his colleagues scoff at psychohistory their idea of psychohistory is something like what one sees in de Maus's work (no, I do not know what the theoretical differences is; the book de Mause wrote was on the history of the family), but most articles I found just don't mention him. But they do mention many other works. I looked at de Mause's website, and he doesn't mention those other works. Now you know all I know. I have no idea which approach to psychohistory is "better," i just know what I told you: academic historians and psychologists I know haven't heard of the guy, and most acadmic articles I searched do not mention him or in a small number of cases mention his one book in passing. (disclaimer: I am a student of anthropology and when it comes to claims about anthropology yes there is a major difference between what I believe in and what de Mause claims. I would be happy to explain it to you but it is not pertinent to the article on psychohistory, which does not really talk about de Mause's beliefs about anthropology. My question is, when scholars say "psychohistory," what body of scholarship are they referring to? based on my investigation, limited, but I think nevertheless appropriate, they are not for the mot part referring to de Mause or his followers.) Slrubenstein | Talk 20:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Okay, I just looked at your user page (sorry, I did not before) and see you are a professional librarian. This means you have better skills and resources than I do if you were to seriuously investigate this. I would propose that most articles published in de Mause's The Journal of Psychohistory are cited most frequently by other articles in that journal. I would be curious to know what other academic journals publish articles with "psychohistory" in the title or abstract or keywords, and I would be curious to know how those journals compare to The Journal of Psychohistory in citation indexes. I would look at on-line syllabi or course descriptions of major university courses to see what books and articles they require and recommend. If I had a lot of time (or a research assistant!) I would try to find out how often these works are cited in de Mause's journal, and how often these works cite articles from de mause's journal. Minimally, if there are a number of books and articles that repeatedly appear in the syllabi of university courses, I would want the Psychohistory article to draw on them as sources, both for general claims about what psychohistory is, and as specific case-studies. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

yes, I do know how to do research. I also have a little experience at the fringe and RS noticeboards. A basic datum of citation analysis is that most journals cite articles in the same journal more than any other journal. The existence of two schools of thought that try to ignore each other is a rather common occurrence. if we were trying to find the Truth, it would be a problem. But we're not, just reporting what is said, and we report all the schools of thought in such cases. It's usual in WP content disputes to call the other side Fringe. That said, i do see certain signs that might lead to the conclusion that deMause's is an isolated school of thought. Doesnt mean he's wrong, of course. But I would not go further without at least seeing just what is the bone of contention--knowing what the fundamental fight is about tends to clairify most conflicts, here and elsewhere. DGG ( talk) 01:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I hope I have never written anything to mislead you. There is another article, which used to be called Early Infanticidal Childrearing, which was solely about a specific theory of de mause's about "primitive" people which I consider both fringe and wrong, based on my own expertise. On the talk page of that article, to supporters of de Mause who have asked me why I think it is wrong, I have always provided them with an answer. But I strongly believe in the Wikipedia pinciple of verifiability, not truth. My criticims of that article, on the talk page and in an RfC, is not so much that it is "wrong" as that it is poorly written.

But we have been discussing Psychohistory and I hope that in my comments, on its talk page, the AfD page, and here, I have been clear that my main objection is that it pushes a fringe POV. And if I am wrong that it is fringe, I am certain that it is not the mainstream view. Since the article presents psychohistory as the invention and theory of Lloyd de Mause, and does not discuss the majority or mainstream views of psychohistory, there is a serious NPOV problem with the article. But these are the only criticisms I have, and have forwarded at Wikipedia. I'd be thrilled if an expert in library science could provide some measure of de Mause's notability, and a bibliography of more notable sources/views that ought to be represented in the article. Or perhaps you know psychologists and historians you could ask ... Slrubenstein | Talk 12:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC) "The way to deal with this, and all similar situations, is find some additional references and add them. Anyone who can figure out what is being talked about and can decipher the special vocabulary can do that, including myself & yourself--and anyone who also write coherently can improve a poorly written article. I occasionally do both to articles at AfD. I do not however have time now to work on this one. DGG ( talk) 17:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't really have time either. I was mostly responding to your claim that I "clearly" support one theory over another. I didn't think any of the brief things I had written suggested that at all, yet somehow you reached that concludion, and wanted to make sure now that i was crystal clear. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• "I'd be thrilled if an expert in library science could provide some measure of de Mause's notability"

Maybe this can help. — Cesar Tort 00:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• • OK, read that article,and, yes, interesting enough to work on, slowly--at the talk page of deMause in the first instance. The article on him should explain his theory; the article on the subjects he works on should explain all non-splinter theories. This was starting to sound familiar, because one of my teaching exercises for advanced science reference work is the question: "Can schizophrenia be cured by psychoanalysis?" Answer here next week. I would appreciate no comments on this question here in the meantime. DGG ( talk) 00:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

You just left a comment on my talk page, but I am a little confused - I assume you read my 20:55, 1 February 2008 comment here (just look at the first sentence). So, what is it you mean to say to me? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Your original nomination was reasonable. In fact, I didn't oppose it. For the renomination, you didn't have access to the deleted article so you couldn't see the changes, and the G4 was also, and it of course was fine to ask me about it. I left a request to give exact links for the references, although they are not strictly speaking required. You've done everything perfectly OK. 15:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It's kind of you reply. I'll consider renominating but may as well see what can be found about the sources. Best wishes -- Lo2u ^{( T • C)} 17:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Would you have time to look at J. R. Robinson? I discovered this while trying to track down the "J. R. Robinson" who was awarded the Royal Medal in 1862. As this J. R. Robinson (industrialist) was born in 1860 (though the external link says 1865), I figured it couldn't be him. I eventually found John Thomas Romney Robinson (also known as Romney Robinson and T. R. Robinson - only rarely as J. R. Robinson, but then that is par for the course for 19th century awards listings). Anyway, J. R. Robinson looks notable enough, just, but the initials only bit annoys me. I've been trying to find out his full name, but no luck so far. If he is notable, could you add him to Robinson (name)? Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 04:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I found the first name by looking up his book in WorldCat, and moved the article to James R. Robinson. I as well as you am unhappy with the article; it's too close a paraphrase of the history of the company on the web. I can't judge the significance of his invention without actually reading one of the current books on the subject, which doesn't seem worth it.. What would clearly make him notable is if the book was particularly used as a textbook as stated --but verifying that for something 80 years ago is disproportionately difficult archival research, unlike today where you can search syllabi on the web. It is still held in a reasonable number of libraries. The web site mentions a technical article also--indexing is poor for that period, but i will look for it now that I have the first name in full. DGG ( talk) 15:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Industrial history from that period probably suffers from a systematic lack of coverage, so I'm happy to let it go for now. I'm more interested in Romney Robinson - lots of juicy material available there. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Just a note about the proposed speedy delete of the Kent_Ninomiya article -- I've done a more official AfD nomination to try and get more opinions, if you'd like to contribute. Markusbradley ( talk) 18:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Thanks for notifying me--I made some comments there at [3]. DGG ( talk) 22:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry about that DGG,

on reflection I should have read the article closer, it just seemed like a directory of programs. Awotter ( talk) 21:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply

that's the problem when people try to write articles and don;t find outfirst what counts as acceptable content. Their fault, not yours. DGG ( talk) 21:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG, I'm wondering why the post on HBH-DS200 was deleted? I don't understand how the style/reference diffred compared to other pages on specific products? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebbleboy ( talk • contribs) 13:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

What it needs is some kind of product review, and then to be rewritten in the third person-- not "you can..." I have undeleted it, so you can work on it. If you can fix it in 5 days, remove the proposed deletion tag, but anyone else who wishes can send it for deletion anyway. Many phones have made it into WP, but I do not see many headsets. But it won't be up to me. DGG ( talk) 14:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks a lot. Do you think it would be better to do a page on e.g. all Sony Ericsson headsets rather than on an individual headset?.[User:Pebbleboy|Pebbleboy]] ( talk

Sounds possible. It might work, especially if you can find an article discussing them as a product line. Guide yourself by what reviews and other references you can find. And remember to sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ DGG ( talk) 14:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, would you take another look at this page that has been greatly expanded since you commented, please? TerriersFan ( talk) 02:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC) -- Commented there. good job of it, too; may your help serve as a model to others on this topic. DGG ( talk) 03:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the reconsideration. TerriersFan ( talk) 03:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

actually, I feel fairly stupid--I should have done it when I wrote my analysis yesterday, since i said on the talk page it was enough for a keep. DGG ( talk) 03:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

'Primary Criteria'

• A school is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage[1] in secondary sources.
  
  • Grant by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (previously cited)
    
  • Doctoral dissertation published by the University of Delaware (previously cited)
    
  • Mention in a New York Times article (previously cited)
    
  • Article in "Montessori Life" (previously cited)
    

'Secondary Criteria'
A school will be regarded as notable provided at least two of the following criteria can be reliably sourced:

• The school has won multiple notable awards or status
  • Foundation Grants, including being in the top 50 in the US in 1999. (previously cited)
    

• Having multiple notable alumni or staff, who would qualify for their own Wikipedia articles
  • Founder and Prior Headmaster, Marie Dugan served as AMS President and currently as an NGO at the United Nations(previously cited)
    
  • Current Headmaster, Linda Zankowsky Ed.D. serving on American Montessori Society Research committee.(previously cited)
    
  • Current Teacher, Lisa Wilson-Riblett shared first place as "Teacher from a Center or Preschool" in the 9th Annual Governor's Awards for Excellence in Early Care and Education. (previously cited)
    
  • Current Teacher, Angie Meadows was one of 100 educators in the country chosen as an "Unsung Hero" in 2005 by ING Financial Services.(previously cited)
    

• • Flo Miniscloux, a 2002 graduate of WMS, has been invited to participate in the upcoming movie, The Lovely Bones, directed by Peter Jackson, who also directed The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. She toured the United States performing in Dragon Tales Live as the leading performer, Emmy, from 2003-04. And, in 2003 she played a principal role in the movie, The Woodsman, starring Kevin Bacon. (not yet added)
    
  • Jenny Torgerson, a 200? graduate of WMS, was seen in the M. Knight Shamalan movie The Lady in the Water, and (for Bollywood fans) she also appeared in Quarter Life Crisis. (not yet added)
    

If you are available to comment, I would welcome your opinion. Regards. Daddy.twins ( talk) 15:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Commented at some length at the talk page. DGG ( talk) 00:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your time and input. I certainly welcome a reasoned discourse, even if it is not in total agreement with my own position. All of your counterpoints are well-taken and I will adjust the article because of them. I am enjoying my first foray into wikipedia and, based on my work with good editors on both sides of a debate, my opinion regarding the quality of content is markedly improved. Daddy.twins ( talk) 11:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm not familiar with all of the procedural elements in an AfD discussion. Given your comments on the the article's talk page, would you consider revising the 'Delete' vote on the AfD discussion page? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilmington_Montessori_School Daddy.twins ( talk) 16:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, just dropping by to say thanks for supporting my RfA, I totally wasn't expecting to get so much support, it was a really pleasant surprise. Melesse ( talk) 04:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey there DGG. You speedied this article. It was recreated by (none other) than User:ben metelits and is now at this AfD. He's getting blasted and I tried to retag it as speedy A7 bio to avoid embarassment for Mr. metelits (you and I both know that AfD can be viscious.) My speedy tag was removed to "let AfD run its course". Is this an WP:IAR situation? I strongly believe teh article should be speedied by I'm not about to wheel about it. Keeper | 76 16:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Guy seems to have handled it just right before I had a chance to get there. But I expect to see Ben again soon--nothing we say will stop him. But now at least there's G4 available. 03:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Meetup/NYC#We should participate in this local unconference on April 25-26. Cheers. ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)== Thanks! == reply

Hello again, DGG ... I just wanted to thank you for the consciousness raising you gave me a few months ago ... this message to Some Other Editor is an example of the kind of proactive efforts I am making on behalf of articles that my evil twin would have taken to WP:AFD (well, it looks like they did manage a few before being restrained again. :-)

I'm bringing this to your attention because I don't know who to alert about the Spanish Wikipedia clones of the articles in Category:Cuban contemporary artists, and as an admin, I thought that you might have some suggestions about what to do.

I hope that things are better with your ohana ... my invalid elder sister is still in the rehab hospital.

Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 ( talk · contribs) 20:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I cannot figure out what to do with them either--there are probably actual reviews in Cuban sources, but I'm not in a position to find them. The people who introduce groups of such articles probably have the best sources, but either they don't bother or they are simply going from PR material. Visual artist entries tend to be difficult this way--people upload the sort of standard material used for their PR, & the part we really need here for notability (museum collections in particular) is almost invisible or missing--same with exact references to reviews. I have never succeeding in persuading the people doing this to cooperate. I've given up trying to fix them. esWP people can best be found by looking for someone who is on both. Ask at the relevant workgroup, or try user categories. Last resort is to get an account, get a translation of "we have just deleted this article from the English WP" and add it to article talk pages there. There ought to be a bot that does this. DGG ( talk) 21:5

Hi DGG, looking at this article I think I've made the same mistake as someone else by assuming that Bank AL Habib and Habib Bank are the same. (They both saysaid they were founded in Bombay in 1941.) I saw a comment of yours on the talk page so I thought perhaps you could clear this up. If they are not the same, this should be made quite clear and a distinguish-tag put at the top. Thanks! MSGJ ( talk) 12:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I clarified the relationship in the text as well; Habib Bank is the original one, which was nationalized & is now run jointly by the government and a private investment company. Bank EL Habib is a private bank re-started by the original investors. DGG ( talk) 14:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Nice one. Thanks! MSGJ ( talk) 18:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I do not understand why this article was deleted. I did not intend this article to be "advertising." I am merely chronicling ideas and concepts which are of interest to me. I am a travel writer and am immensely fascinated with the idea of luxury services, and think this one is particularly relevant to popular culture as it is being shaped today... I would like you to consider undeleting the article, but if you feel it is truly advertorial, if you could provide me with some guidance as to what is so advertising of my article, I would like the text I had up previously so that I may rework it to fit the standards of Wikipedia. (patricksw@gmail.com might prove better for a response) -- Patricksw ( talk) 00:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

why dont you try writing an article on such concierge services in general? I'm not exactly sure what would be the best title though, but I think there might well be scope for it. You could then appropriately include such things as the WSJ article as a reference. some of the other material too might work, but not all: we dont use unedited internet sources as references, nor do we use material derived from the subject. Please read WP:BFAQ. I can undelete the article if you really want me to, but it won;t possibly make it in its present form. You will need at least material from reliable published sources showing it is a major company within its sphere, not just that it exists. Your choice. DGG ( talk) 02:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your willingness to have a dialogue about the article. If you feel it wouldn't survive in its present form, then fine. I will reconsider the article, and rework my sources. Can you email me the original code so I can use it as a template for rebuilding a new article? -- Patricksw ( talk) 08:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, the pupose here is to discuss the actions of hdt83. It appears that he is acting as several users who are all Admins. When I try to edit a post (correcting errors) he not only changes it back to his old post then he blocks me. It appears that he is also Gogo Dodo among others. Please look into this as it hurts wiki. Think about what happens when one person can have access to 5 or more admin accounts and changes correct posts to his only incorrect versions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.59.241 ( talk) 05:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC) I see it's at AN/I now. I will look there. DGG ( talk) 07:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm pushing a collaboration to complete the list of basic space exploration topics.

Should be fun. Drop on by.  ;)

Also, see my post to User talk:Quiddity#Basic topic lists if you want to delve in deeper.

The Transhumanist 09:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

<span style="position:absolute;top:-92px;left:-195px;z-index:-1">[[Image:Barnstar-rotating.gif|220px]]</span>

sorry, but I am not going to have time for this. DGG ( talk) 14:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello again, DGG ... please have a look at User:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome/Flag-prof and comment on that talk page as you have in the past ... I have renamed all of the protocols and templates from Warn-xyz to Flag-xyz ... I think that my recent experience with Category talk:Cuban contemporary artists/Checklist shook the last of the cobwebs away, and so I have made this latest round of edits/moves/renames to reflect the paradigm shift I made a month ago ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 ( talk · contribs) _{16:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)} reply

I've added a notice to the EL section and wanted to know your thoughts. -- Hu12 ( talk) 17:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree. I think these notices on appropriate articles are a very good idea. It's probably worth doing it there, because there is potential for additional spam--there are a number of such groups. DGG ( talk) 17:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I will admit, the probable COI and the "grandson of somebody with a Wikipedia article" didn't exactly make me look more favorably at it; but it's the lack of notability claim that did it. Four articles is a pretty low count, and doesn't make an assertion of notability, to my way of thinking. Four books yeah; but not four articles. Heck, I've published more than that (albeit in vulgar, common magazines and newspapers with much larger circulations, not in scholarly publications); and I make no assertion of notability for myself. -- Orange Mike | Talk 04:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Maybe we already understand each other :) How would you evaluate Psychohistorical views on infanticide. Is it really OR as one editor tagged it? — Cesar Tort 16:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

No, it is certainly not OR. But it certainly is POV. We should not be having an article on the X position on Y unless Y is a topic as much written about as evolution or christianity. We should have a balanced view on the subject. This is a clear POV fork and cannot be supported in its present form. this should not be merged into Psychohistory--it would be perpetuating the POV fork. It must be properly rewritten with a different title. I however do not have time to do it. DGG ( talk) 23:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I see your point. — Cesar Tort 02:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I found the moratorium you brought up here. Is my statement incorrect that I made there? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

complicated. replied there. DGG ( talk) 18:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

thanks, I replied as well w/ a new link to teh relevant talk page. Seems nobody knows really, but the injunction (aside, injunction is by far one of the ugliest words in the English language, right up there with infarction and toilet and golf) does read that once an editor "knows" about the injunction he/she can be blocked for violating it, so I won't be going near any fictional characters/episodes. Insert ten foot pole between me and most of WP:AFDO. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey there, just giving you a heads up, I reverted your last edit on Silent Generation, because, as you will see, I was sourcing it at that moment (as well as some expansion). As far as all those lists of names go, though, not sure what to do about those. I think it important to have them there, but not sure how to source them...if you clink on the links, you see that they are from that era. Not sure if all are notable enough, though. If you have any thoughts, I'd appreciate it. Cheers, Cbradshaw ( talk) 06:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Just wanted to add, I just saw your comment on the List of Generations page, so I didn't want you to think I was ignoring your comments, esp, re: List of celebs. Incidentally, I didn't add the names, only tried to give them cultural context. As I said above, I am not familiar with all the names. Actually, now that I have researched the topic a bit more, I think the list is even more important, as they are "stars" of a generally quiet generation. When your talking in such a broad topic as a Generation, I don't know how a person can strictly fulfill every characteristic ascribed to it. Look forward to hearing from you. Cbradshaw ( talk) 06:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

There has long been consensus on the various pages for the S&H generations, that there is no basis for putting these people into the generational categories there because it is not a specific characteristic to be born in a particular 20 year period, and that if he mentions them in his book this is not sufficient, since that would be excessively detailed content. In fact, the pages for generations given only in his book were deleted, by consensus at AfD and elsewhere.

In contrast, if you intend to put them in as characteristic of the generation in its more general applicability, you will have to show that they have been generally considered characteristic of the generation specifically in reliable sources, other than his book, which is considered not to be generally accepted by historians. I call to your attention that blogs and the like are not acceptable sources for this either. There would still be no basis for such a list-0-they should be mentioned in the text, individually sourced for each characteristic person. DGG ( talk) 13:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hiya. As regards 'biting' ( Facts about the element Nickel), I thought I was complimentary to an extent - it's nice to see the younger generation constructively involved in ways that don't involve creating pointless two-line articles about themselves or their friends. Considering some of the prod comments I've seen around, I thought I was about as mild and inoffensive as I could have been :-) If you'd have phrased the reason differently, what would you have put ? CultureDrone ( talk) 18:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Instead of" reply

Well, I'm glad Lil zack23 got an A+ for his work (see the talk page), but this article is mostly just a repeat of details on the Nickel page - and some look suspect....|"

I would have said: " school assignment, taken from a WP page." & left out the sarcasm about the grade, DGG ( talk) 18:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Ok - changed :-) CultureDrone ( talk) 18:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

though between you and me, an A+ on that article does indeed make one wonder. DGG ( talk) 23:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG. I wanted to mention two edits made to Schlessinger page made by HiIIheatlh (not me, Hillhealth - but a slight variant), which seem to suggest a desire to revert what had been agreed among editors. I 'undid' the changes. Nothing to do, but I wanted to mention this because of the oddly evocative user name of this new editor. Hillhealth ( talk) 18:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I thought you might want to know about the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speaking Dictionary discussion because you removed the {{ db-spam}} template from that article recently. — Athaenara ✉ 22:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

--thanks for the note--I commented there. DGG ( talk) 23:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

You're welcome! — Athaenara ✉ 23:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

(Not sure if this is the place to note this.) I almost always agree with your calls, but the Speaking Dictionary application seems legit and eminently sourceable. I added a little press coverage and voted strong keep. It just seems a shame to lose things of this sort.-- Wageless ( talk) 04:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

When I tagged it, it did meet the contents. Someone has went in and cleaned it up since then. Undeath ( talk) 22:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC) I think even that primitive version had context in the sense of WP:CSD A1, but I agree that I too would have looked for a reason to delete it. Glad it got cleaned up, in any case. DGG ( talk) 23:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

You removed my prod on this. I decided against starting an AFD discussion, as many of the ones I have seen on even vaguely controversial topics have been very polarized, and as there are many similar lists I thought this might be too. Instead, I opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). So far nobody has commented. I was probably too long-winded. :) Olaus ( talk) 15:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I'll comment there--I do not know how I myself feel about these lists, but they did discussion. Very good idea to do it in a central place instead of AfD. Thanks for letting me know. DGG ( talk) 17:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey, I've tried to answer your first question, but I'm having a bit of trouble understand what you were asking. Would you mind reviewing it and seeing if I did indeed interpret it correctly? Thanks. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Even though you and I don't always agree on whether something is notable or passes other criteria/guidelines for inclusion, I learn a lot from your reasoning -- whichever way it goes. Travellingcari ( talk) 21:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello again, {{BASEPAGENAME}} ... what do you think of my [[User talk:72.75.72.63/Oldprodfull|Template:Oldprodfull]]? I've dummied an example on [[Talk:Winifred Freedman|the talk page]] for that article ... I still need to write something to go in [[Template:Flag-templates|WP:Flag-templates]] and the others that reflects the new "inclusionists welcomed!" paradigm shift. :-) Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 ( talk) _{17:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)} reply

I like it--it provides useful information not in the standard prod template and doesnt duplicate the instructions on what to do with the article. But why call it oldprod ? it doesnt become an old prod until after the 5 days--isnt the notice intended to be used when the prod is placed? DGG ( talk) 17:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I have modified the 3rd Step of WP:FLAG-BIO to include adding and updating the {{ Oldprodfull}} template on the article's talk page if you decide to PROD, 2nd a PROD, or decline a PROD ... see Talk:Winifred Freedman for an example.

Yeah, I guess Oldprodfull might be misleading for the name, but the functionality is for the "full" range of options (PROD and/or PROD-2 and/or DECLINE) ... besides, I simply cloned Oldafdfull and was Just Too Lazy to think of another name at the time. :-)

As designed, you can either stick it on a talk page with no arguments, or else use the "empty" boilerplate on the Template Usage page to get the ball rolling. — 72.75.72.63 ( talk · contribs) _{02:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)} reply

Hi DGG. There are a couple of articles (actually one article that was moved into another article) that was deleted with PROD that I would like userfied as it might provide some helpful evidence for an arbom case. The article names are UN Security Resolutions on Armenian-Azerbaijani Conflict and UN Security Resolutions on the Nagorno-Karabakh War. The former was moved to the later on July 20, 2007 then the later was deleted sometime before the end of last year. If possible I'd like to get the former prior to the move and with full history prior to the move and the later prior to deletion with full history prior to deletion. Thanks very much for your help. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 05:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC) If its for arbcom, you should probably ask one of the clerks. DGG ( talk) 05:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG, thanks for your comments about Lantern books on the RS noticeboard, do you have any comments on the subsequent discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Animal_Liberation_Front_references? All the best Tim Vickers ( talk) 22:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Commented there. DGG ( talk) 23:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I think that the biggest problem here is that although my edit to the paragraph was implemented as a result of this discussion, SlimVirgin insists on reverting the edit [4] [5], without having participated in the original discussion, offering any explanation on the talk page at the time of the reversions, or providing any explanation in her edit summaries beyond a bare statement of disagreement. This essentially unexplained reversion of legitimate edits is likely to frustrate any efforts to resolve this issue. Unfortunately, SlimVirgin's response to the concerns I expressed relating to her actions was to remove my comment from her talk page, then post it on the policy talk page without response. Perhaps you might have better luck discussing this issue with her. John254 02:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

SV's edits are based on very longstanding discussions over the last year or two in many places, and represent the position she has consistently taken, of paying great deference to the subject's wishes. If you have a few weeks free, go back over her talk pages, the talk pages of the policy and arbcom discussions, and the discussion on the enWP email list. That's why she didnt argue them in detail here--she has argued it many times. she thinks she has convinced everyone. She has not. In fact, her arguments have tended to convince me and a good number of others that it is a slippery slope, and the BLP policy of paying accord to subject's wishes is in direct contradiction to NPOV. I'll accept it only if really borderline, and only because i otherwise have broad standards of inclusion. Nothing I or anyone can say will change her position. The best course is to keep insisting it does not have consensus. Until new people come who support one position or another strongly, it will not be resolved. DGG ( talk) 04:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Actually, this can be done if the artist has previously been deleted as non-notable by prod or CSD. Cheers, tomasz. 13:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

please cite what you think is the rule. As I read it CSD A7 says: "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." DGG ( talk) 13:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

yup, that's the rule. if a band is deleted by CSD A7, it stands to reason their albums are also non-notable and the onus is on the closing admin to see that these, as well as any images etc., are taken with it. it is, basically, a non-controversial housekeeping procedure and one which i have successfully used dozens if not hundreds of times. tomasz. 13:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Find me the rule. I might possibly support it as a new rule if it were for bands deleted by XfD. DGG ( talk) 13:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

If you're going to apply the tv injunction to that article, please note that the article was a redirect when the injunction took effect and that you've protected it on the wrong version (ya, I know the link). In this case, and given your interpretation, I think that link does not apply. The article was unredirected and, if the injunction applies, the redirect needs to be maintained. This would, I think, also be the case for King Dedede‎ and the related stuff User:Yair rand has got up to. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

For what it's worth, I agree that both Meta Knight and King Dedede should be restored to redirects, as that is the form they were in when the injunction took place. Since you have protected Meta Knight and so I won't restore a redirect, would you comment? seresin | wasn't he just...? 14:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I protected what I found, wrong version or not. The point of protection is to stop an edit war. Re-reading the rather cryptic text of the injunction, the injunction is not meant to fix a particular version, but to permit edit wars to be halted at the first change. It does provide for the "revert then protect" that is usually applied only over vandalism. I think either way would hold here. As it's ambiguous, I'm willing to revert what I did rather than quarrel. I'm leaving whatever protection was in place. DGG ( talk)

Thanks. I understand your point about edit wars; that is the whole point of the rather unwieldy injunction. I'm trying to steer clear of tv articles at the moment. I do find it disturbing that the injunction is being applied to articles only tenuously connected to tv; these are, primarily at least, video game characters (which I, too, can barely tell apart). The core issue is the same; non-notable pop culture articles are weeds (my view). Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

You may wish to comment at Talk:Trevor Marshall in case you don't notice it in your watchlist. RB972 04:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC). Thanks for mentioning it, I commented there. DGG ( talk) 05:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Something seems up with Kelly Eustis, the only editor of the article seems to know a great deal about the subject (more than I'd expect), but I can't put my finger on what precisly is wrong with it. Any ideas. And since I'm a member of the CRs and Conservative Party, I'm gonna avoid trying to N-POV it myself. MBisanz ^talk 06:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

clear afd candidate, in my opinion. No elected office in anything, except the campus young republicans. He lost the election for state chairman, not that this would be necessarily notable either. DGG ( talk) 06:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Okey, since its clear, I'll just watch it and wait for a user without a COI to nom it and then chime in. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 10:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Delete/Merge Dear DGG although the book is a thesis, he was the first to study the "Pedras Salgadas mineral water" and their medical properties. I agree entirely with the merge of both articles Martiniano Ferreira Botelho and House of the County it would benefit the Vila Pouca de Aguiar article. The result might be much bether for sure. Best regards Carlos Botelho ( talk) 22:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Please explain how you feel French Foreign Legion in popular culture is pretty well integrated? The fact that its a completely separate article indicates that its not. If the cultural impact of the French Foreign Legion is well integrated in to the main article than this list isn't necessary and should be redirected or deleted.-- Crossmr ( talk) 23:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

the trivia tag is for trivia sections not integrated with the rest of the article. In this case the material is divided into appropriate groups, sourced, and discussed in more detail than a list. Read the tag. It applies only to trivia sections, not to articles about material which someone considers trivial. There is consensus, in fact, that popular culture is not necessarily trivia, either. Even if you disagree with that, this tag still does not apply. DGG ( talk) 23:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

While a few more words have been used, most of the entries still haven't been "discussed". For example Robert Asprin's Phule's Company novels revolve around a "Space Legion" that any being can join. They choose a new name and their crimes are erased. Where is there even an indication that this references the foreign legion? Has the author made a statement to that effect or is this an editors opinion which is original research? Is this anymore of a discussion? Ante Gotovina's biography The General, written by Croatian writer Nenad Ivankovic, is mainly about Gotovina's life in the Legion. How about Mickey Mouse joined the Foreign Legion in a 1936 story by Floyd Gottfredson? Its a sub-article of a main article. While its not strictly a section, it doesn't change its nature or the type of entries being listed in it.-- Crossmr ( talk) 23:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I did not say they were discussed fully enough, but that they were discussed more fully than in a list. And, as I said, whatever one may think of that type of article, but the tag is nonetheless not applicable. DGG ( talk) 01:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

It's up to the editors who care about them, but it seems to me they could either be merged into the main Amalgam article, or into a master article, which I tentatively titled List of Amalgam Comics characters. What is not justifiable, IMHO, is having a separate, in-universe article for each one, as we have now for about 60% of them. -- Orange Mike | Talk 14:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I didn't think I could use the "merge" feature, since the article into which they should be merged doesn't exist. Suggestions? -- Orange Mike | Talk 14:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I just wanted you to see the new article with an entry at WP:AFD, and wondered if you think notability is now established? ( Mind meal ( talk) 07:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)) reply

An instructor with 2 papers and 4 miscellaneous publications is not notable, even at Harvard, even if a reporter met him in a bar at a conference. This is not what is meant by a "notable body of work", He didn't write a book, he coedited one, which does not count for much. DGG ( talk) 13:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

fuller explanation, since a number of other people also were asked to change our votes on this one, so I want to explain about notable academic careers: State One. A good beginning PhD will usually have 2 or 3 papers and some miscellaneous publications; s/he will get a job as a post-doc or instructor. Stage Two. If s/he publishes another few peer-reviewed papers or a book, s/he'll be appointed assistant professor at a good research university, to see if s/he will amount to anything. Stage Three: If the papers are it good journals good & widely cited, or there's another good book, this will be recognized by an appointment as an Associate professor with tenure. Stage Four: If excellent publication continues, this will be recognized by the profession, & expressed by his colleagues as appointment as Full Professor, journal editorship, & awards. This stage is notable, as having achieved wide recognition as a leader in the profession. Sometimes the recognition comes at Stage Three, if the work is really important--and there will be some evidence of it, such as major grants. In rare cases it can come at State Two or even Stage One, especially if it happens to attract popular interest. We actually had an instance recently of it being recognized at State Two. This guy is at stage One. DGG ( talk) 16:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Good teamwork (<rueful grin>) -- Tony Sidaway 07:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I put reason in the edit summary, was I meant to put it somewhere else? No matter now, it's been removed so I'll put on an AFD Ryan4314 ( talk) 11:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I see you have changed your comment. When you were mentioning the defensiveness were you, in any slightest bit, refering to me? I'm not trying to criticize you or anything, but since this is my first RFA-nom, it would be nice to know what I'm doing wrong.-- Sunny910910 ^{( talk| Contributions| Guest)} 00:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I was referring to the nominee, of course. Why would I criticize him on the basis of how anyone else joined in the discussion there? Your nomination was perfectly reasonable; however, my opinion is that in RfAs in particular it does not usually help to engage in back and forth repartee--but then i tend not to like repeated exchanges in any context. What I do, is if someone attacks, I defend, and then let anyone else who wants to continue do so; it lessens any emotional over-involvement. A single exchange usually says all that needs to be said. But styles vary, and what you did there seems to have been appropriate enough by any standards. I wish I could say the same for everyone else in that discussion. DGG ( talk) 01:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Very well, that's good to know.-- Sunny910910 ^{( talk| Contributions| Guest)} 01:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 74 supporting, 3 opposing, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have placed in me. — Remember the dot ( talk) 18:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

DGG, so that everyone can destroy me for this later on, I am a sockpuppet of the indef-blocked User:Kitia. I have chosen you to talk to because you are probably the one and only administrator who would read the rest of my scream for help instead of just blocking me on the spot.

I really don't want to go into all the detail here. I just want to get my point across and hopefully you can unblock me.

I first encountered you in some of the supercentenarian afds late last year. Of the very few contributors in the discussion, you voted keep. Because BHG nominated so many, you obviously couldn't get to every single one, and a lot got deleted.

Worse than that, User:Ryoung122 and I got indef blocks: his for disruption, which he did cause but seems to be over that stage by now; and mine for sockpuppetry, which I will explain in the next paragraph.

My two supposed socks, You've Got Mail and I'll Bust Your Beak were two of my friends that worked on my computer and shared the same viewpoints as me. This might be considered meatpuppets, but I've gotten over that stage now and want to contribute constructively.

Since people have not been listening to me (I asked BHG for help in one of my socks but she ignored it), I regrettfully have had to create sockpuppets. People keep telling me I should e-mail the Wikimedia Foundation if I want to be unblocked instead of creating more socks. My sole reason and listen carefully: There is something wrong with my e-mail address that cannot be fixed and I cannot e-mail.

I'm sorry if I've told you too little about this but I just want to be unblocked or some sort of dispute resultion process can be made. Contrary to BHG's viewpoint that this debate is over, I certainly don't think so and that the only way to make it over is a RfAR. Since Ryoung is just as involved as me if not more I request that he be unblocked as well.

Thanks for what you can do. I'm 14 and I'm proud! ( talk) 22:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

You can send an e-mail to the Arbitration Committee explaining exactly what happened and we will look at it. The e-mail information can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Replied on your talkpage. I'm 14 and I'm proud! ( talk) 00:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Strange logic this, that because a large number of articles on non-notable people were deleted by consenus at AfD, that this justifies a campaign of disruption by Ryoung122 ( talk · contribs) and persistent sockpuppetry by Kitia ( talk · contribs) (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kitia and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kitia), including the use of sockpuppets to stack AfDs and even deletion review requests for several articles on the basis that the arguments by Kitia's sockpuppets should have won the day. Kitia also objected in principle to working collabporatively, noting that that http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Kitia&diff=178935654&oldid=178816917 "I [Kitia] usually don't bother writing edit summaries or community discussions simply because I want to keep on editing"]. It'll be interesting to see what arbcom makes of an unblock request on these grounds. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

(I did not really want to comment here, but I will only say, first that this is a matter for Arbcom, not me; Second, that I supported those articles that I thought most supportable, and decreased it considerable once the general negative consensus was firmly established--though the large number of deletions in quick sequence did slightly affect the fact that I did not support in as much detail as I otherwise might have. DGG ( talk) 13:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

DGG, sorry if my comment implied any criticism of you — that wasn't my intention, and sorry if it appeared that way. I was just noting my ennui that someone with a track record like Kitia expects arbcom to vindicate all the antics. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

no, I didnt think what you said to be criticism in the least--in fact i commented only to put in context the limited extent to which I had defended the articles-- & also to explain that I altogether agreed in leaving any action to arbcom. The writer deserves at least some reply from me here, DGG ( talk) 14:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

This message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!!. -- Avinesh Jose  T  06:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

My understanding is that a list that involved making a personal value-judgement (such as Barker's Top 1000 Scientists) is copyrightable, and that other "Top 100.." lists have been deleted as a result. Forming opinions is a creative act. If the list was truly objective then it couldn't be copyrighted (such as a list of African countries). Your offer to make a list drawn from Dictionary of Scientific Biography might be OK if the dictionary's choice of scientists appears arbitrary. But I'm no lawyer... Colin° ^Talk 20:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I disagree. We are reporting on the contents of the book, which is protected both as fair criticism and as a fair use except. Not that this particular book is worth the fuss. But in any case DSB is a major reference work, and anyone can review it. They dont sell it for the list of people, but for the extensive material that comprises that 27 vol. set. INAL either, of course, but 0.01% is a fair excerpt. DGG ( talk) 20:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your message DGG. I shall not get sucked in again. Hillhealth ( talk) 21:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Dear DGG:

As you will recall about two months ago you supported deletion of a Daniel Malakov encyclopedia article on Wikipedia. Many WP:Notability and WP:BLP claims were made by gentle administrators. Try as I could, there seemed way to convince you that the murder of Daniel Malakov was a significant event requiring a Wikipedia page. The page was deleted. No discussion on the merits was permitted, IMHO, by the "Administrator echelon."

In view of the above, I wish to direct your attention to a New York Times article as follows:

February 9, 2008
Man Accused of Killing Dentist Exchanged 91 Calls With Dentist’s Wife
By CHRISTINE HAUSER and DARYL KHAN

You are free to go to nytimes.com and read the article, but perhaps the salient details are as follows:

Those details about the killing of Dr. Malakov on Oct. 28, 2007, emerged Friday from an indictment and at a news conference held by police officials and prosecutors.

As the families of both Dr. Malakov and his estranged wife looked on, Dr. Borukhova, 34, was arraigned and pleaded not guilty on Friday to charges including first-degree murder and second-degree conspiracy in an emotion-filled hearing in State Supreme Court in Queens. Mr. Mallayev, 50, faces similar charges.

The defendants could each be sentenced to life in prison without parole. They were ordered held without bail until their next court date, Friday.

At the time you folks decided to ditch the article, this information was not available. Now that it is, and more information ostensibly is to come out as the NYPD and AG begin to make their case in court, I want to know whether you will reverse your position and support an article on Daniel Malakov, or alternatively "Murder of Daniel Malakov."

If not, what would you need to see to support such an article? If you demand a conviction, then I plan to hold you to your promise.

Eileivgyrt ( talk) 16:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

yes, as Murder of Daniel Malakov. provided it was written in an objective fashion. Write the article on your user space and go to deletion review with it. DGG ( talk) 16:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Its already been to WP:DRV, can it go twice? MBisanz ^talk 18:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, it can go as many times as necessary, provided it is justified and not obstructive. A second, third, nth try at DRV is acceptable, just as a nth try at AfD is--provided here too that it is reasonable. If it's a second repeat of the same content, it will be immediately thrown out, and rightly so. The way to make it non-obstructive is to wait until there is a very strong article and a very good case to be made for it, and to have that article visible somewhere. Since this will involve BLP, it must be visible in such a way that it does not violate it--if it is done in user space here, it must be extremely careful to have proper sourcing for everything contentious about everyone involved, and to make no unsupported claim or over-generalized social statements. BLP applies in user space. Since the previous article lost support because it was in some ways a little extravagant, and supported with arguments that were not all of them based on policy, this should be irreproachable, and sober, and carefully defended--not on grounds of social utility, or of being something that people should know about, or on IAR, but on the grounds that it now meets the requirements of BLP and NOT NEWS. I will of course be glad to look at it, on or off wiki, as i frequently am asked to do for re-created articles. If it's dubious, i will advise not trying yet. DGG ( talk) 19:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Cool, works for me, BTW I found this as I and over half a dozen users got the exact same message you did. MBisanz ^talk 20:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Me too. BlueValour ( talk) 23:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the reply. Evidently there still remain very substantial barriers to telling this story as a Wikipedia article. (Otherwise there would be no need to create it on a user page.)

Eileivgyrt ( talk) 23:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The reason is merely that an additional rejection will make it very much harder to try again. If the article is important, you want the effort to have as high a chance of success as possible. DGG ( talk) 01:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, the speedy for this article was rejected by you because 'fictional, sop not subject to speedy A7; try prod.'. For your information, I believe it is referring to a Virtual Airline, but not one I can find any trace of, therefore is not fictional and not notable. JPilborough^{- Leave Message} 23:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

that was also the impression I had-but a "virtual airline" in the sense you mean is not a "real company" in the sense of A7. It is just such possibilities which make it necessary to proceed in a way that lets everyone see the article. the two of us alone should not decide this one. DGG ( talk) 01:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello DGG. Please see the article Does the autistic child have a 'theory of mind'?. Is this article good enough for Wikipedia or should I changed the title and include some more research on the Theory of Mind impairment in Autism? Your suggestions will be useful. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 04:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

See its talk page. Could just possibly maybe be defended as paradigmatic, but best option might be to merge into Mindblindness. DGG ( talk) 04:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the reply. Please don't delete the article. Give me two days or 48 hours. I will find a solution. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 04:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

safe through the 18th, according to the date on the Prod tag. DGG ( talk) 04:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi. I proposed Sunny Golloway for speedy deletion. You deleted my proposal because «"head baseball coach at the [[University of Oklahoma" is an assertion of notability». I think this is just the description of his job: everybody is "somebody of somewhere", almost any job can be qualified in a similar way. Why should being head baseball coach at the University of Oklahoma notable? Thanks, Goochelaar ( talk) 08:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

commented at the afd you placed. DGG ( talk) 20:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

For the answer. -- Greek2 ( talk) 20:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG. I appreciate your efforts to clean up this article and avoid its speedy deletion. But please consider taking a look at the editing history of Ringlitz9825 ( talk · contribs). This article is advertisement masquerading as an article and the author is clearly in a blatant conflict of interest. There is no reason to have a Fashion headband (and even less reason to have Fashion Headbands) when a simple redirect to headband would do. This is what I tried to do a few hours ago only to be reverted by the above spammer. Please reconsider: delete Fashion Headbands (as an improperly capitalized, unnecessarily plural title), create a redirect from Fashion headband to headband and put the redirect on your watchlist. Thanks.

oops, seems you just deleted it! Pichpich ( talk) 01:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

yep, I took another look as i was editing it. Made a couple of redirects also, and I am watching to see if there is any other permutation that will need to be deleted or protected. I don't really want to protect because there is a possibility of a real article. DGG ( talk) 01:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Fair enough. I also submitted the designer headbands redirect for deletion as the term is scarcely used. But you're right, it's not quite a case of unlikely typo speedy deletion. Pichpich ( talk) 01:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Ironically, it's just been speedy deleted. Ah the joy of multi-user environments. Pichpich ( talk) 01:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I'll assume good faith, but this user deleted and redirected an article that had it existed might have led you and others to see the Martha Louise Morrow Foxx article as more important. See the nominator's contributions [6] and this redirection [7] of the article on Laurence C. Jones. I'm sure it was well-intended to delete a more complete article and make it into a redirect, then nominate another article for deletion. As far as I am concerned it's mere deceptive vandalism and time wasting via AfD. But, I'll assume good faith. -- 69.225.10.208 ( talk) 09:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

In particular, the timing of the edits:

The original prod which you removed. [8] Minutes later the deletion of all content (vandalism) from the Laurence T. Jones article. [9] This happens all the time in AfD. It's where vandals play with Wikipedia editors. It's boring. -- 69.225.10.208 ( talk) 09:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, I added what should be the key link, to the Five Blind Boys of Mississippi into the Foxx article, and will add it to the Jones, and add a link in the Lomax article to both of them. This is something people will immediately recognize. It is not necessarily irrational to combine such articles into one for the school where there is not sufficient specific biographical information and the main source is a history of the school. (Is that the only source for Foxx?). I certainly would not use the word vandalism for such edits. It wiould help communicate if you had a user name--or if you used one you already had, instead of editing anonymously. DGG ( talk) 15:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I disagree with you here. The nominator took the time to paste "Wikify" and "Uncited" tags on far worse articles than the Jones one, but deleting the Jones one completely made it easier to nominate the Foxx article for deletion. She's written up in area papers often in Mississippi, and there is probably biographical information about her in regional books. I suspect the editor won't be back with mission failure. The articles look much better and are more useful for Wikipedia readers with your and the other editor's serious work on them. Thanks. -- 69.225.10.208 ( talk) 21:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

If you know of additional material, please do add it. If you think there is, but don;t have the time of opportunity to find it, please say what you think there might be on the article talk page, as a guide to those who will work on this in the future. I have opposed groups & individuals with personal and prejudiced points of view many times here, but in my experience there is almost never anything to be gained from inquiring into motives for AfDs. DGG ( talk) 00:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Upon the least bit of reflection you're probably correct on the last point--as much of a time waster as the pointless AfD. The article either stands alone or fails, whatever the motive for the AfD. I first heard about Foxx while working in Jackson, Mississippi, and near a training center for the blind in Louisiana. I no longer live or work there. A lot of work on Wikipedia needs done with off-line resources. -- 69.225.10.208 ( talk) 03:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply

This sort of article illustrates perfectly why I dislike, even detest, the underconstruction template. I nominated it for deletion last month. I mean, it's just a way of saying "you can't use the CSD on this page", which is utterly ridiculous for something like that. I mean, we have the show preview button for that reason. This is just going to encourage useless junk to slip by new page patrol, as the person may lose interest and stop editing.-- h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I do not use it automatically, not unless i see some indication that the article is being worked on or is like to be worked on. I'll usually leave a note for the author reminding him to get to it. Otherwise, when I mean, "you cant use CSD," I generally change it to a prod in the hope that the author will decide to either fix or abandon it, which works a good deal of the time. But when it's obvious that the prod will be opposed without the article being improved, then the thing to do is to go directly to AfD. But I usually try a prod first. The difficult with new page patrolling is we have no easy way of following up--we need some automatic way of putting them in a group that indicates "I will look again 48 hours later." Underconstruction and prod are the closest. As long as people check the over-one-week-old underconstruction tags, that helps a good deal. I tried doing follow-ups manually when I came here, but gave up because of the work involved.

as for this article, it would look like a clear A3-empty. But the reference, oddly, is to what appears to be something else entirely: a good published article on "From micrograms to picograms: quantitative PCR reduces the material demands of high-throughput sequencing" from an important point of view, sequencing neanderthal DNA, that might be a very important technical advance--it's author is a major worker in this field with many important papers. I can see why someone might want to write an article on "Picogram DNA sequencing" --or for that matter on Hofreiter, but not why they would give it this title. While I was writing this, someone seems to have filled out the article in a way that indicated it is indeed under construction! And the article will probably explain the title & I'll have learned something I will find interesting. Following through properly on something even this obvious takes time and effort--and I admit to you that I don't always do it as carefully as I ought to, & might well have ignored the underconstruction and just deleted it. You seem to have accidentally provide a good counter-example for your argument. DGG ( talk) 20:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

(the ed. chose to respond to me by sending it to AFD as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2 Base Encoding. I have continued the discussion there.) DGG ( talk) 00:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ferdinando Pisani, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferdinando Pisani. Thank you. Edcolins ( talk) 20:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

commented there. I can't figure out why the article has been so strongly defended. Let's hope that the AfD takes care of it. DGG ( talk) 20:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm really sorry for this matters...I abandoned to editing these non-fifa teams, because I think there aren't certains informations. As you can see on my hystory page I'm doing good articles and editing on other argouments. Now my problem is: maybe there are some other pages similar to Hawaii that are not yet deleted...maybe you or other user could delete them, and probably they are in right...but I don't want to be blocked, I like too much wikipedia! I'll never repeat this errors... How I can do? Stanza13 ( talk) 02:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

If there is a page to which you are the only substantial contributor, and you have doubts about whether it can be made into an adequate article at present. place {{db-author}} at the top of the page, and it, with its associated talk page, will be promptly deleted for you. If you do it this way there is no reason why it cannot be reconstituted when you are prepared to do it in a way which will be suitable for Wikipedia. Many peopledo this when they statrt a page, and find they are unable to finish it. The only re-started articles you are at risk of being blocked for is re-entering articles that have been deleted at AfD. I'm glad to see you're being sensible about this group of articles, and you are right that it's best to concentrate on writing a few strong articles carefully. DGG ( talk) 03:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you! Stanza13 ( talk) 12:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I've put {{db-author}} on some page with no substancial edit by other user and with a my strong doubt...I don't know about this page: Juan Fernández Islands national football team, because there aren't edit from other users but, this team maybe in the next mounths can became a member of CSANF...Do you think I have to add {{db-author}} ? Stanza13 ( talk) 12:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

what you could best do here is wait until they are challenged by an AfD or a Prod, and then put on the tag. DGG ( talk) 14:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Woops, I didn't look at the articles to check the tags that were there. In fact that was requested at AN a few days ago [10]. I plan de redelete everything as soon as User:AMK152 confirms me he was able to transwiki them. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC

Would you please kindly re-review the article and if you determine that your delete !vote is no longer warranted, modify it as appropriate? Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply

well, you did not wait for me. ince the article is now good, no harm done. Still I think you were in the wrong to close it. Even tho the nom had been withdrawn, you wrote most of the present article, and could have had the patience to wait for someone uninvolved; there are 1400 other admins. DGG ( talk) 01:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The current WikiProject Academic Journals Collaboration of the Week is Electrical Experimenter Please help to improve this article to the highest of standards.

I'm reviewing this article [11] and have noticed that you once voted for the deletion of the article on Miss Tourism Queen International 2007, however, there are still remnants since the folowing editions are still existing: Miss Tourism Queen International 2004, Miss Tourism Queen International 2005, and Miss Tourism Queen International 2006. Please cast your opinion and vote here. Thanks. -- Johnsoul ( talk) 18:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I didn't get a chance to edit yesterday, I didn't mean to offend you with what I did. Grounded into a double play ( talk) 08:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG: Shavua Tov: I have spent some time improving the two articles currently up for deletion. The Adas Israel Congregation and Adath Jeshurun Congregation articles, now renamed Adas Israel Congregation (Duluth) and Adath Jeshurun Congregation (Minnetonka) to differentiate them from other similar sounding congregations elsewhere, are now a full articles. They meet all criteria for such articles. I also wish to point out that this is proof of what can and should be done to improve stubs. Merely because someone has started a stub does not mean that the article of a place/person/event are "not notable" since not all people have the time and capability of working to improve such articles. There is no statute of limitations on how long a stub deemed to be significant can exist and it is certainly no reason to invoke reasons to eliminate them, otherwise why do we have stubs in the first place? It is requested that the nominations be withdrawn! Please look into this. Sincerely, IZAK ( talk) 11:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Talking in general, without reference to these articles in particular, you are altogether right about the potentialities of stubs, but it will be a continuing struggle, as there are a considerable number of people who think otherwise, and unhesitatingly speedy delete anything that looks like an incomplete article--you will see the discussion on 2 Base Encoding above on this talk page. I doubt we will persuade all of them to take a less destructive approach. So we will all have to speak up for such articles generally at speedy and prod and AfD--including ones that do not immediately concern us--we who want to build an encyclopedia, instead of finding one ready-made, must support each other. Unfortunately, it is much easier to destroy than to build, to delete than to save from deletion. But fortunately anyone can save articles--anyone other than the author can remove a speedy, anyone can remove a prod, anyone can speak up at AfD. There is fortunately not really any special role here for an admin. What it does take is the common sense to concentrate on the articles that can best be saved, and to merge those that are not likely to be able to stand alone even with extensive work.

As for these articles, I think you have found on a very good way to go: historical importance is importance, notability is permanent, and the pioneer congregations in a city can be notable as such. Not everyone agrees on this either, but many people do. Let's see what people think. I will try to persuade, but I can do no more. DGG ( talk) 21:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your kind comments. The roots of the current debate are because an editor went on a spree and created a series of stubs about synagogues in Minnesota without really following up, even when requested, see below... Thanks. IZAK ( talk) 09:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Follow-up with creator of Minnesota synagogues stubs

Hi DGG: You may be interested to know that I have contacted User Grika ( talk · contribs) who was the editor who originally created all the stub articles about synagogues in Minnesota that have now become the focal point of much debate, and he, as creator of the stubs has neither responded, participated nor defended himself in any discussions AFAIK. Please see User talk:Grika#Requesting your attention. Feel free to add your comments. Thanks, IZAK ( talk) 09:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

the user appear to participate irregularly, as infrequently as once a month, and therefore probably has not yet noticed the problem. Have you tried sending him an email, asking him to look at his user page?-- his email is activated. I am not use how much help is to be expected. The extent to which it is worthwhile working on such articles in such cases is always a question--as compared to systematically entering articles on what one knows one can show to be major congregations. As a practical matter, I wonder about the possibility for combination articles on the synagogues of a city. I doubt pages such as Temple Israel are really that helpful or logical, though they will still be needed as disambiguation pages after the articles are written. DGG ( talk) 16:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello DGG, thank you for merging Martiniano Ferreira Botelho into his town, Vila Pouca de Aguiar. It really looks much better now. The municipality has also atributed his name to a street in the same town. Ill ´look for reliable references on that afterwards. I´m afraid someday all sentences will need references isn´t it. Kind Regards Carlos Botelho ( talk) 17:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

It should be noted that the author of this article is Etnainteractive. To quote from the top of the page at http://www.etnainteractive.com: We offer medical Web site design, online marketing campaign management, search engine optimization, and Web-centric patient acquisition strategies for the healthcare industry. In other words: a spammer's SPA. -- Orange Mike | Talk 18:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

COI is also not a reason for speedy, or even for deletion. I have no idea if the article will pass AfD, or even if I will !vote for a keep there. But any assertion of importance passes speedy A7, and enough factual information is presented in the WP article that it isnt pure spam either. and that someone has a spammy external web page is not a reason for deletion from WP--thats what people's web sites usually are. DGG ( talk) 19:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I've posted some comments on the SCD talk page, and was wondering what your views on it are, as your judgement on (speedy) deletion discussions usualy has a lot of merit (at least in my eyes). Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 22:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

P.S. Maybe it's time for a round of archival of your talk, or maybe hate it autoarchived. It seems to be getting rather sizeable. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 22:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I had tagged the page before the notability was estabilished. I had searched for him and didn't find the information that was on the page, so I was, at one time, thinking it might be a hoax. There were no good links on the page at that moment, but, if it is notable now, then that's that. Oh, just a suggestion, it would be wise to archive your talk page soon, it's extremely long and takes some computers(like mine) a good ammount of time to load it. Undeath ( talk) 23:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

What are you talking about? Reply on my talk page. B 110 _{communicate (that means talk)} 04:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I just couldn't understand the article, that's all. B 110 _{communicate (that means talk)} 04:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I wasn't sure exactly. It isn't unsourced because no-one has tried but rather because there don't seem to be any. I hate tagging and running if I can fix it myself. I'll try again and if not take it to AfD. Thanks! Travellingcari ( talk) 04:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, DGG... I understand my first post on Pacific Appliances was deleted, I understand that the reason cited was blatant advertising. What can I do to improve the impartiality of the article? Should I have included more criticisms? I've been working in the kitchen industry for a few years in Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam and Singapore, and was surprised at the lack of write-ups in these subjects. I was going to write one about Rinnai, Fujioh, Sakura, Osama, Elba, etc. I understand there are already wikis written for Gorenje, Smeg, Fagor, but lack write-ups mainly where Asian brands are concerned. Or are only Western brands qualify for Wikipedia? I think that would be rather unfair since the market in Asia for kitchen products are growing rapidly and there are homegrown brands in this region that should be accounted for. Yours truly, We Jun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wejuncho ( talk • contribs) 08:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

replied on your talk page. DGG ( talk) 08:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your swift and useful comments! I will try my best. Hope to see more kitchen appliance wikis in the future. We Jun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wejuncho ( talk • contribs) 08:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Oh, and if you don't mind, do you think I can have a copy of my deleted article? I didn't save any soft copies on my computer. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wejuncho ( talk • contribs) 08:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC) I have copied it to User:Wejuncho/Pacific. Please note it cannot remain there indefinitely, just while you are actively working on it. When finished, ask for that subpage to to be deleted by placing {{db-userreq}} at the top of the article. DGG ( talk) 09:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Dear DGG, I notice that you have participated in this discussion. Anyway, please see here. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Dear admin. There are a group of friends that are manipulating the Y-Chromossome article. I created an article called "Cohen Modal Cluster Haplotype". This same guys is trying to delete my work and dont want to merge with "their" article. Please help me "MERGE", as plenty others editors decided to to so. How can I merge the article? Can you help, please! SOS! Thanks. -- Chris Cohen / Jornalist / President of Jornal Goyaz, founded in 1884, with 124 years on brazilian market. / President of the Brazilian Association of Cohanim. ( talk) 00:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Please, leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!-- Chris Cohen / Jornalist / President of Jornal Goyaz, founded in 1884, with 124 years on brazilian market. / President of the Brazilian Association of Cohanim. ( talk) 00:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I'll look on on the talk page, but I am not sure from the AfD discussion whether there was all that much to merge that was not already in there. DGG ( talk) 00:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

_______________________________________________________________

The article Cohen Modal Cluster Haplotype, indicates that both J1 and J2 Cohanim share the same Unique Event Polymorphism and share a common ancestor with 3.000 years a go.

J1 Kohanim have a standard signature (Cohem Modal Haplotype) of 6 marks. Now, J2 have only one-step mutation over one specif allele. With 3000 years, this one-step mutation is perfect understandable.

"It is interesting to estimate the correct time at which Cohen chromossomes were derived from a commom ancestral chromossome (coalescence time). Under 'stepwise mutations' the average squared difference (ASD) in allele size among all current chromossome and the ancestral haplotype, averaged over loci, has an expectation of T, where is the mutation rate and T the coalescence time. "

"The 95% confidence interval places the origin of priestly Y-Chromossomes, in J1 and J2, sometime during or shortly before the first Temple period in Jewish history (2,100-3,250).According to Jewish Tradition, following the Exodus from Egypt, the tribe of Levi, of which Moses was a member, were assigned special religious responsabilities, and males descendents of Aaron, his brother, were selected to serve as Priests (Cohanim)."

NOW: This article is 100% scientif facts from the toppest team in the world. (THIS GUYS DO NOT ACCEPT THIS, AND FOLLOW A UNKWON "MAN ALLEGATIONS" FROM A COMPLETY ONE UNCREDIBLE PERSON.

This info that I used for the article is: Origins of Old Testaments Priests - Nature , Volume 394 -9 de July 1998. Authors: Karl Skorecki / Bruce Rapparport Faculty of Medicine and Research Institute, Technion, Haifa 31096, Israel; Mark G. Thomas / The Centre for Genetic Anthropology, Departament of Biology and Anthropology, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; Haim Ben-Amit/Rambam Medical Centre, Haifa 31096, Israel; Turdor Parfitt / University of London, London WC1H OXC, UK; Neil Brandman and David. B. Goldstein/ University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK

Now, please note the (THIS SAME GUYS ALSO USE THE SAME REFERENCES, SAME BOOK AND SAME AUTHORS, BUT THEY SIMPLY DELETE INFO THAT THEY DONT LIKE, AND DONT WANT TO BEALIVE)

Please check this all. I want my article to stay or merge. Anyone of this options, but please dont let them delete this article. I accept to merge, if its okay, otherwise, leave the article. PLEASE HELP!--

(Please, answer on my talk page)

-- Chris Cohen / Jornalist / President of Jornal Goyaz, founded in 1884, with 124 years on brazilian market. / President of the Brazilian Association of Cohanim. ( talk) 23:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC) _____________________________________________________________________ reply

Hi, how are you again sir? I am please to explain, as many times is necessary for the sake of Wikepedias's readers.

English is not my first language, but I will try to explain:

This guys wrote the full article Y Cromossome Aaaron! Since than, they dont let anybody to touch it. They figure out an non credible ideia of (pre-k pre-1a1 and etc....) look at the graphics and figure for yourself (no references, nothing). There is nothing that supports those “theories”, and no scientic facts published on any credible magazine or newspaper. They are administrators of a project, like myself, from FTDNA. They are manipulation the main article with allegations from one single man, that knowbody knows in the scienfic market. They say this:

The J2 Kohanim typically have a 4/6 match for the 6-marker CMH (with DYS19=15 rather than 14, and DYS388=15 rather than 16). They do not share a common ancestor with the J1 Kohanim in a Biblical timeframe.

This is ridicilous!!! Look at this:

Example:DYS = 393 390 19 391 392 J1 Standard CMH– 12 23 14 10 11 (Cohen Standard Signature) J2 Cohanim – 12 23 15 10 11 (Cohen Unique-Event Polymorphism)

Now, this single one-step mutations means that both J1 and J2 share the same acestor and in Biblical timeframe.

“Any one-mutation neighbours from the J1 Standard (CMH) is considerate from the same Cohen Unique Event Polymorphism (UEP).

“Because of microsatellite instability, it was useful to define a COHEN MODAL CLUSTER, of six related chromosomes as the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH-6) used now as the standard signature and all of its one-mutation neighbours at the microsatellite loci, which all share one same common ancestor”.

“To obtain confidence intervals on the distance between the J1 Cohanim and J1 Cohanim chromossomes, it was noted that most non-ancestral haplotypes are singletons, indicating that the genealogy connecting Cohen chromossomes is more like the 'star genealogy' characteristic of 'rapid growth' than the other correlated genalogy characteristic of constant size populations. To obtain true confidence intervals in this case, (M) mutations occur during the 106 generations, with (M) being a Poisson random variable with parameter 106. The number of mutations increasing allele size (D) is drawn from a binomial distribution with parameters 0.5 and (M) [0.5 reflects size symmetry of mutations] leading to the distance D (2dm). In a star genealogy, there are 485 (the number of loci multiplied by the sample size) observations of D. Confidence intervals are obtained by repeating this process 1,000 times and taking the associated 2.5 and 97.5 pecentiles, leading to a 95% confidence interval of 84-130 generations for the combined Ashkenazic and Sephardic samples or for a generations time of 25 years, only 2,100-3,250 years before present.

The 95% confidence interval places the origin of priestly Y-Chromossomes, in J1 and J2, sometime during or shortly before the first Temple period in Jewish history (2,100-3,250). According to Jewish Tradition, following the Exodus from Egypt, the tribe of Levi, of which Moses was a member, were assigned special religious responsabilities, and males descendents of Aaron, his brother, were selected to serve as Priests (Cohanim).”

This references are from the same top of team, the “THESE GUYS” use for reference all over the main article! They simply remove this info because of nothing. The CAN NOT prove that this is false, untrue, or incorrect! This informations are from the toppest team in the world: Origins of Old Testaments Priests - Nature , Volume 394. Authors:

Karl Skorecki / Bruce Rapparport Faculty of Medicine and Research Institute, Technion, Haifa 31096, Israel;

Mark G. Thomas / The Centre for Genetic Anthropology, Departament of Biology and Anthropology, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK;

Haim Ben-Amit/Rambam Medical Centre, Haifa 31096, Israel; Turdor Parfitt / University of London, London WC1H OXC, UK;

Neil Brandman and David. B. Goldstein/ University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK.

(Please note, these guys use references from the same author! But they deleate what they think that can damage the principal idea of their personal project in Family Tree Dna website.)

PLEASE, YOU MUST HELP THE READERS OF WIKEPEDIA! THIS MANIPULATIONS MUST STOP! Can you help me? -- Chris Cohen / Jornalist / President of Jornal Goyaz, founded in 1884, with 124 years on brazilian market. / President of the Brazilian Association of Cohanim. ( talk) 21:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

thanks admin for helping me two times, and im will be more gratefull if you can do this every vital task. If you go on Alexander the Great youll see a 2 boxes one on top and one on bottom right below it with battles of his and their dates you dont even need to scroll down maybe a tiny bet, but if you can make one just like that for Cyrus the Great, cuz i tried but alexanders article is locked so i didnt see what exact specifics to put in my edits, so this time the suitable title would be for cyrus or name of the smaller bottom box would be; Persian Conquests of Cyrus the Great, and for the first battle you can put; Pasargadae (550 BC) –, or something i thinks thats how you put i have trouble doin this and im a rookie signed up three days ago, and if you have time comment on my talk about other nonlocked articles about famous conquers with that smaller box their so i can go on edit and see what is specifically typed there. THANKS A KAGILLION!!!-- Ariobarza ( talk) 11:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk reply

DGG, Why in the heck did you delete the book FairTax: The Truth. I just created it and I'm working to improve it - I worked a good deal of last night on it. It was not blatant advertising. This is not unlike may book articles. I'm not some newbie - not cool! Morphh ^(talk) 14:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Restored and prodded. Good luck with it. DGG ( talk) 15:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Appreciate the advice and I think adding it to the first article would work fine. Since it just came out, there are not yet many reviews on it. It should make the NYT top 10 but I'm not sure what it will get. It is part of a larger movement and a highly anticipated book in that area. I have to say, while I agree with your recommendation, I was a bit taken back by the whole process before that. I'm more of an inclusionist so I rarely participate in AFD but if I was a newbie, you'd bet I would not come back to Wikipedia. I understand the reason for the process but I have to wonder if the process (bots tagging, less then 24hrs delete, etc) is more destructive then helpful to the goals of Wikipedia. I have to say that I was quite pissed off - even as a Vet knowing that I should calm, I was saying screw this.. This was not some drive by 1 min entry - you could see from the history that I spent a couple hours on it. This was time away from my family last night that I spent to improve Wikipedia. I stayed up late to work on it. Keep these things in mind when you click that delete button. Morphh ^(talk) 15:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, I'm glad we found a solution. One of the factors that influenced me was that it had just been published. If you are a inclusionist it helps to visit AfD a little, and maybe comment on one or two articles a week. Yes, the procedures here tend to be more than a little abrupt. Remember that we get about 2500 articles submitted every day--that's about 2 a minute--, of which half are almost immediately deleted & are really unfit by any possible standard. You'll see from stuff above that i myself have somewhat of a reputation of an inclusionist, but scanning all those articles does tend to produce a certain orientation. DGG ( talk) 15:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I appreciate the work you do on AFD. I never really got involved in all those tasks, too busy just working on articles. Perhaps one day I'll go for the mop... I'm pretty sure we've crossed paths in the past but I can't remember where (don't think it was AFD). I rarely create articles so I'm not often exposed to this side. I've redirected the article and added the content there. Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 16:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I'd like to second what DGG said (although he and I will agree he's a bit more inclusionist than I). One of the classic new article types is the spammy publicity screed for a newly-published book (often written either by the publisher's flacks or a "true believer") which has not had a chance to develop notability. The fact that the book was on a current controversy, and had "The Truth" in the title, added to the spamminess of the article's appearance. There is no deadline here, so we normally reject these articles until the book has had an actual chance to develop notability as we define it for books. In the interests of full disclosure, I will admit that I'm a sceptic about the national sales tax, both for ideological reasons and because after 6.5 years collecting sales taxes as a revenuer, and 30 as a retail clerk, I have concluded that tax evasion is as fungible as ten-penny nails; but I honestly didn't have any ax to grind when I tagged this article in its original form as spam. ( David Friedman will tell you, I do try hard to be fair to those with whom I disagree.) I hope this entire mess is over, and that no permanent ill feelings will linger. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I had just finished reading it, so it was fresh in my mind. Since the last book had one, I just proceeded to create an article for the new one not thinking about the notability too much, and I certainly didn't think I was spamming (thus the quick removal of the banner - I actually thought it was a bot tagging). Being one of the primary tax editors on English Wikipedia, I didn't think adding a new tax book would appear to be out of place. I would have added material as it become available but if we want to redirect and wait a month.. that's fine too. I find separate articles tend to encourage more editing than a merged article including the same topic, but either way is fine with me. I'll move on to reading my next book and go back to improving existing articles. No permanent ill feelings against anyone, though I can't say that I cared for the process. Impersonal and rough - felt like I got spanked by a bot. :-) Morphh ^(talk) 17:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

actually, it wasnt a bot. The notices are forms, but spotting the article is by people, and subject to all the idiosyncrasies that go with people-based processes. There actually was a bot approved for a trial in marking articles for speedy earlier this week, and it caused such great dissatisfaction that it was stopped almost immediately--see the discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ClueBot V. the user notifications we generally use are place by a bot, because that's mechanical--not the deletion tags on the articles. DGG ( talk) 19:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Does the ArbCom injunction apply to episodes of a YouTube series as well? I'm wondering if that's not outside the intended area of injunction there. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 15:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Frankly, I do not know, and thus was uncomfortable with doing it by speedy. Perhaps the best thing to do is to add it to the already existing AfD on the series. At least then other people will see it. I certainly won't interfere with the deletion there DGG ( talk) 15:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Author of AbsolutelyAsians has asked to delete the article (on the AFD page), and I already added the AFD tag to this article so that it might be included in the decision, so all of it could now just go away (PLZKTHX). -  CobaltBlueTony™  _talk 17:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

perfect solution. DGG ( talk) 17:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks. As I've said it wasn't the first removal that's the problem, it's the ongoing attitude after I try and discuss it with him. For example look at Oliver Hazard Perry Morton, nobody could possibly say that isn't a tremendous addition to the article. Links to university held document archives aren't really spam in any sense of the word providing the link is relevant to the article, they aren't promoting anything and don't fail any part of WP:EL from what I can see. The Indiana archive only has a small set of archives from what I can see, so it's not like there would ever have been hundreds of links. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 20:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)_ reply

Time to archive??? My T1 line crashed reading your talk page, you know... ;-) -  CobaltBlueTony™  _talk 15:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Try a different browser. It should still be OK for T1, or even DSL. I have relatively best results with Safari in terms of stability; the current version of firefox should work too--the old one was unstable at least for me. I'll do a little more archiving , though; I know I should reorganize & put my good earlier answers elsewhere, but maybe next week... DGG ( talk) 15:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I was kidding... (hence the winking emoticon) Next week is like tomorrow... it never arrives... *winks again* -  CobaltBlueTony™  _talk 15:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

figured as much--I could not imagine a proper T1 having any diffficulties even for things 10X the size, but it is reaching the length where some people do begin to have problems, so I'm a little sensitive. DGG ( talk) 15:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't know if you're still watching this article, but would you stop by the AfD page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SocialPicks to offer your opinion on whether the article is notable? Thanks. Dimension31 ( talk) 00:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello DGG, what are your feelings concerning the Afd with regards to the Cohen Modal Cluster Haplotype article, since Mr. Cohen response to your request, to explain, in more layman’s terms, his contentions as shown here [12]. I admit the material is over my head. However, his rational does seem to point to a convincing argument. Would a merge to the Y-chromosomal Aaron piece, with a heading of Cohen Modal Cluster Haplotype thesis, be appropriate? Thanks for your input. Shoessss |  Chat  01:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I am writing a response there. DGG ( talk) 01:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks, as always, appreciate your input. Shoessss |  Chat  02:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, how are you? I am please to explain as many times is necessary, so you can understand how wrong these unknow guys are!

English is not my first language, but I will try to explain:

This guys wrote the full article Y Cromossome Aaaron! Since than, they dont let anybody touch it. They figure out a non credible ideia of (pre-k pre-1a1 and etc....) look at the graphics and figure for yourself (no references, nothing). There is nothing that supports those “theories”, and no scientic facts published on any credible magazine or newspaper. They are administrators of a project, like myself, from FTDNA. They are manipulation the main article with allegations from one single man, that knowbody knows in the scienfic market. They say this:

The J2 Kohanim typically have a 4/6 match for the 6-marker CMH (with DYS19=15 rather than 14, and DYS388=15 rather than 16). They do not share a common ancestor with the J1 Kohanim in a Biblical timeframe. This is ridicilous!!! Look at this:

Example:DYS  = 393 390 19 391 392 
J1 Standard CMH– 12 23 14 10 11 (Cohen Standard Signature) 
J2 Cohanim     – 12 23 15 10 11 (Cohen Unique-Event Polymorphism) 

Now, this single one-step mutations means that both J1 and J2 Kohanim share the same ancestor in Biblical timeframe.

“Any one-mutation neighbours from the J1 Standard (CMH) is considerate from the same Cohen Unique Event Polymorphism (UEP).

“Because of microsatellite instability, it was useful to define a COHEN MODAL CLUSTER, of six related chromosomes as the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH-6) used now as the standard signature and all of its one-mutation neighbours at the microsatellite loci, which all share one same common ancestor”.

“To obtain confidence intervals on the distance between the J1 Cohanim and J1 Cohanim chromossomes, it was noted that most non-ancestral haplotypes are singletons, indicating that the genealogy connecting Cohen chromossomes is more like the 'star genealogy' characteristic of 'rapid growth' than the other correlated genalogy characteristic of constant size populations. To obtain true confidence intervals in this case, (M) mutations occur during the 106 generations, with (M) being a Poisson random variable with parameter 106. The number of mutations increasing allele size (D) is drawn from a binomial distribution with parameters 0.5 and (M) [0.5 reflects size symmetry of mutations] leading to the distance D (2dm). In a star genealogy, there are 485 (the number of loci multiplied by the sample size) observations of D. Confidence intervals are obtained by repeating this process 1,000 times and taking the associated 2.5 and 97.5 pecentiles, leading to a 95% confidence interval of 84-130 generations for the combined Ashkenazic and Sephardic samples or for a generations time of 25 years, only 2,100-3,250 years before present.

The 95% confidence interval places the origin of priestly Y-Chromossomes, in J1 and J2, sometime during or shortly before the first Temple period in Jewish history (2,100-3,250). According to Jewish Tradition, following the Exodus from Egypt, the tribe of Levi, of which Moses was a member, were assigned special religious responsabilities, and males descendents of Aaron, his brother, were selected to serve as Priests (Cohanim).”

This references are from the same top of team, the “THESE GUYS” use for reference all over the main article! They simply remove this info because of nothing. The CAN NOT prove that this is false, untrue, or incorrect! This informations are from the toppest team in the world: Origins of Old Testaments Priests - Nature , Volume 394. Authors:

Karl Skorecki / Bruce Rapparport Faculty of Medicine and Research Institute, Technion, Haifa 31096, Israel;

Mark G. Thomas / The Centre for Genetic Anthropology, Departament of Biology and Anthropology, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK;

Haim Ben-Amit/Rambam Medical Centre, Haifa 31096, Israel; Turdor Parfitt / University of London, London WC1H OXC, UK; Neil Brandman and David. B. Goldstein/ University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK.

(Please note, these guys use references from the same author! But they deleate what they think that can damage the principal idea of their personal project in Family Tree Dna website.)

PLEASE, YOU MUST HELP THE READERS OF WIKEPEDIA! THIS MANIPULATIONS MUST STOP!

Can you help me? (answer in my talk page) -- Chris Cohen / Jornalist / President of Jornal Goyaz, founded in 1884, with 124 years on brazilian market. / President of the Brazilian Association of Cohanim. ( talk) 21:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG, thanks for your help on this article! I appreciate it!

Now, the first thing you should do is remove this setence only:

“They do not match the 12-marker J1-extended CMH, and they do not share a common ancestor with the J1 Kohanim in a Biblical timeframe; but they are equal co-inheritors of a patrilineal tradition which appears to date back well before the Diaspora.”

This sentence is located on: Haplogroup placement.

Than you can place this right after:

The Cohen Modal Cluster Haplotype

The Cohen Modal Cluster Haplotype is the name used to define a category that belongs to Cohanim males, J1 and J2, descendents from a commom ancestral type, strongly believed to be Aaron HaKohen, the first Priest, brother of Moses, and father of all Cohanim. Because of microsatellite instability, it was useful to define a Cohen Modal Cluster, of six related chromosomes as the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH-6) used now as the standard signature and all of its one-mutation neighbours at the microsatellite loci, which all share the same Cohen Unique Event Polymorphism (UEP). Examples:

Example:DYS  = 393 390 19 391 392 
J1 Standard CMH– 12 23 14 10 11 (J1 Cohen Standard Signature) 
J2 Cohanim     – 12 23 15 10 11 (J2 Cohen Standard Signature)
Cohen Unique Event Polymorphism 

PS: Even counting the DYS388, the J2 Cohanim Signature still share the Cohen Unique-Event Polymorphism, because their values in DYS388 (=15 rather than 16 from CMH-6) indicates only one-step mutation too.

Coalenscence Time

It is interesting to estimate the correct time at which Cohen chromossomes from J1 Cohanim and J2 Cohanim were derived from a commom ancestral chromossome (coalescence time). Under 'stepwise mutations' the average squared difference (ASD) in allele size among all current chromossome and the ancestral haplotype, averaged over loci, has an expectation of T, where is the mutation rate and T the coalescence time. The 95% confidence interval places the origin of priestly Y-Chromossomes, in J1 and J2, sometime during or shortly before the first Temple period in Jewish history (2,100-3,250) before present, i.e. 1250 BCE to 200 BCE. According to the genealogy, Ezra was the son of Seraiah, the high priest taken captive by Babylonians, a lineal descendant of Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron. Ezra was a Jewish priestly scribe who led about 5,000 Israelite exiles living in Babylon to their home city of Jerusalem in 459 BCE or 428 BCE or 397 BCE.

Thats it DGG! Thanks for your help! You are a very inteligent and honest person, for sure! Nice to meet you! Can you please tell me when are you going to add the infos? I appreciate if you leave me a message in my talk page! Thanks!

-- Chris Cohen / Jornalist / President of Jornal Goyaz, founded in 1884, with 124 years on brazilian market. / President of the Brazilian Association of Cohanim. ( talk) 02:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I have commented in more detail on Chris's talkpage. The key difference between J1 and J2 is not the STR markers (at least not this particular group of 6 of them), but the mismatch on the (much more significant) SNP markers. Jheald ( talk) 12:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, the 6, and 12 mark, is the "root" of everyone DNA. Now, 37 marks is not even necessary, because the more you extend the marks, the more diffferences will appear naturaly. This is scientific facts. Everyone knows that! 37 mark will never be used for that purpose. 6 and 12 marks, is the ones that shows the "root" and the "complete base code" for the DNA and the haplotypes, haplogroup...

Forget about 37 marks. The most important thing is the 6, and 12 marks! Do you really bealive in this guys?

J1 and j2 Cohanim share the same common ancestor, for 10.000 years?

(INSANE ALLEGATION, UNTRUE FACT)

J1 and J2 cohanim share the same common ancestor in no later than 3.300 years! Scienfic facts that confirms the historical events!

Please, make sure that the readers of Wikepedia is not paying for this guys false arguments and allegations! -- Chris Cohen / Jornalist / President of Jornal Goyaz, founded in 1884, with 124 years on brazilian market. / President of the Brazilian Association of Cohanim. ( talk) 17:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscohen ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment - Hey [[ Chris, take a deep breath and less contention of bad faith. Try rephrasing you assertion. You have been making valid points! However, you are letting your emotions do the arguing rather than your statement of fact. Remember, I am a neophyte, trying to follow along. Shoessss |  Chat  18:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, how are you again?

Sorry for my emotions! My bad! I will hold the horses next time! The problem is that, I am tired, I am by myself on this situation against this "mafia team". They are manipulating this article for a long time. It is time to stop them! The readers of Wikepedia is reading untrue infos based on false allegations! In my opinion, this must stop, as soon is possible! I am very worry about the quality of this article, thats why I step foward to help justice and true informations.

Thanks for everything that you did and are still doing for the sake of the readers! Sometime I get myself very sad and stressfull with this guys.

Now, are you going to do something about it? ( I am going to add the infos that you suggested, ok? As short is possible, as you asked! Dont let them delete it! Please

Thanks! And I appreciate your help on this! Please leave me a message on my talk page! Chris Cohen / Jornalist / President of Jornal Goyaz, founded in 1884, with 124 years on brazilian market. / President of the Brazilian Association of Cohanim. ( talk)

1. I find fascinating the last century of diligent work to find non-Biblical correlations with the Bible. One can emphasise the parts that do have support, or the parts that do not, according to the result desired. But regardless of the belief or disbelief one is hopeful of confirming, honest work requires the purely objective analysis of the individual possible. correlations. 2. Rereading the article, there does not seem to be any question of whether the time for the J1 group is approximately correct at about 3000 ybp=1000 BCE. The question is whether the J2 group is so closely related as to be from the same period, or whether their separation is much older. I find the present version of the article the clearer than yours, but not altogether unambiguous. I ask you once more to provide one single paragraph dealing with the pooossiblility that the J2 group does not have a considerably longer time. Just talk about the time, not the general nature of the priesthood or the cohens. DGG ( talk) DGG ( talk) 13:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG, how are you?

I added the info on the article, but AGAIN, they deleted! PLEASE I NEED YOU HELP!!!!!!!! (please leave me a message on my talk page)! I am tired, I need you to put an end on this... Please, let me add the short text with the info that we disscused! HELP ME!!!! URGENT! SOS -- Chris Cohen / Jornalist / President of Jornal Goyaz, founded in 1884, with 124 years on brazilian market. / President of the Brazilian Association of Cohanim. ( talk) 12:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply

DGG if you get a few minutes could you respond to this question at Talk:Patriarch Alexius II#my view, summarized. Jeepday ( talk) 15:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply

commented there. DGG ( talk) 11:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Someone or I will list his contibutions when available. Thanks.

Tangi-tamma ( talk) 16:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I have directed fairly sharp comments at your contributions at this AfD discussion. You may wish to reply. Jd2718 ( talk) 01:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

thanks for the opportunity to clarify things there. (smile) DGG ( talk) 03:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG. I did initiated the article for Selmedica as I said I was. I realize it lacks a high degree of English wording right now, that I hope will be achieved through the editing process. I thought it wise to ask for your advice first, as to whether anything additional needs to be included, as to not to warrant deletion; at least for it to be given so it can be updated via the editing process. Also is it possible to leave a reply link on my talk page, so I will know whether or when you reply to this. So I can possible add any additional info if needed, before others sound alarms. All in all, I think I worded it as fairly as possible, concerning the matter is a unfair one. Again, I would love any advice you have to offer. Thanks!! Thatopshotta ( talk) 02:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I rewrote it to remove the excess. DGG ( talk) 04:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

There is something weird going on when i go one to edit the bottom smaller box of Cyrus the Great, the info first of all is visible before you go edit it but when trying to edit the battles box there is nothing just blank in the editing press the small v as you know which means edit but there is nothing there i have to or if you can do it all over again or just put the first battle and ill add the other ones if your busy but i dont know why its blank check it out comment on my talk and if you could in the edit put the info there i would love it, and thanks for the earlier advice, THANKSYOU!-- Ariobarza ( talk) 06:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk, Commented there DGG ( talk) 14:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello DGG, I noticed the above AfD discussion because it seems to have been closed improperly by the nominator. Since you commented on the AfD, I thought you might wish to take another look at it. I would go ahead and either revert it or fix it, but I’m unsure of the policy in this case. Thanks! — Travis ^talk 23:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

it looks to me that he withdrew the nomination, and thus in effect closed it as nobody else but he spoke with delete. Why don';t you just fix it properly--or if you think necessary, reert him & closeit again yuourself. I entered into the discussion, so it would be better if you did it. DGG ( talk) 00:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the advice. — Travis ^talk 01:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

At Studio Center, by "needs a fundamental rewrite to be made encyclopedic", I was referring to the speedy deletion criteria G11, articles "which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". This article is obviously promotional (as I noted in the prod, its creator works for the company), and I think probably speedyable, but it was just short of being completely and utterly blatant, so I prodded rather than tagged for speedy deletion. We don't avoid deleting G11 articles just because they could be rewritten, so I'm not sure I understand your prod removal. Jfire ( talk) 15:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

By the way, your talk page makes for fascinating and informative reading, thanks to your detailed replies. I admire and appreciate your work. Jfire ( talk) 16:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

OK, so here's another one of them--fairly short--The proper application of G11 is indeed somewhat difficult to figure out in general, since "fundamental rewrite" is not a very specific term. I take it to mean that there is no core of proper factual information to which an article can be reduced after removing the improper content. Some others do interpret it more broadly than that, and I do not usually challenge the admins who delete on that basis, though I think my own criterion is the better, since it is based on the general rule that speedy criteria should be interpreted narrowly.

I am somewhat influenced by two factors as well: first, my general willingness to rewrite spammy or otherwise inadequate articles about really important things to keep them in WP. and second the general absence of content in wikipedia about commercial subjects. The question then is whether a criterion as subject to variable interpretation as G11 belongs in WP speedy criteria at all. I think we do need it, for there is a good deal of really unsupportable material which could not in fact be improved except by starting over entirely, and I have no hesitation in deleting these articles. I speedy a dozen or so aticles a day, and at east one or two of them really do fit cleanly into G11 in any possible interpretation. But i have not been ableto figure out any language that would indicate how to use it precisely. In general the situation with incorrect speedys is getting worse; I do not have a solution. We need the process, but if not used right it can be terribly unfair. For this particular article, It's not my field of interest, and i can do only a general trimming. But i will do that. If you can edit it further, do. If you think it's still untenable, there's AfD. I make no claim to be always right. DGG ( talk) 01:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Another editor has added the {{ prod}} template to the article User:Bridgeplayer/Crimson Editor, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at [[Talk:User:Bridgeplayer/Crimson Editor|its talk page]]. If you remove the {{ prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot ( talk) 17:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I notified the proper party, Bridgeplayer, which the bot was unsurprisingly not quite intelligent enough to do., DGG ( talk) 20:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The position of "Vice President Investments" is a very common title in the financial world. It is simply a euphamism for "stockbroker." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.14.189 ( talk) 00:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Please state your opinion about this bot at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ClueBot V‎. I already did. --Blanchardb- ^{Me• MyEars• MyMouth}-timed 01:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

What do you think of this? I was almost tempted to despeedy and send to AfD. I don't think he meets notability. The rest speaks for itself. Cheers, Dloh cierekim Deleted? 01:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I delete such articles as G10, even when they are about companies, unless the sourcing is a lot better than this--they would need real sourcing from newspapers at the least , not just web posting. As it's about a person, its absolutely a straightforward indisputable BLP violation. I just deleted it as such. the subsequent course if the author wishes is deletion review, but I cannot imagine it would be accepted. I'm not a BLP zealot, but it was this sort of article that the rule was meant to prevent. (It also is possibly not a notable scam, but that's secondary. 01:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your view. I was hoping that it would go through the editing process, and be more comprehensible as time goes on. As for meeting a neutral point of view, I feel it is very awkward to meet a neutral point of view when concerning credit card scams. How do I know it is a scam, and that it is not a scam? (A) from personal experience. (b) From contacting others. (c) From the FDA (D) from BBB. The most important source is the BBB. I did plan on getting further supportive links from these sources.

To sum up, I thought to further accomplish the validity of the article would be accomplished through the editing process, which I was planning to continue 10 minutes after I submitted the article :).

I am also the type who ensures I view everything from an objective point of view as I see you are. How do you accomplish this with a documented credit card scammer? I had planned on making a stub in credit card fraud, but I felt that the information was to much and to specific to fit there. Verifying anything of what I said in the article, can be done by simply going to one of the warned links I provided, and going through the process if you wish to take the chance :). (BBB is leading reputable source on all of these types of matters, and I planned on getting more specific quotes as research/editing continued..)

On another note, perhaps changing the article name to Selmedica may suffice? (Perry Belcher's "company" name. Which I have uncovered may not even be a legal company, further research into that was planned and would have been edited in the article). Reason I chose to do it on Perry Belcher, is that he is documented to have change names numerously whenever a problem surmises. I would very much appreciate your advice. Thatopshotta ( talk) 02:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry to write so much. I realize writing a BLP is very crucial in getting it neutral. How about changing the name of the article to Selmedica, the leading company. As the whole article is about Selmedica, and is actually not a BLP. Does that make sense, and work? Thatopshotta ( talk) 02:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Perry_Belcher. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. To Note, I have been delving into this and feel that for numerous years this scam has been occurring. So it is not "just another scam" not worthy of documentation. This matter attacking and exploiting people suffering from whatever personal health problem, I believe is more encyclopedic worthy than the Nigerian credit card scam or such others. And again, sorry to populate your page with so much, but I feel a very good solution is to have it under the name Selmedica, and let the edit process, fix it continuously. Thatopshotta ( talk) 03:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC) --commented there. You might have waited for advice first, because the thing to do would have been to try to write a well-sourced article first, under the other title, and then ask for review. You still need to follow the rule that accusations and other contentious matter must be properly sourced. DGG ( talk) 04:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry about being too zealous on that. Perhaps you would like to restore the four deleted articles on Template:Campaignbox Greco-Persian Wars. I believe they follow the same format but they were deleted as db-empty. Eóin ( talk) 05:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I suggested to the author that the best thing is simply to re-create them with a line or two of actual content. I could undelete them, but its more complicated, because I'm supposed to first ask the different admins who inadvertently deleted them. The problem with new page patrol is that if we move too fast, we delete stuff that people are working on, and if we dont move fast enough, we let things go that are never going to be developed and lose track of them. Nobody has yet found a solution to this. DGG ( talk) 05:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Please take a look at the Revision history of List of The New Gidget episodes. It was created by Overjoyed ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on February 17, the same say the account was created. The main article The New Gidget is itself little more than a completely unreferenced stub. That said, you misread the ArbCom injunction (first I heard about it btw). It says "For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character;" You know where to find me when you're ready to apologise. User: Dorftrottel 20:40,  February 19, 200 8 You are corect that the article was started on Feb 17, and is therefore technically not covered by the injunction, and I apologize --for I had not noticed this. DGG ( talk) 20:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Ok, accepted. What should we do about that episode table now? The first speedy was declined because I tagged it as {{ db-housekeeping}}. In the edit summary, Od Mishehu told me to retag it with {{ db}}, which I then did. User: Dorftrottel 21:01,  February 19, 200 8

I asked Od Mishehu what he thinks. Hopefully that will clear things up. User: Dorftrottel 21:24,  February 19, 200 8

wait a few weeks and then clean it up along with all the rest of the backlog, is what i'd suggest. why look for problems now. There will be enough when arbcom fginishesd that we'll have to figure out some unifrom way of dealing with this. 22:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC).

You could at least remove the episode table from the main article. Which is a shame imo, because the article looks neat with the table. And affirming the split (=doing what you POV dictates) is also affirming the work of an obvious sockpuppet (imo). Oh well, you deal with it now. You want two articles, you have two articles. But at least remove the redundant info. User: Dorftrottel 23:01,  February 19, 200 8

I'll leave it to those who work on the articles, I'm sure they'll clean it up. --I don't edit in that area. There's something which may not be clear: I have no personal knowledge about video episodes, as I almost never watch them. I do have an interest in orderly process and in general letting people who think things important write articles on them if the consensus of the community as a whole agrees they are worthy of inclusion. As for the details, there is time to work them out. This is not an emergency. DGG ( talk) 00:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

It (almost) never is. User: Dorftrottel 01:53,  February 20, 200 8

Dear DGG

Thank you for your commenst on the deletion review page about Avanti Construction. Can I then understand, in view of your comments, that I can restore the article? If so, please could you unprotect the page? Thank you very much indeed.
These were the comments:

Seems to have been speedied 3X, once as G11, once as A7 and most recently for no specific reason at all. At present it does not meet speedy, so it should be restored. It really does need at least one reference from a secondary source however. DGG (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC) This reads like a pamphlet from the European Union, it's full of corporate jargon and weasel words and asserts no notability. John Reaves 15:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC) yes, it isn't a good article, but that's not the standard. It's not spammy enough for G11. The standard at speedy is not, that if it's a poor article, we delete it.DGG (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Maybe not spammy but it's not encyclopedic and isn't notable outside of it's own standards. John Reaves 17:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

-- Machiavelli2008 ( talk) 08:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Dear DGG

John Reaves says that he does not endorse restoration, but you say that it should be restored. What is the procedure in this scenario?

Thanking you

-- Machiavelli2008 ( talk) 11:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

No disrespect to people who genuinely have been awarded the medal intended. The article was a valid speedy nomination when it was created for being patent nonsense based on the dates given. I have since nominated it for afd - you may wish to visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fischer Thomas - at this time there is a very firm consensus of delete. -- Roleplayer ( talk) 14:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I was wondering, too, so I de-speedied it so it could be tested at AfD. It's been checked, and now it's obvious. Suspected hoaxes should really go to prod or afd, per WP:CSD. DGG ( talk) 14:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Yep, im removing the others. Its just such an obscure person with an obscure team who didnt even finish that far ahead. It seems like its just taking up space. Queerbubbles ( talk) 14:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

thanks for helping clear these. DGG ( talk) 15:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Many thanks for your help! Kind regards Doma-w ( talk) 15:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG. In November you wrote: "Any threat or even suggestion to disclose the real names of editors without their explicit permission will result in banning from WP". Therefore I now refer you to this transgression where one editor attempts to "out" another editor, despite your warning to him. You may notice that he breaks other rules there too. Thanks for your time. ► RATEL ◄ 04:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC) reply

see your talk page. DGG ( talk) 04:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC) reply

As I replied on my talk page : DGG, I was previously warned for naming by Davidruben and I have heeded the warning since then. Reasonablelogicalman was likewise warned, by you, but chose to ignore that warning. In addition, I have not attacked him personally since my warning from admin Davidruben (although I have criticised and removed a lot of his edits, and rightly so), so I do not see why I'm getting this final warning; hence I think it may be inappropriate. Reconsider?

Moreover, the user Reasonablelogicalman is continuing his tirade of personal invective against me on the Talk:Prostatitis page, completely ignoring your recent request to desist. His accusations of my motives and identity are all completely false, but I have refuted them before and just can't be bothered refuting them again and again. He is also tagging anything with which he disagrees on the Prostatitis page with "fact" tags, and inserting NPOV templates when he is the only dissenting voice. If you take a couple of hours and study all the interchanges I've had with him, you'll see that he is hell-bent on pushing an infectious etiology agenda, one that flies in the face of all current major research. He's deeply confused over the differences between chronic bacterial prostatitis and chronic pelvic pain syndrome, which leads to major arguments. On points of medicine, he's lost every single argument he's had with me, yet he's one of those editors who is never discouraged by losing an argument; he simply relentlessly continues editing the page by fact tagging every sentence and inserting tiny, minor studies from, e.g., obscure Croatian journals, and even attempted to insert his own study "published" by www.duj.com , which claims that both nonbacterial prostatitis and benign prostatic hyperplasia are treatable by antibiotics and "prostate massage" — a claim laughed at by every urologist to whom I've spoken. Admin David Ruben said a while ago that he would review the literature and take control of the page, but that was months ago and even though I've reminded him about it, he has not taken action, and he seems to have either backed out of this task or put it on the back burner. I would welcome your oversight because I know that you, like me, give weight to the best peer reviewed research. ► RATEL ◄ 01:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for the input on the Prostatitis page. It's always good to have new editors there. :) ► RATEL ◄ 23:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply

DGG, the situation at the Prostatitis page is getting out of control. Are you able to provide input or should I seek help from another admin? Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 00:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

DGG, user Reasonablelogicalman continues to try to out me on the talk page on a daily basis, and despite your warning to block any user doing this, you are letting it pass. I'm puzzled. ► RATEL ◄ 01:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

commented on your talk page, and that of the article. DGG ( talk) 01:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi. This falls under CSD G6. Best, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC) It will be noncontroversial when there is agreement on it at AfD. I wouldnt oppose a rapid close there. DGG ( talk) 20:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The lack of agreement doesn't neccessarly mean that it's noncontroversial. Besides, there doesn't seem to be a real disagreement about whether to redirect. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC) reply

comment on your talk page. DGG ( talk) 21:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC) reply

again, replied on my talk. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I noticed you gave him a final warning a few days ago, Well he acted up again so I started an AN/I on him. Thought you might like to comment [13]. Ridernyc ( talk) 05:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

His claim is that I created the article Dai Shi and he feels it should be deleted. Grounded into a double play ( talk) 05:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

That's actually not my claim at all, I'm sure DGG can read the AN/I and figure it out himself. Ridernyc ( talk) 05:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

commented there. DGG ( talk) 06:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

(Grounded has since been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet)

HI COULD YOU TELL HOW TO MAKE A CROSS SIGHN MEANING THIS, +, EXCEPT WITH THE SOUTHERN LINE EXTENDED A LITTLE TO INDICATE A DEATH OF A COMMANDER IN A CERTIAN BATTLE I DONT KNOW HOW TO MAKE THOSE DEATH SIGHNS, FOR EXAMPLE IN THE BATTLE OF THERMOPLYAE WHEN LEONIDES OF THE 300 SPARTANS DIES, SO THERE IS A CROSS BY HIS NAME MEANING HE DIED I DONT KNOW HOW TO DO THAT SO JUST TELL ME thanks a million! -- Ariobarza ( talk) 23:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk reply

the symbol you want is the following: †

If you are using the standard interface , you will find it in the group of wiki edit characters below the edit box, the fifth one in in the "Symbols: section. or copy and paste. On a standard Macintosh keyboard it's option-t. DGG ( talk) 00:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC) In Windows, it's alt-028. DGG ( talk) 00:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I have noticed you warned user:LessHeard for rude, and vulgar comments he made to someone. I have opened up discussion at his talk page here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LessHeard_vanU#Admin_recall

For the possibility of his recall. Your participation is welcome. Malamockq ( talk) 19:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply

as i think you have been told already, ANB/I or ANB, followed by an RfC if needed, would actually be the procedure, and I think you are now discussing this at ANB but feel free to email me if you wish to talk over things. DGG ( talk) 21:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Re: User talk:Black Falcon#NOT

Thanks. I was worried that my use of two edit summaries to convey one message - due to the fact that I accidentally pressed "Enter" - may have been confusing. Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 22:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC) reply

DGG, What on earth is the point of this stub - with rubbish removed and renamed it is now just one line? I wish you would let some of these efforts go quietly. It does NOT help the encyclopedia to have them cluttering the place up. Johnbod ( talk) 11:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply

There is probably literature on that specific item.

From Grove Online, it turns out that it is his only signed work, the one on the basis of which the other sculptures there and elsewhere are attributed to him. From its article on the cathedral (Autun, §2(ii): Cathedral sculpture), "This is perhaps the most expressive representation of the Last Judgement in 12th-century sculpture " I'll fill it in. & add the necessary links elsewhere. I haven't even checked for the periodical literature yet. How much do you want at 7 AM on Sunday? DGG ( talk) 12:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Of course there is literature on it! It is a highly important work. Don't worry, I know where to find it, and stuff on all the 200 other important cathedral tympani. But what use is what, when the crap is removed, is only a one-line stub? We have more and better at Autun Cathedral, where in fact it should be redirected. If and when a proper article on the subject is written, it would only take 10 seconds to get to this level. Oddly enough, twenty minutes after I prodded it, Wetman raised that very tympanum at User_talk:Wetman#Category:Ivory_works_of_art - 3 years is about right I think. Categorising, renaming and removing actual inaccuracy from these crappy teen-stubs is a significant drain on editorial resources. As they are they reduce the value of the project. Prodding is often the best answer. Johnbod ( talk) 13:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• • I think we agree that ultimately, the level of aggregation for works of art should be that each major work has an article. (Just as for major books and works of music the works have an article each.) From the comment you refer to, you intend working in a long time frame, going first with the periods, then the monuments, and eventually the woks, but for now staying with the more general articles.
    

I disagree. In addition to that strategy, we should rewrite, expand, and use them as they appear (It was never my intention to leave it as it was). Why wait three years until some unknown future person gets to it? While you & the other scholars are in a properly didactic way, the amateurs will none the less have articles on most of them ready for you to improve. Go do it your professional way, but I will continue to do it mine. You apparently dont want this because you feel obliged to fix them and it takes more time to do it unsystematically. A reasonable argument. But to me it's like not making articles on individual 19th century senators or MPs until we can do them all. WP is an amateur production at heart. We want to raise the standards, but this has to be by encouraging the amateurs, and helping them do so. But even if you want to do it your way, the way to avoid the elementary student articles is to make the redirects for the works now, ahead of time, systematically, as Wikipedia:Redirects with possibilities--at least that will get the names right. I agree there was so little in this that it might not have been worth the trouble--but now you';re discouraging me from taking the trouble. DGG ( talk) 07:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

There is something weird going on when i go one to edit the bottom smaller box of Cyrus the Great, the info first of all is visible before you go edit it but when trying to edit the battles box there is nothing just blank in the editing press the small v as you know which means edit but there is nothing there i have to or if you can do it all over again or just put the first battle and ill add the other ones if your busy, and first of all i dont know what to put in the first place and if i want to edit it, im afraid i destroy everything. but i dont know why its blank check it out comment on my talk and if you could in the edit put the info there i would love it, im a rookie with a busy life currently and want to donate my knowledge to Wikipedia, and if you cant fix it ill commentin the militaryhistory talk area, also if you could or cant fix it, comment on my page so i know you got this message, and thanks for the earlier advice, THANKSYOU! A billion times...-- Ariobarza ( talk) 00:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk reply

I know its not done yet, I left a note in the discussion section saying I needed to finish it later. Heck, I didn't even finish the plot writeup ;) - NemFX ( talk) 07:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply

There is no policy that says an "injunction", establish be a small group of editors on a given page, must be followed. If you disagree with the prodding that's fine, but if you are removing it simply because some editors said "don't touch fiction pages till we're done talking", then that's another.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

As for the injunction see [14], "For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction. Passed 4 to 0 at 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)." Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee established it, not a "small group of editors"; all editors are required to follow it and administrators must enforce it. If you disagree, comment on the talk page there, but I do as the committee tells me. When the case is over, then bring to AfD if you wish. DGG ( talk) 05:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I already did the AfD before you responded, which isn't a single "editor deleting" an article. An AfD works by community consensus, which has nothing to do with any one editor deleting anything. If the community deems it appropriate to delete that that's another story.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Exactly when is this "injunction" supposed to be over, because I haven't seen a current discussion anywhere. The last comment on that page you listed as Feb. 3. What exactly is everyone waiting for?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

for further discussion, see its talk page, and the various pages of the arbitration. The consensus is that introducing AfDs is prohibited as well by "any tag related to notability". In general, everyone, having discussed the actual issue at arb com an nauseam and beyond, is now waiting until arb com decides. Take a look there and get up to date: [15] and related pages. Guessing, just guessing, I think it will be another 3 or 4 weeks. And, of course, I'd expect arb com will leave the guidelines to the community, . And, most important, we'll need some good way of proceeding on all the blocked cases so we all dont get overwhelmed--I hope everyone of both sides decides to cooperate in this. DGG ( talk) 06:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, notability just happened to be a side thought. I tagged Smallville timeline for deletion because it's nothing but unsourced original research. Last I checked, we still had to follow WP:V. Regardless, please don't read my talk page and assume I'm planning some mass tagging operation. First, I've been thinking of cleaning up the character lists for some time (hence why I started this sandbox in the first place). Maybe if people got off their ass and finished this ridiculous debate (which has gone on for the better part of 2 - 3 months), there wouldn't be a problem.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I intended the note on your talk page every bit as much for the other people discussing things there--look at my wording. I recognize that you have a generally sensible view on this things, and I apologize if it may have appeared otherwise. As we both know, the relevance of OR to the preparation of such summaries has been much debated at AfD, with variable results. I believe we both wish to have some consistent agreed way of dealing with the problems involving these articles; the amount of effort in the earlier discussions article by article was absurd. I refer you to MASEM's proposals at various places--they seem likely to obtain consensus. DGG ( talk) 12:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Are they only waiting for Masem's new guideline pages to gain consensus?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Just the opposite--Masem is probably waiting for them, before finalising the guidelines for a formal expression of consensus--or at least that;s what I would advise him to do. Generally, apparent absence of progress by the arbs means they are still discussing it among themselves. They will take their own time about it. They are in most people's opinion going to avoid setting content guidelines or ruling on content, as is generally their practice. Just my opinions; I have no special knowledge or any inside connections. DGG ( talk) 12:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I see that you declined my non-notable speedy nom for Floyd Talbert on the basis that he is a fictional character. Actually that is not correct -- he was a real person, a member of Easy Company, who was portrayed by an actor in HBO's Band of Brothers, similar to Darrel Powers, which was speedily deleted as non-notable. The current Floyd Talbert article clearly does not meet notability guidelines for real living (or dead) people. Thanks. -- ukexpat ( talk) 18:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Agreed it's debatable, and therefore ought to be debated. (I took into account that it was apparently based only on the show.) Have any of these reached AfD?--I have not yet checked. I would defend it there, if properly sourced. But in any case you & I & the guy who wrote it should try to add references and improve it & seeif we can make a decent article out of it. I could equally have said "using as basis of important character in major series is an assertion of notability." When its not clear how to handle something, it shouldn't be a speedy. What other admins do in ambiguous situations will obviously vary, but Im not bound by their precedent any more han they are by mine. In practice, I'm not going to try to undelete that one until at least one of these has been kept at AfD by consensus. --the consensus is more important that what any one of us may think. I make no claims to be always right. Incidentally, it might simplify matters if you wait until after the arb com case on episodes and characters--just to avoid another complication. It should be an interesting discussion. DGG ( talk) 18:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Could you now remove your Notability tag? Many thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I put on the notability tag when i removed the speedy, because someone else had challenged the notability. i dont know enough about the subject to judge such things. But I do know you need some better references, as was already commented by others on the talk page. DGG ( talk) 23:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

"Puffery"? Hmmm, could you please provide the proof that the artists listed at Tradmusic.com write their own bio details? Why is this not an "external" ref? And how do you regard the status of the other refs provided? There is no doubt that he appeared both on Peel's show (twice), at Greenbelt (twice) and on OGWT (twice), so there's no "if" involved. But why does every media or concert appearance have to have a review? Surely the fact of appearanace is notable in itself? Eighteen albums must count for something? If it's "not your subject" why did you leave a tag? Regards Martinevans123 ( talk) 23:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Correction - he appeared at Greenbelt three times - in 1978, 1979 and 1982. Martinevans123 ( talk) 00:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

"others"? Smackbot added the Ref tag, because their weren't any. One other user has questioned notability on the basis that Haworth does not appear in "all music review", whatever that is. Martinevans123 ( talk) 23:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

"Bryn Haworth" on Google currently produces 23,100 hits. Not a water-tight test admittedly, but some kind of fair indication of notability I would suggest. Martinevans123 ( talk) 00:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

all I did was remove the deletion tag put on by another editor, rather than immediately delete it, which was the other option, and replaced it by a tag that an editor had questioned the notability. I made what i think were some relevant comments about what would make the article stronger. After that, its up to you. DGG ( talk) 03:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

fair enough, it's better to have a unreferenced article than a deleted one. But I still regard your comment on "puffery" to be out of order and not defensible by Haworth himself. I'm pretty sure he'd be the last person to employ any form of devious self-promotion. Please re-consider. Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 08:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

the two phrases I changed were WP:PEACOCK. My edits there improved the article, and made it less likely that some other person would try to delete it. What would help the article yet more is some published reviews of his shows or recordings--that's what really counts for notability, not the wording of the article. DGG ( talk) 16:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your fair explanation. I shall endeavour to add whatever I can find. As with any artist who was around before the advent of the WWW, electronic reviews are sometimes difficult to source - Haworth has never been a stadium-filler! Comparing the article, even as it stands, however, with those of other comparable musicians, suggests that such stringent notability has not been an issue elsewhere. Thanks again, anyway. Martinevans123 ( talk) 16:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Do you think that sufficient notablity has now been established? Thanks, Martinevans123 ( talk) 11:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I can suggest many articles without a notability tag for musicians who have no record releases in their own name at all, so I think 20 albums and at least 10 singles constitutes notability in itself, regardless of any links to external reviews. Unless you have a strong objcetion I propose to remove the notability tag. Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree, it's possible there is potential for an article on this topic. What we had, though, was a coatrack to hang spam upon; and ain't that a heck of a mixed metaphor?! -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

yes, but the spam could be removed by deleting that last line--& I had done so & saved. You were obviously working with the version before that. The delete function does not check for edit conflict. That's probably a bug that should be fixed & I'll ask about it. But,as you say, it can just as well be rewritten properly, so Im not complaining. DGG ( talk) 17:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 20:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I replied at my talk page. Funny timing! I will likely not be on WP again until this evening; I was just here for a few minutes during my lunch at work. So I will review and respond to further replies only at that time. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Can you please take another look at the AN/I I started here [16], so far you are the only admin that seems to understand the issue, and now I have articles in his deleted list that look as if they should never have been deleted. If you look at his list you will see many albums by notable artists listed, since I can no longer see the articles I can not tell if they are worthy of deletion review, but the more I watch his actions the more I am convinced that he has prod'd and caused the deletion of a number of article that would have survived AFD, or should have been redirects and merges. Ridernyc ( talk) 02:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

advice: look to the future. there will be enough to keep you fully occupied saving them. Trying to correct earlier mistakes here is too much to expect from human endurance. DGG ( talk) 02:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm actually getting ready to move on from wikipedia, the current insanity with notability is making this a project I no longer wish to take part in. I'd rather just start a blog and write my own articles on music rather jump through constant loopholes here. Ridernyc ( talk) 02:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I'd advise you to stay, and doing only as much as you reasonably can without getting over-annoyed by it. Think of it like this: what good you do here, so much to the better. No one person can fix everything that's wrong. If you keep in one good article a week, and hundreds of other people did the same, it would make a difference--but all you need to do is your one article. (same argument goes for getting rid of the junk, of course) DGG ( talk) 03:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The problem is that you can' write good readable articles when WP:SS is being totally ignored by the notability guidelines. There are two massively differing sets of guidelines that keep colliding with other and no seems to want to get involved. Trust me the current arbcom on fiction is only the start of the issue, as you can see the second they put an injunction on fiction people just moved on and started doing the same with music. Ridernyc ( talk) 03:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Since your concerns are reasonable, bring all the ones deleted via prod to deletion review, as is your right. Mention the kind of response the ones that reached AfD have received, and say that you wish for the prodded ones to be evaluated with the same care.-- Father Goose ( talk) 03:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Considering the reception the AN/I received I doubt I will be doing that. People seem to be happy that he is taking a shotgun to wikipedia who cares if he got rid of 20 good articles, he managed to get rid of 80 bad ones. Ridernyc ( talk) 08:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Dear User:DGG I am sorry that you have to be in the middle of this situation. However, I have just seen your post on my talk page. In my opinion the debate on the prostatitis page has gone on for too long (I cannot find the exact start date) without definitive action by a moderator. Can you please decide whether or not the

• conflict of interest tag
• the lacking neutral point of view tag

and the

• cleanup-spam tag

should be replaced and left up or not. Please note that the user accused of all of the above is the one who keeps deleting the tags. I believe that the default position in Wikipedia is that the tags cannot be removed by the offending party. Please note that I am a member of project SPAM and am attempting to follow all Wikipedia spam fighting rules as laid out in Project SPAM. I am fighting a commercial website, ChronicProstaitis.com, written by an alleged attorney, known for spamming and flaming sci.med.prostate.prostatitis into submission, that charges for its "support forum," and has ads and other products. Please review all my edits to the prostatitis page which have essentially all been deleted or changed by User:Ratel. In fact, the Prostatitis page is only allowed to mirror content that is on ChronicProstatitis.com. Also note that moderator user:Davidruben already decided that the page needs a neutral point of view edit. In addition, Wikipedia expressly forbids linkage to sites that charge for their services or violate copyright. Lastly, I believe it is a conflict of interest to remove a Wikipedia "conflict of interest" tag about yourself as user:Ratel has done. ReasonableLogicalMan( Talk 01:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• There are no links to sites that "charge for their services" on the Prostatitis page. Even the two that have been removed in error by DGG (in my opinion) do not charge money for anything. These constant false charges are very disruptive. ► RATEL ◄ 02:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Excuse me, DGG, but you have just removed two links from the Prostatitis page because they "seem" to be "biased" or "inessential". They are neither, in my educated opinion, and I'd like to know what special knowledge you have in this medical area that allows you to be the judge of what is either biased or inessential please. If you have no knowledge at all in this area, please tell me and allow me to find a medically-trained admin who will help on that page (other than David Ruben, who seems to have admin fatigue). ► RATEL ◄ 02:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

a page on the detailed physical technique of prostatic massage in unessential. It was ostensibly there only for its additional illustrations, but given the diagrams already present, i cannot see how they are necessary. A link to an article talking about only one of the possible hypotheses for a particular condition --when the question of the relative weight for that treatment is the very crux of the dispute over the article and plugging a particular book and method is biased. Please read WP:EL for the sort of links that are permitted. In general for diseases, the ELs are only to reliable organizational sites of the stature of the ones I mentioned or to official government sites. WP is edited by common sense, not specialised knowledge. I have enough common sense to know that the proper therapy here is a topic on which physicians disagree, so i dod see what advantage having one would be. See my user page for my background. DGG ( talk) 02:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I make it perfectly clear that when i am asked for help, i will do what I think needed, which will not necessarily be what you may hope for. DGG ( talk) 02:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Then I'm sorry I asked for your help. You have just deprived the patient community, which makes up the vast majority of the readership of that page, of 1) the only site on the net that shows them, in minute detail, the deep pelvic muscles involved (according to the most recent research from Stanford and other credible centers) in causing their pain, and 2) the only mass-circulation general press overview article on prostatitis printed in the last 4 years. Way to go! So tell me this: what avenues are now available to me to have those links re-inserted? Can I apply for a RfC, or get a medically trained user, say a urologist, to give input on this? -- ► RATEL ◄ 03:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Reviewing WP:EL again, I see that 1) no mention is made of the sort of links suitable for medical topics, so where did you get that information about what ELs are allowed on medical pages? and 2) I see that "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article" are allowed. On this basis, I cannot see why those links are not allowed. The muscle diagram site is 1) relevant, 2) meaningful, 3) non-commercial, and 4) has existed since before any other site we are discussing was created. it was one of the very first sites on prostatitis on the web. I know you may simply want this issue off your plate, and if so juts give the word and I'll get a medical admin involved. ► RATEL ◄ 03:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Regarding the above, Wikipedia says, "Frequently spam contributors take advantage of Wikipedia's Assume good faith policy. They may engage in straw-man or special pleading arguments for inclusion of their links under the guise that they have only the welfare of Wikipedia at heart, usually in the presence of evidence to the contrary." ReasonableLogicalMan( Talk 03:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I stand by my edits. see the article talk page for comments: this is not the appropriate place. if you want someone else to take a look also ask at WP:WikiProject Medicine or follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. DGG ( talk) 04:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry if my reaction came off sounding angry in any way, it wasn't meant to, but after writing for around 3 hours to be told your work was going to be speedily deleted.. Well that'd make anyone a little snappy :)

I was aware that you were the one that stopped it from being deleted, I think it was just simple transfer.. Again, apologies. - NemFX ( talk) 03:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply

perfectly ok. as far as i am concerned DGG ( talk) 04:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG: My attention was drawn to the Talk:Hummus page, see Talk:Hummus#Hebrew/jewish/Israeli references and Talk:Hummus#RfC where some users are deploying the worst kind of blatant antisemitic and Anti-Zionist vitriol in violation of WP:HATE and WP:CIVIL, over a minor food article, yet, unbelievable. There are comments there that should be deleted on sight as well. Please check out that page and the violating editors. Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 11:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Besides a few offensive anons I do not see a major HATE. And the editors who edit the article are aware of them and had them blocked. It would be nice if they would remove the HATE references on the talk page. IZAK maybe you should make the request to the editors and not scream HATE. Igor Berger ( talk) 17:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I realise 1904 may fall out of copyright, but that's not an encyclopedic article it's a copy paste of a newspaper article. What 19th Century sources would you suggest for verification of the newspaper article to pass WP:V/WP:N? All I foudn was wiki mirrors and geanealogical information. I'm open to ideas TRAVELLINGCARI ^{My story} _{Tell me yours} 05:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

If you have a moment, I need your help sorting out a mess. We have two editors, Killah666 and Avantpunkarmy who are currently warring over the Bizarro fiction article. I bring this matter to your attention because you previously left a message [ [17]] for Killah about the Jeff T. Kane article, Kane being a writer in this little-known genre. This gets complicated and messy because both of these editors seem to have a conflict-of-interest. A look at Avantpunk's userpage reveals that he is "leader of ... the street team that promotes authors of bizarro fiction...". It turns out, as well, that Killah's real name is Jeff---Jeff T. Kane, perhaps? Avantpunk created a new article today, List of bizarro authors, which I am proposing to be merged into the main Bizarro fiction article. Avantpunk's intentions, as can be seen by his edit summaries and comments [ [18]] and [ [19]], to use these articles to promote these authors. Clearly, he has a conflict here. Can you give me some direction as to how to sort this out? I appreciate your time and attention. --- RepublicanJacobite _{The'FortyFive'} 03:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

See WP:Walled garden for what seems to be happenning. Best approach is to work on the notability of the individual authors. DGG ( talk) 04:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, that seems to be exactly what is happening. But, what about these conflicts-of-interest? Clearly, both users are in the wrong when it comes to this, but Avantpunk's violation of policy seems more egregious. His argument against the merger is entirely self-centered: he wants to use both articles for promotion, but wants to reserve the main article for promotion of the "important" authors. His interests, I believe, are contrary to those of Wikipedia, and his actions are not in keeping with the guidelines or spirit of the site. --- RepublicanJacobite _{The'FortyFive'} 04:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

It's easier to deal with the results--we cant block someone from COI alone. --one list is probably appropriate, but one is enough, & it should go one place or the other--which one makes very little difference. The job really is to get the non-notable people out of there, and keep the red links from developing. Then the whole thing will be in proportion. DGG ( talk) 04:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree with your approach. I am not interested in seeing anyone blocked. They should, I think, be cautioned, though, about using Wikipedia for promotion. In the meantime, I am going through all the names on the lists and tagging any that are of questionable notability, need references, or improvement. Tomorrow, I will begin again my attempt to convince Avantpunk that we cannot keep both articles. Again, I thank you for your time and attention. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite _{The'FortyFive'} 05:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I dobbed you in :) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh, you think I need some more work to do? :) DGG ( talk) 17:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG

Thank you very much for your comments in the Deletion Review on Avanti Construction.
After five days in the deletion review and having read the above comments, what is then the final decision on this entry? Can I restore the content as it is written above? If any changes are needed, could any of the administrators kindly suggest them?
Sincere thanks.

-- Machiavelli2008 ( talk) 11:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, thanks for your help with the list of Flash games debate. i have tried to improve the article somewhat. is there anything else we can do to try to keep this article retained? thanks. please feel free to reply to me at my talk page. thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 15:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

First, I'm enjoying your and Jerry's work on hammering CSD A7 and agree 100% that it is in dire need of clarification and rewording> I believe that you (and Jerry) have probably the most experience of current active editors in this corner of the wiki to be undertaking the challenge you've decided to undertake. I wish you well in the endeavor, but I won't be chiming in for a couple of reasons. a/Perhaps everything you are doing has already been discussed elsewhere and not implemented? In which case, a wheel is being reinvented in one sense. b/In what venue would the consensus of "editor A + editor B think this" hold up, assuming you and Jerry actually arrive at consensus? and c/To be frank, I don't feel welcome to contribute. Letter "/c" is in relation to AG3 and your opinion of my close which you have never brought to me but have discussed in other venues about me, which to be honest is a bit confounding and disappointing. Not that you asked for a rationale, but here you go:
First: If the discussion has a clear consensus, which this afd did, why would I (or any admin) close it as no consensus? I don't get your logic here but maybe I'm missing something
Second: I don't believe that prior AfDs have anything to do with current AfDs unless a bad faith nomination can be interpreted from the newest nomination. Was Jerry's nomination a bad faith nomination? I believe you would say no to that, correct me if I'm wrong. If I had closed that in any way other than how I closed it, I can't imagine the 23 editors in good standing that voiced a delete opinion would react positively. The fact that the 11 editors that voiced keep haven't gone to DRV, or my talkpage, speaks volumes to me. Incidentally, I've heard from two editors (either directly or indirectly) that said "keep" in the AfD that support the closing decision that I've made. Apparently then, I'm stuck in a lose-lose-lose, as I believe a non-consensus result would have been a copout based on the discussion at hand, a keep would have lit a fire, and a delete has apparently done the same.
Third: The most recent AfD(#7) was a no consensus. The article was AfDed within days of the article being updated to include the most recent controversial action of AG3, namely a new arrest, and so there was a flurry of news which drew attention to the article. Even then after that nomination, a solid "keep" decision didn't surface. That was in July, over 7 months ago. Of the others, I will say at least one was bad faith as it too quickly followed a previous consensus and was therefore (rightfully) closed. This most recent nomination was by a highly respected editor/admin, 7 months later, who had not contributed in the least to the prior debates or the article, which was discussed at length and in good faith, and then closed by an editor/admin that was also not involved in any of the prior debates or the article following policy and relevant guidelines based on the discussion at hand. Again, where's the no consensus?

I respect you greatly and I respect your tireless contributions and tenure in this insane little wiki we both spend time building. I'm beginning to feel the respect is not mutual though. I'm not a pouter, I won't carry this any further. I'm just disappointed. I also realize this is getting to be "ABD" length, so I'll let it go. I hope for a response, whether it be to tell me off if you feel that's warranted, or to, I don't know, whatever. But I don't expect it as life's too short and I'm sincerely not trying to pick a fight. (honest). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

true, discussions at WT:CSD do tend to go in circles--more on this later As for the close, I recognize the previous AfD was a non-consensus, and that to introduce another following it is appropriate. If I argued otherwise anywhere, I apologize. All I am saying is that this too was in my eyes also no-consensus, and should have been so held, and kept until better agreement developed one way or another. This is only a disagreement with you, not an indictment. I would never have mentioned it had the subject not been opened by another. Dont take it as lack of respect in any way whatsoever. I would not have been able to give the article really strong support in its condition at the time, nor will I start a deletion review--I hope nobody else will unless they really rewrite it first. There's a difference between a closing i think mistaken, and a closing so wrong as to be worth protest. And there's a difference between protest, and giving my opinion. As you'll have noticed, I always say what i think, regardless of friendship. Anyone who wants my opinion on an afd close will have it. I disagree with a number of them, and I expect others to disagree with me. I will also give an evaluation--as i did--of what the chances are at deletion review, even if it's to say it ought to be reversed, but it won't be.

Anyway, my feeling about afds is, generally, after one is done, on to the next. I simply dont close XfDs at all. As I said at my RfA, i prefer to debate them. DGG ( talk) 23:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

David, I've really screwed up here. I have had a full night of sleep, and upon rereading my post on Jerry's talkpage, your response, and then rereading the travesty (Word Vomit) I've left here on your talkpage, I feel I need to immediately and completely apologize. Jerry very graciously and patiently dissected the timeline of events that led me to type what I typed here, and I now know exactly were I went afoul. Please read my response to Jerry here for more elaboration if you wish. Again, I apologize for my lengthy post, as it was completely off base. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Of course you can defend a close I might disagree with, and explain your reasoning to me. In addition, you said good and useful things about afds in general. (That's what my first paragraph was talking about) No offense taken in the slightest.

(It is possible to annoy me here, & two or three people have managed it, but it takes a lot more than this--and I don't imagine you would want to be capable of that.) FWIW, when people complain about something I've done, it tends to be something I've done at the end of the day, or sometimes at the very beginning. I'm going to archive all this after you've read it. DGG ( talk) 17:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks DGG. I'm recommitting to editing only when wide awake. *wink* Cheers, and please do archive. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

David,

Peter Sheahan is a recognised expert on Generation Y. He consults globally to organizations including News Corporation and Google. His Generation Y DVD series on managing and retaining Generation Y is an extremely useful tool for organizations struggling to attract and retain the best Generation Y talent. How can a useful resource be classified as spam? My understanding is that most patrons of Wikipedia use it only as a reference for further research.

Please reply on to my talk page Samuel Michael Carter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Michael Carter ( talk • contribs) 05:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

replied there; the work is self-published. DGG ( talk) 16:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I tried to change the tag to note that it was not only advertising, but a copyvio--but it wouldn't take. Must have been a software change that I didn't know about--it used to work before. Blueboy 96 23:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC) -- I suspect it messes up the format if you add anything else to the copyvio tag. What i tend to do is put on only the most drastic tag, or use two separate tags. DGG ( talk) 23:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much indeed for your comments and suggestions about the Avanti Construction entry. I have now addressed all the concerns raised and I shall look forward to the outcome of the review.

I very much appreciate your advice.

Kind regards

-- Machiavelli2008 ( talk) 13:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I think that all we need is just one or two more editors to support List of browser-based Flash games, and the article might be ok to keep. no one has posted any more comments in favor of deletion. do you have any active editors whom you might be able to contact? i appreciate it. thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 20:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey DGG, I have answered your question. (I actually kind of enjoyed answering it :P) Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 22:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

alas, I still feel it necessary to oppose, because of the lack of experience shown in general. I expect that I'll be able to say differently the next time around, and I'll try to help & support you if the consensus thinks you're ready & you are chosen now. DGG ( talk) 04:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Dear DGG

Most sincere thanks for your comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Avanti_Construction

I have now added the date of the start and have improved the entry. I am really enjoying this Wikipedian activity and I am learning so much.

Thank you very much indeed for your advice and help.

Kind regards

-- Machiavelli2008 ( talk) 11:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Machiavelli,, between material and Avanti's editing, a really excellent job was done. congratulations to you both. DGG (talk) 18:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Hi, our friend has listened to the copious advice he was given and has substantially improved the page. I wonder if you would take a second look, please, to see if you can adjust the weakness of your keep? BlueValour ( talk) 02:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

right! Excellent job indeed.!!!

Hi there. You deleted this page yesterday for 'blatant advertising'. I have discussed this with CobaltTony and he accepts that as a charity there is a case to reinstate. I have agreed that I'll go back and rewrite as per the guidelines stated in this case.

How though, do I find the previous version, so that I can edit it?

Surely it hasn't been deleted outright and I have to start again from scratch?

Thanks,

Aldhous Aldhous ( talk) 16:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I have just restored it. DGG ( talk) 16:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply