Mar09, Apr09 , May09 , Jun09 Jul09, Aug09, Sep09, Oct09, Nov09, Dec09, Jan10, Feb10, Mar10, Apr10 , May10 , Jun10 Jul10, Aug10, Sep10, Oct10, Nov10, Dec10

Is this scholar notable? Bearian ( talk) 00:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply

borderline. We do not have to decide just yet though, because its a copyvio. Always worth a check especially when there's no faculty home page listed. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply

You are good! Bearian ( talk) 03:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG, I wish you'd reconsider your deprodding and voting keep for these buildings in Dubai. The most important point is that they don't exist. They are proposals, which given the total collapse of the Dubai building market means they will never be built. Glittering Pillars ( talk) 09:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Dear David, You have always been such a wise sage on Wiki matters. Perhaps you can enlighten me on this topic. I have been a loyal supporter of Wiki, with previous donations. But the jump from $6M in 2008 to $7.5M this year puzzled me. In the current recessive financial climate, a 25% increase reminds people of those insensitive fat cats on Wall St. I went to the donation page and clicked "discussion" to voice my opinion, but there seems to be no place to add text. They only publish the glowing praises and eagerness to donate. What do you think? EJ -- EJohn59 ( talk) 18:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply

There are several measure of efficiency that might give an idea: (all this is purely unofficial; anyone who wants to correct it should simply do so)

A year ago we were usually 8th in Alex; now we are 6th [1]

There are about 14 million articles in all the Wikipedias combined, and probably an equal number of pictures. That's about $0.25 per article or picture per year. In terms of items added, we add worldwide about 2 million items a year -- about $4 an item to both add it, deal with all future updates, and make it permanently available. The cost per article in an open access scientific journal like PLOS is about $3000.

In 2006, apparently the market value of the operation if it were to run advertisements was about $580 million [2],. It is probably at least 2 or 3 times that today.

I work about 20-40 hours a week on Wikipedia. By my guess, about 100 people at the English Wikipedia do so also, and an equal number at the others. That's 150 full time equivalents. There's probably about twice the work form people who work about half as much. and at least twice that additional from the other regular contributors. Counting only these groups, that's about $40 million worth of contributed labor.

The WMF has 27 employees. The total budget is spent 1/3 on wages, 1/3 on computer costs, and 1/3 on general operations. [3] The computer costs would be higher except for donated services here also.

The additional cost in computer needs is a measure of our importance. The additional cost otherwise is a measure of our growing professionalism and increasing standards. My estimate is that for current scale of operation, and style of working, the proper budget should be about double; it would take us a few years to adsorb that grown.

If you want to comment, give them $1 and add your comment; they are all recorded and available. DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you David. I donated $20 and voiced my concern, which is basically one of timely sensitivity. EJ-- EJohn59 ( talk) 01:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, it's not normally like me to close such debates, but I felt I had a responsibility there. I can only hope that I made the right decision ... and for the right reasons. Arbitrarily0 ^{( talk)} 23:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I think you did do it right, and for reasons that most people here will support. I expect to see it in the usual place, but by then there will be a number of additional sources published, & they will support your position yet further. That it does meet one event by being more than one is now indisputable. Without that, I think it would still hold, but fewer will agree with me. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi David. I haven't had many occasions to interact with you of late, but I wanted to express my appreciation for your good work on the encyclopedia. Take care and enjoy your holidays. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 21:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey David, I have updated the article with your comments in mind and have added a reference of Adam Lyons appearing on CBS. Any thoughts on this, and improving the article would be good. It might just be the effort I have put into the article talking, but I am convinced the notability is good enough! Anyway, I hope the update has improved the article somewhat DRosin ( talk) 23:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I thought you might be interested to peruse User:Sherurcij/books; it's just an informal listing of books that "we", being the few who seem to constantly find ourselves in terrorist biographies, may find appealing. I'd like to list the "bad" books as well as the "good" ones so that we know where we can invest money in knowledge, not waste it in vain. If you have a couple books yourself to add to the list (or want to add an alternate review of a book where you violently disagree with my characterization), please feel free - I may import it over to Wikiproject:Terrorism in the future if it becomes a viable resource. Please do limit it only to books you have read cover-to-cover, not ones you have only cherrypicked through for information. Thanks! Sherurcij ^{( speaker for the dead)} 21:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I'm glad you like it. Feel free to use it as much as you like, just so long as you change the link from my talk page to yours (heh, heh) . Kind regards, Spitfire ^Tally-ho! 19:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply

yes that was a temptation; it would shorten my talk page considerably, especially if I did it with all my similar messages as well, DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I simply repeated the reason it was deleted for previously. So what does apply? Eeekster ( talk) 04:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply

The first step is seeing if the work is by any chance notable , so the content can be redirected. I went looking for the work in which he appears, and it's a series of almost unknown youtube videos. It is therefore deleteable as db-web, another part of A7, and I would have done so, had you not rushed to AfD; and since it is so clearly non notable web content, and the article created by the creator of the web series also, I would have salted it against re-creation. Had it been a character in any other genre, it would have had to go to prod or AfD.--in this case AfD, since it would be contested. It's a nuisance, but there is no other way to tell whether the work might, after all, be notable--speedy has been proposed for such a case, but , rightly, rejected--we'd lose too many rescuable articles, but for web content, almost none of them are rescuable. When you do go to AfDE over such a case, remember to follow WP:BEFORE. The most unlikely things turn out to be notable sometimes, and it's always worth at least a google check. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Itsalwayssunnyinstow's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(Dec 7)

David, I was thinking that the WP:VPM discussion I linked above may interest you with regards to Wikipedia and research, being a librarian and all that. MuZemike 21:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC) reply

This is a bit of boilerplate with which I'm contacting the folks most involved in the original discussion. I have no vested interest in the outcome. Hi, it's been nearly three years, but maybe you remember the fuss over the dab page Les Balsiger and the article Les Balsiger (activist). In a nutshell, to the best of my recollection, a college administrator with the same name as an anti-Catholic activist contacted Wikipedia after attempting to disambiguate himself from the activist. The administrator is a fine person, but as-of-yet non-notable.

In what was more-or-less an official Wikimedia Foundation action by User:BradPatrick, who was the foundation's legal counsel at the time, it was determined that a dab page should be created despite the fact that it didn't fit in with MOS:DABRL. Now a user insists that the Les Balsiger (activist) page be redirected to the Les Balsiger dab page. That is the current state of pages. I didn't agree with the initial decision that we needed a dab page, but I wish to uphold the decision made at the Afd. Should we reopen the Afd, or has the issue run its course?

Here are some links to the relevant history (not necessarily in chronological order): Talk:Les Balsiger (activist), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Balsiger (disambiguation), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Balsiger, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Balsiger (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive173#Previously deleted Les Balsiger article reincarnated as a defamatory attack article -- on the wrong target?, and this short note regarding closing the Afd on the dab page.

Brad Patrick indicates that he's no longer to be contacted about Wikipedia legal matters, so I will be e-mailing this message to Mike Godwin via info-en at wikimedia dot org.

If the pages are kept in their current state, a history page merge may be in order and/or the talk pages need to be put in the correct places.

Let's discuss this at Talk:Les Balsiger (disambiguation) to keep it all in once place.

P.S. DGG, I know you weren't that involved in this, but I saw your name in one of the Afds and I always value your opinion. (Even if I don't always agree!) Cheers, Katr67 ( talk) 18:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your speedy response. Could you restore this version to preserve the original hatnote, if you see fit? Thanks! Katr67 ( talk) 20:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Could you put the wikilink back in it too? :) Katr67 ( talk) 21:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I am new at dealing with the admin buttons, and wonder why you did not remove the CSD template when adding the GNU documentation to that article. The source does not itself appear to be in violation of copyright, which I thought would make the copy here legitimate once attribution is satisfied (well, and notability, but that is not a speedy deletion issue). Regards, - 2/0 ( cont.) 00:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Just my carelessness. I've fixed it, thanks for reminding me. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I sent this article to WP:Copyright violations. The source is released under GFDL 1.2 only which per WP:Licensing update#Content restrictions is considered a copyright violation. -- Bluemask ( talk) 04:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I have done what I can; my own personal opinion is that anyone who publishes with the clear intent to give a free license has published in conformity with us. I am under no delusion that this is policy, but it ought to be. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Can you tell us your opinion of this author (also known as Ove Michaelsen), please? Bearian ( talk) 21:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply

so I did. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I've had a go at cleaning up the above article. If you would like to have another look to see whether this affects your comments at the AfD that would be great. Cheers. Quantpole ( talk) 10:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

good job you did with it. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Turqoise127's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Turqoise127 ( talk) 15:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

can you please vote again on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uwe_Kils_(3rd_nomination). Best wishes Uwe Kils 15:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Turqoise127's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Turqoise127 ( talk) 15:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

== Provocation? ==

Hi DGG

Your follow-up to this comment suggested that it was a "provocation". Do you care to clarify? My comment was a response to an implicit intention to move the article in question to mainspace, which will almost surely result in an AfD nomination (whether or not mine) given the topic's history.

Regards, ^Bongo _matic 02:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Tone seemed that way to me, in view of previous discussions about it. If I was wrong, I apologize. You will notice that I said in my comment that your advice to him was correct. You will also note what I said about the article. I try to be evenhanded. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

It was not a complaint of an unfair charge, but a request for your opinion, which I value. I suppose the redlink comment could have been interpreted as sarcastic, but the rest was intended to be honest advice about the inevitability of a deletion discussion if the article is released in this form. ^Bongo _matic 02:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I think you have the wrong user. I didn't understand your comment. Jmckeon ie ( talk) 07:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

A while back ago, you were involved in a discussion about how to refer to the United States Geographical locations on wikipedia. A similar discussion is taking place here. Any comments on this topic would be helpful.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 00:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello, DGG! This is just a note thanking you for participating in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with a total of 93 support !votes, 1 oppose and 3 editors remaining neutral. While frankly overwhelmed by the level of support, I humbly thank the community for the trust it has placed in me, and vow to use the tools judiciously and without malice. KV5 ( Talk • Phils)

Thanks for rescuing the British International School of Stavanger from speedy deletion! I like librarians! Janbrogger ( talk) 09:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I noticed you responded to both AfDs (that one and the Johanna one) on the Kaspar AfD. You might want to put a reference on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johanna van Beethoven‎ because I worry that someone closing the two separately could overlook your comment that's directed towards it. Shadowjams ( talk) 19:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

thanks--I had thought it was a combination AfD. took care of it. DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

No, you didn't. Currently it's unanimous delete. Hans Adler 21:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

forgot to save. Did it now. DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

DGG, you're a sharp reader with great reserves of patience and whose opinions (if any) on Brazilian matters are completely unknown to me; can I invite you as either editor or administrator (preferably not both) to look at Talk:White Brazilian (also currently near the top of WP:AN/I)?

(I'm sending a related message to Orlady.) -- Hoary ( talk) 01:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply

A fastidious and helpful comment. Thank you! -- Hoary ( talk) 02:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply

You were involved in a discussion regarding the use of copyrighted architectural designs on Wikipedia pages and I'm trying to find community consensus on a gray area. If you can, please let me know at what point you feel these images should be replaced here. Thank you so much! DR04 ( talk) 19:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I saw your thoughtful comment on ANI. To me, BLP is a balance. I'm a little surprised that the article, with potential BLP problems, became a FA with not very much discussion about BLP. (disclaimer: on the other hand, I haven't submitted an article to become FA). Maybe the review process is centered too much on technical issues and not much overall consideration. Some reviews are so focused on getting the references in the right order and grammatical errors that the larger issues may not be covered.

It's not my goal to censor articles nor to promote the latest in hot gossip and negative information. I'm just a little interested in getting BLP issues addressed in any article. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 16:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I do not participate in FA, as i am not comfortable with some aspects of the way they go about it, not just this one. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I submitted my block to discussion, and adjusted it in line with consensus on ANI. If you unilaterally unblock now, you are ignoring that consensus and liable to cause more drama. Make your case on ANI, and I, for one, will respect consensus.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 17:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply

the more serious issue is that you should not have taken admin action at all in a discussion you were involved in, and the subsequent defense of the actions demonstrates the over-involvement. But I do not intend to get over-involved in this myself. DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Since I know you have in the past expressed a positive interest in the Saga of the Skolian Empire, I though I'd inform you about this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jagernaut. Debresser ( talk) 15:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC) reply

interested in having adequate articles, no interest in the fiction except as the discussion may perhaps encourage me to see why a series including a Nebula award winning novel has such extraordinarily scanty coverage--even the main article is redirected to the author. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, perhaps the main article should not redirect to the author like that. It's weird that Debresser is the one that merged it, then undid my redirects. I would support a consolidation of all these scattered pieces into a reconstituted main article. Abductive ( reasoning) 18:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Or perhaps a few reasonably organized ones. I did not support the continuation of the article as a separate page. The only reason i would support such pages is as a defense against loss of content through inadequate merges--as is implied by your comment, they're much less visible than AfD discussions. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I have nominated the above page for deletion here, back in 2007 you participated in another AfD on the same page here the result of which was to delete. Just thought I should let you know. Codf1977 ( talk) 17:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I said weak keep before--as I just said, it's a clearer keep now. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Nikolai Bezroukov Hi Dgg, did you see this I added the search template and there was some primary stuff but little or no third party reliable sources. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I hadn't seen the noticeboard; when you have done a search & found nothing, say what you;ve checked in the prod or AfD nomination, so others know where to start looking (& give you credit for how well you work). I now know to check the academic databases. If I cant find something either, I'll send it to AfD. In general, for open source figures, AfD is preferable because someone is likely to notice & there are always debates about what counts as a RS in this subject. (As it happens, I already found a prominent person's extremely negative response to one of his papers, [4]--it's weird in a way that criticism like that might make one notable, but .... . I'll keep checking. ). DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Ta,for the advice as to search and tag so to speak. Perhaps he is borderline notable, I noticed this in the article.... Right now Bezroukov is more interested in eCommerce security, Perl and so-called "Orthodox File Managers" (Midnight Commander, etc.), a term he coined. ..a claim that it was him that coined the expression midnight commander..but if you go to the midnight commander article he is not mentioned. Off2riorob ( talk) 12:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply

that last criterion, of whether he is in a Wikipedia article, is unreliable in both directions. first, when someone does write a spammy COI article about themselves, it is quite usual for them to add themselves to some or all possibly relevant subject articles also. Second, our writing of subject articles is normally pretty sketchy and does usually not include all possibly notable contributors. For a n example, many more people are notable for having worked on DNA than those few famous people mentioned in the DNA article. His field is very tricky, and the decisions on who does and does not get kept have a tendency to seem less than straightforward to those not involved in the subject. I'm only very slightly involved, I think but am not sure I've seen him mentioned, and the only way is to do what one can and then, if not satisfied, take it to AfD. DGG ( talk ) 15:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply

No worries, wel give him some time to develop, regards. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply

TrutherTruther seems to be back to editing the Schlessinger page once again - now as 'ScienceAndTruth'. The edits are the same - trying to push the horribly defamatory 'wikileaks' link once again. I have edited to remove the defamatory connections (hope that was appropriate), but am concerned that this will move in the same direction as before TrutherTruther was blocked from editing. Any advice? Hillhealth ( talk) 07:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC) I just noticed that 'ScienceAndTruth' is actually also responsible for much of the defamatory material associated with the wikileaks link regarding Schlessinger (and other pretty outrageous postings on other sites Hillhealth ( talk) 08:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply

fixed. Next time notify me, please do not ever try to fix it yourself. DGG ( talk ) 18:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply

OK - thanks. I shall not try to fix again. Hillhealth ( talk) 23:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hope you'll indulge a casual drive-by question. (Saw you comment on a matter at ANI, and followed the link here.)

If I begin with random praise about librarians, it may surely sound like sucking up, but I have little notches in my brain linking the concepts of librarian and "important acts for freedom." (e.g., Not that I'm a huge fan of Michael Moore's, but I always remember the librarians who made sure "Stupid White Men" was published at that time.)

Anyway, my question is do you think there is a (natural?) correlation between the values/temperament of librarians and Equor administrators?

(Feel free to ignore, tis the holiday season and surely you've much else to do, and perhaps you may already answered this somewhere, if so, a link would a blessing.) In any case, happy holidays and many blessings in the coming year. -- Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC) reply

As a preliminary matter, yes, intellectual freedom and librarianship, at least in the US, are linked traditions. (It has been different elsewhere, such as the USSR.) But other people care equally--notably, most of the people who built up the web and free culture generally.

However, I wouldn't identify Wikipedia:Eguor admins with intellectual freedom specifically. Admins and other Wikipedians of all dispositions generally are almost all of us here because of our commitment to intellectual freedom in multiple ways--it's even one of our basic principles, as NOT CENSORED. The concept of Equor ( basically, anti-rogue ) is a little different--to use admin powers in a way that as careful and discreet, rather than heavy-handed and authoritarian. I do not actually agree with everything on that page--in one sense, adminship should indeed be regarded as a big deal, for the potential power of admins to harm Wikipedia is very great. But the point I have been trying to remind people of in recent weeks is that we do not exercise admin powers to express our view of what Wikipedia should be, but to enforce the consensus view of what Wikipedia should be. We don;t have to agree with it, but we cannot use the tools in opposition to it or regardless of it. I asked for the tools for two reasons originally: to check whether deleted articles could be rescued --with the community given another chance to decide if they were in fact rescuable, and to carry out the implied will of the community in removing ones that they obviously they would never support. Anything else I've done I've done incidentally--i will not pass over vandalism or disruption if I see it, but that's not what I go looking for (many others do, and they certainly should--we don't have to all emphasize the same things.) Unfortunately, all too many admins who work in all areas seem to regard themselves as infallible. They forget that we're not chosen for our great skill in policy--just the general knowledge of policy every active Wikipedian should have, but are needed primarily for having sound judgment and care in expressing it. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Smiling. Beautiful. (Don't mean to be gushing.) My eyes water sometimes when I read things that make good sense—in an environment where it's clear that you know such "reasonable" perspective sometimes appears to be nonexistent. I care very much about "saying things well." In the holiday gift you have taken your time to give me, I have found beautiful fragments to savor. And wish the whole of your remarks was more representative of the rank of the bit than, sadly, it can ever be. My sincere thanks. (And see previous closing:-) Proofreader77 ( talk) 03:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah, well said. The other key issue is (if one is entrusted with admin tools) is calming rather than inflaming heated debates, such as dealing to aggrieved editors who have blown a gasket. This is a key headache which needs looking at from time to time. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, I was completely satisfied with that beautiful exchange of gift and thanks, but then Casliber's comment "dragged me back in." :)

I guess my reaction in a nutshell is that most admins (present company excepted, by all means, if you wish exception) often seem to be the wrong animal to calm the waters — many believing there is only one species, and it's their kind. :-)

But I can only say that nut's worth after having written the below, which you can skim if you like, or just gaze across the waters. Cheers.
-- Proofreader77 ( talk) 06:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Calming the waters (and don't forget the ark :-)

(Whether the below seems a gift or a bane, perhaps it is useful to leave a bit of my own thinking behind, so you know who it was that was thankful for our exchange.)

(Excuse my return after exit, but do want to riff off Casliber's idea ... )

Perhaps I should add something about that, since if you look, there is a recently added "Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar" on my user page ... which was awarded to me by an admininistrator who had an aforementioned "aggrieved editor" blowing some gasket on her talk page ... and I stepped in softly ... in the holiday spirit ... and offered a genuine deluxe apology to whomever wanted one ... with the option that if necessary I would eat dirt and wash my mouth out with soap." ... An improvisation of the moment, based on my rhetorical perspective and etc.

I got not only the barnstar, but pats on the back by others who had witnessed this little grace note, which calmed that puddle.

But I'm not an admin, and if I was, it would not be the same ... which is to say, that it's not necessarily the fact that admins should be the water calmers ... since they are the deux ex machina of Wikipedia power ... or, perhaps, should be ... rather than someone in the midst of the fray, who just happens to be able to block you, etc

Clearly, there are more complex matters of water calming — and some wave patterns which cannot be calmed at all ... and must be allowed to crash themselves on the rocks until they tire. (But, I must admit, some do not get tired. Hard problem.)

On a more abstract note, one thing that I think gets lost in a lot of the "pointless" contention (and civility breaches, and threats of blocks, and baiting, and forced submission lol have I covered it all?) ... is that different people are different animals — and I just saw an admin block someone because they "didn't get the point" of what an editor was doing. Not quite fair description since there were many such points — but we must note that some admins thought the actions were humorous enough to improve the Wikipedia community environment with much needed lightness ... and other admins thought was disruptive behavior which only annoyed and certainly not something to be approved of.

We're talking about "different animals" of course. Whether some personality inventory would be helpful or harmful in pondering the various species, I don't know. But I do believe we need to think about those distinctions, somehow.

Well, that's much more than I meant to say. In brief: (1) Admins may not be the best water calmers, because they have power to not need to calm waters, just threaten and act. (2) What Admins should be somehow screened for or helped to see the light about ... is that the person they are feeling like threatening, may simply be an animal the admin does not "grasp" the purpose of.

Oh well, it appears I've rewarded a gift, with a flood. Ah, see the waves. lol Bless you both, and good fortune.
-- Proofreader77 ( talk) 06:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey DGG, another AfD similar to the Adam Lyons is going on, would appreciate your thoughts on it, as similar meatpuppetry seems to be going on.

Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeremy_Soul DRosin ( talk) 19:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• lol I was pretty surprised you voted Weak Keep, I thought after your comments on Adam Lyons about how all the sources are PR pieces that you would have a field day with Jeremy Soul. If you do a rough translation of the Afterposten the whole article is a big puff piece and Soul features in only one sentence from what I remember. Anyway, glad we've converted you to the seduction community finally!  : P DRosin ( talk) 11:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I ended up saying keep on the Lyons article also. In practice, when notability is borderline, people here --myself included-- tend to take account of whether a reasonable article is possible. When the Lyons article was cleaned, it was enough to change my opinion. When I saw the Soul article, it was in acceptable shape also--looking now, it may have been, if anything, over-cleaned. If one wants to keep a possibly dubious article in poor condition, the best strategy is to immediately improve it. Clean up is also often done by people who try, and conclude after working on it that it is impossible. Those people who are set on deletion generally dont even try to improve it, sometimes to try to incline people to deletion, but also sometimes on the very reasonable ground that the effort would be wasted. there's a limit on what I will try to fix also--it is sometimes better to start over. DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• • I see what you mean. I think what must have influenced my mind is all the sockpuppets that seem to have carried over from the Adam Lyons AfD. 9 accounts have been blocked now, and the Jeremy Soul AfD is pretty close to turning into a farce. I actually think with the cleanup the article is almost good enough, but all the sockpuppetry kind of grates with me. DRosin ( talk) 10:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• • • • I understand that also. But I've seen in my own field a few cases of articles for reasonably notable professors where their students all come on as sockpuppets, and the article almost gets lost because of that. Fans like that are a hazard to anyone. Sometimes we've simply closed the AfD and restarted, wither immediately or a few weeks later, which can help. We should perhaps do this more often when the AfD is badly contaminated. DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply

As you know, DGG, you have my sincere thanks for your words on my behalf at the recent block review. Take care, and happy editing to you! Dekkappai ( talk) 21:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johanna van Beethoven
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaspar Anton Karl van Beethoven

Just to let you know that both articles have now been re-listed, with the request to clarify each editor's present position. -- Jubilee♫ clipman 00:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't consider myself Proof's "opponent". But he just seems to amplify drama on matters I and others consider closed, including keeping that page which somewhat resembles an arbitration statement against me and others. He keeps hinting at arbitration too ("As I think I mentioned, there will most likely be an Arbcom about several things (...)"). Parts of the statement I've initially made in that (now archived) ANI thread were indeed incorrect, but I've struck those after Proof answered some direct questions; his convoluted way of communication initially mislead me about his intentions. That isn't too apparent from his "sandboxed" story, which he now promised to "improve" with the MfD nomination (in more doublespeak). I think WP:UP#NOT.10 was intended exactly to prevent this sort of spiraling situation, people keeping storytales about other's wrongdoings that don't allow a fair chance to reply due to userspace privileges. I didn't want to write all this in that MfD because I thought most of it was self-evident, and that the page should be judged on its own merits, not serve to further interpersonal conflicts. Pcap ping 07:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I do not want to try to decide who was right about whatever the underlying matters may have been, nor about who was or was not reasonable in the prior discussions. I do know that if one wants to achieve closure, it is not a good idea to bring up new peripheral matters. It's counterproductive. Nobody much besides perhaps the people involved would have ever noticed the page, and now it is very much otherwise. I made a suggestion here about what should be done with at least some of the material there that would resolve the situation, and perhaps the user involved will agree with me about the advisability of moving the material off-wiki--regardless of whether the community thinks he has the right to keep it on-wiki. DGG ( talk ) 09:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC) . reply

Perhaps a gesture of good will on my behalf would be to withdraw the MfD nomination, since Proof already got ample advice on alternatives for keeping his evidence, even though he might interpret the withdrawal as another WP:WIN for him. But my reading of the ( improved) WP:SK is that it won't make any difference unless I convince the other editor who !voted delete to change his !vote too. I'm not sure this is appropriate... Pcap ping 12:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply

You do not need to convince the other editor. Just withdraw,and let him know you withdrew & see what happens. Someone else can SNOW on that basis. As for WIN, it's not helpful to interpret his win as your loss, & all you can do about what he thinks is to think sensibly yourself. DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hiya. You participated in a previous deletion discussion regarding this, so may like to know that it has cropped up again. Thanks. Quantpole ( talk) 16:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply

The December 2009 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Alan16 ( talk) 15:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply

That's a pretty ridiculous decline. "Possibly a notable figure in his area?" Do you have any reason to believe that he is, and if so, why didn't you edit it into the article?

As it stands, there are only 21 G-hits for d'Agier, each and every one of them Wiki mirrors of this article, and zero hits for "Henri d'Agier," which you'd think would be more likely. There are no articles under either name on the French Wikipedia. Did you take even a moment to investigate this, or are you just assuming any article which claims to be about a "historical" figure is prima facie notable?  RGTraynor  19:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply

notability does not have to be proven to pass speedy--in fact, notability isn;t even required. Just some indication of plausible importance. It's a very low bar, and deliberately so. I have no idea whether it will pass AfD, but it would depend on what could be found by a proper search in print sources. Ghits are not really relevant for his period--even gbooks has very scanty coverage of French sources. In particular, if he is included in a French general or reliable biographic encyclopedia, he would be notable, because Wikipedia includes everything that is in conventional encyclopedias. DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply

You are invited to join the discussion at [ AFD] for Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, since you have participated in the last AFD. Teeninvestor ( talk) 21:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply

He apeared in several mags and newpapers like the L.A. Times for his work and should be on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteSmith81 ( talk • contribs) 07:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply

File:Father Winter Solstice.jpg

Ret.Prof ( talk) 13:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! reply

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

DGG, Cirt and I are agreed that the NPOV tag at Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry could be removed now. However, as you were the one who placed it, I did not want to remove it without your consent. Could you have a look whether the changes Cirt and I have made have addressed your original concerns? -- JN 466 21:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I am slightly disturbed about a recent edit to this article, which is technically acceptable but seems unconstructive. You may want to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nigeria#Update needed. Not important... Aymatth2 ( talk) 02:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your input. I added some clarification of my concerns. I have been churning out a lot of these thumbnail bios lately, and would prefer not to see them all decorated in the same way. But it is not important - I will leave it and move on. Aymatth2 ( talk) 16:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Apologies, I wasn't aware articles couldn't ever be re-prodded, should have just gone to AfD. I'll give the merge request chance to come to fruition before I evoke an AfD. Rehevkor ✉ 02:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Also, the articles The Gathering Storm (Battletech Episode), Well Bargained and Done and Retribution (Battletech Episode) are indeed eligible for (now expired?) prod as they haven't been prodded before as far as I can see. Rehevkor ✉ 02:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply

the rules are a little peculiar here, but this one is actually rational: the basic rule is that a prod can be stopped by anyone objecting, and if someone objected a little earlier, they are likely to object still. As for any that may not have been prodded before, expired prods are not automatically deleted, but reviewed first, as I was doing. For them, merge is still better than prod--these seem very likely merge candidates. If I can help by saying so somewhere, just tell me when and where. I certainly do not think those articles can possibly stand as they are--they would much more reasonably each be one or two paragraphs in a combination article. There's some dispute about the propriety of using AfD to force merges, and you are likely to get some flack over it from some, while others will support you. I certainly will admit, that the threat of a possible deletion can be a very strong argument to induce people to be willing to accept a merge, especially since what happens at AfD is unpredictable. DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Cheers for the clarification. I'll keep an eye on how the situation unfolds. Rehevkor ✉ 02:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Point well taken on Visalia Country Club. I was burned checking over things to add a related SPI case... and I'll admit I cut it short. Honestly I expected the article creator to have it off quickly; I just wish they left edit summaries. I'm entirely standing by a few of my other tags though... such as a shopping mall on AfD (though I remember a shopping mall that did get through an earlier per historical reference), and some fluff/padding I cut out a few places. The category for the city looks way better than it used to under sock control and I've been leaving any neighborhoods, etc. that even have any kind secondary/high schools in them, even though cities this size typically don't get such neighborhood detail. Thanks for saving me the head pounding in a week and getting it over with in 1 day, and at least I know it's a familiar voice behind the advice. Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Happy Holidays to you and yours DGG. Turqoise127 ( talk) 17:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC) --- reply

Noticed you participated in the discussion ... Yes, clarification of policy. (See: WP:Civility/Poll :-)

FYI: You may have noticed the topic was archive-locked. Regarding how that happened, you may skim my Comment in response to the premature archive-lock near top of older version of page (now reverted as "disruptive editing," of course — which I expected, given the givens).

(If that's too long, try Abraham Lincoln's dog tail joke above it. :-)

No intervention requested. "All this" has to be dealt with at Arbcom. (Or so it would seem. :-)

-- Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

on the basis of what has happened before, whoever goes to arbcom about it is likely to regret it. DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Speaking from a broader array of past and present information, I disagree with the "whoever" and "regret," — since that will be me, and I am usually good at probabilities in rhetorical situations. But in any case, "regret" is not a word I have much familiarity with.

Ah, one thing perhaps you might consider, since you have some feeling on whether that topic at AN was worthwhile, or merely disruptive — perhaps take a quick look at this topic on Abecedaare's page re COI (since my comment referred to Abecedare's actions, it might be better if someone else reverted the comment). I have also informed Gwen Gale, but there is also the problem of COI there with regard to an Arbcom.

But surely feel free to ignore all this. I will not make a habit bringing such information to your page — it is only because of your commenting within the now-archived topic ... which yielded this little essay by admin X!:
Wikipedia:Thou shalt not block for being mocked.

One last assurance about anything to come: It will be convivial.
-- Proofreader77 ( talk) 21:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I think you misunderstand. The underlying justice of the case has little to do with it. To paraphrase a well known saying about revenge, when instituting formal process, expect both parties to lose. DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

"Justice" is easy here: Just remove improper restrictions imposed at improper ANI. While I think there would be a certain poetic justice in a ruling that required the German (logician) editor (English level 3) who devised the restrictions (first I'd heard of him was this rudeness on my talk page) for the rhetorical American (Proofreader77) ... to compose an English sonnet explaining how rhetoricians are not to be bothered by analytic philosophers with a bad (talk like me! or else!) attitude ... I will not be seeking any "revenge" ... and don't believe in it. (Christian, postmodern, but fudamentals apply:).

As for Gwen Gale, who has been my informal adviser at Wikipedia since my beginning, who turned bad fairy for various (social) reasons which probably don't need to be explored ... she just made a misjudgment. It happens. Big deal. But just noting that the only previous communication on MY talk page (rather than hers) has been (1) Cookies, (2) Happy birthday (with a small disproving twist regarding "cake"), and (3) Editing restrictions. That's all I've ever heard from her on my talk page up to the imposition of editing restrictions.

As for my initial ANI prosecutor User:Llywrch (with whom there is an old peripheral "conflict" - one comment on my talk — which I will be happy to clarify for all) ... he has a new baby, and while it might be good thing for him to take time off from Wikipedia with a nice siteban for his rhetorical crimes against me (those may have to be illustrated, because they are conduct unbecoming an administrator) ... but I will seek nothing other than retraction of his mis-characterizations of Proofreader77.

Yada yada yada, there's some few more characters but ...

As I've assured User:Gwen Gale: All will be convivial.

BIG PICTURE: Some admins demand others be just like them. Some don't like humor. Way too much abuse of WP:Civility as justification for bad behavior by admins.

Freedom of difference in communication style on talk pages.

No, can't resolve all that... But what can be resolved is whether what Proofreader77 does is good for the community — or so bad he should be sitebanned (as was ridiculously asserted by some of the above) can be determined by Arbcom.

If Proofreader77 is found "not guilty" of alleged "crimes," that would be (I assert) good for the conversation environment of wikipeida — and be a step towards some improvement in problematic areas (like ANI, which is often a bazaar of cubbyholes where unpleasant things happen, rather than a place where "the community" decides anything.)

Clearly, I will be more concise at Arbcom. :-) Cheers. (excuse typos ... much work to do) Proofreader77 ( talk) 00:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Since you participated in the DRV for Secret Maryo Chronicles, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Maryo Chronicles (3 nomination). Tim Song ( talk) 07:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

seems to have gone perfectly well without me. DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I have friends who produce one almost every day. And most are not notable even to them after a little while. You probably mean "all released versions of windows are notable". Regards. Pcap ping 09:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

yes, that is what I meant. DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm afraind the this ancient gripe is still valid today. I've recently got involved with software AfDs again, something I used to do a year a back, but got tired of it. Your comments there that these guys !vote "delete unsourced" or similar in spite of obvious evidence, or keep arguing that sources are unreliable over and over ignoring evidence to the contrary ring true to me. Given the length of time this has been going on, I think arbitration is the only way out of this. Alternatively a topic ban (software AfDs) on WP:AN may be attempted, but I think it will degenerate in WP:TLDR, just like that ANI thread. Pcap ping 11:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

( talk page stalker) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf is also about behavioral issues with those two editors, so you might want to consider participating there. Regards So Why 12:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• (ec) On the other hand, it looks like JB sometimes changes his mind, so arbitration may be premature. But his noms are sometimes ridiculous ( Notepad++, aMSN), and I've never seen him or Miami make the effort to add a source to a software article, or to other types of articles for that matter. Make enough ridiculous noms and some will get through, like it happened with aMSN... Pcap ping 12:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Arb com will now do whatever they decide to do. There is no real need for anyone to say anything further. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply

David, as a significant contributor to the Shepherd AfD process, you might also be interested in the conversation here. Simon Kidd ( talk) 15:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply

You deprodded this article a couple of months ago, and it is now at AfD.

I just thought you'd want to know. -- Blanchardb - ^{Me• MyEars• MyMouth}- timed 17:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I would like to get an independent review of this my edit [5]. I'm presented my arguments in my BLP/N report here [6]. Outside opinion would be most appreciated. Thank you. M0RD00R ( talk) 22:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply

commented at BLPN DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Since the controversy section in Alina Cala article has been restored [7] now, I would like to ask some follow up questions - when you said that Alina Cala's interview is usable did you mean that the interview itself is a notable event and merits its own section in biographical article, or did you mean that article is usable to establish Alina Cala's opinion on certain historical events, or did you mean something entire different? Thank you. M0RD00R ( talk) 18:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG, Just FYI: Take a look at this SPI case. Absent the bogeyman of "cheerleader vandals" why did User:Jess Selders 2012 get indef blocked? A 2 minute Google search show that there is a Jessica Selders at Charlotte High. Let's not get into this bans are just blocks etc bullshit. PCHS-NJROTC is quickly undoing all of their edits relating to this "ban", so I think they see the problem. — Preceding text originally posted on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:PCHS-NJROTC_has_unilaterally_declared_another_user_to_be_.22banned.22 by Delicious carbuncle ( talk⋅ contribs) 05:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC) (UTC) This ofcourse relates solely to the Jess_Selders_2012 account, and attempting to connect other accounts to that name may constitute outing, that is really not for me to say. Unomi ( talk) 07:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm only concerned about the outing aspect. I don;t generally get involved withsockpuppet investigations. DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply

A Nobody ^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, -- A Nobody ^{My talk} 04:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG,

First and foremost - happy holiday. Second please advise me on what I may do to make my stub article worthy of publishing within Wikipedia. I have read several of the resources and even followed the content of similar stubs such as the 'Clark Material Handling' stub and the currently posted 'Yale' one. My interest in posting the information stems out of wanting to explain the history of A-Prime and how it became to be what it is today from a different name. Additionally, I am interested in listing a few of the products that fall under the 'Material Handling' company and further explaining them. My original post is below, please offer your guidance:

A-Prime Handling, Inc Located in the Industrial Park of Avon, MA A-Prime Handling, Inc. (more commonly known as "A-Prime") is a national facility service, sales and installation company for material handling products. It's core business consists of selling, coordinating, delivering, servicing and installing the material handling products that it provides as well as those already owned by its clients. Essentially moving a retailer's products from their mode of delivery to their final destination.
History

Founded in 1977, with just two employees, A-Prime Handling, Inc. started as a pallet rack and mezzanine installation company known as Master Installers. It's founder and current company president, Michael Zelman started the company after working in the material handling industry for several years. However, the actual A-Prime Handling, Inc. enterprise did not exist until January 1990 as a result of Michael Zelman's desire to start selling material handling products in addition to simply installing them. Then, because of A-Prime Handling, Inc.'s success and increased recognition within the material handling industry, Michael Zelman decided to consolidate the businesses leaving Master Installers to fade away in 2004 and operate under the A-Prime Handling, Inc. name.

Today, A-Prime Handling, Inc. is a national material handling facility service and product provider, hired by leading retailers within the US, Canada and Puerto Rico.

Material Handling Products

• Balers
• Overhead Doors
• Dock Equipment
• Conveyors
• Vertical Lifts
• Scissor Docks
• Pallet Racks
• Mezzanines
• Handicap & Wheelchair Lifts

References

^[1]

External links

A-Prime Handling, Inc. 

Kindest regards ZFrost ( talk) 18:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Sadly, the author seems to have left the project for the last few days. Hoping he'll return, I meanwhile found enough to create an article on the book's author in order to remove a redlink at the above. The man is apparently one of, if not THE, expert on Irish film and Irish film history. I also believe that at least three other of his tomes also may merit articles. Please look in at Kevin Rockett and advise. Best wishes, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Good news: He's back!. Hope he's been enjoying the holidays. But please look in at Kevin Rockett yourself if you have the time. I do not believe I made any major BLP blunders, but always appreciate another set of eyes. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I normally do not support making articles for ordinarily notable non-fiction books; According to our current policy, we would be able to justify one for any book with a few substantial reviews, but I think that we should generally not do that. We should think of our inclusion policy here and elsewhere not as getting as many separate articles as we possibly can justify, but getting the necessary articles to appropriately cover a topic. The goal is including the information, in reasonable arrangement. The difficulty here is that our "notability" guideline is interpreted by the outside world as implying notability in the ordinary sense of the word. Therefore whether or not someone or something gets an individual article is a measure of its significance or importance. This is what makes it difficult to decide rationally on content. DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Really? In an ideal world, what would you do with the two articles here? Merge The Irish Filmography to Kevin Rockett? Abductive ( reasoning) 19:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Tricky one this, the book in question is more of a big almanacky-type thing..and the person is the eidtor not the owner. But still, maybe merging to the person (?) if not a stand-alone. The analogy I am thinking of is Leonard Maltin sort of..actually his books don't have an article... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello, I am asking that the Rodney Glassman Wikipedia page be taken off protection. There is a newly written article that I believe meets the standards for Wikipedia and includes more sources then the original article in question. If you would like to review it that can also be arranged. I would like to post the article with all the requirements so that this does not occur again.

Mbellovin ( talk) 00:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Mbellovin 12/24/09 reply

After Jan 4, please. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Having a minor issue in the Jediism article. An editor is considering simply naming a book and making a WL to it as properly sourcing it. Along with that, he attacked the editor that made the previous edit. [8] I reverted and explained that it wasn't a proper citation.. He then went in and reverted it. [9] I did a second revert, explaining that he needed to show which version of the book, what page etc. He reverted again. [10] Then he decided to vandalize my user page [11]. Perhaps a word from you would be of assistance. Niteshift36 ( talk) 03:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply

More important, considering it's a novel so could it possibly say what any of the RL believers actually believe? The user seems a little over-attached to that article. DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I've taken Talat Waseem over to AfD. You may want to join the discussion. Cheers, Steamroller Assault ( talk) 20:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Coffee's talk page.
Message added 20:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. reply

Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Could look at Centericq and tell me if the ISSNs of those two Czech sites are real? Neither is recognized by worldcat. Of course, an ISSN by itself doesn't make a source reliable or not, but the sites clearly are popular by traffic from the Czech republic (by Alex ranking). Pcap ping 04:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

The remarkably loose requirements are at [12]. I'd trust Alexa in this field. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

At least it says that personal web logs are no eligible (in red) :-) I found more well-known sources for that article in the mean time, so the issue is fairly moot now, but good to know. Pcap ping 05:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Greetings! Over the last few months user Eik Corell has been gutting game pages of relevant content, and has just recently done it again. He has been warned more than once, but continues to do so. See the following edit, in which he removes a lot of information thats vital to the game [13]. Furthermore he seemingly targets games based in the Tribes franchise. He has guttted both the Starsiege Tribes and Tribes 2 pages, now the Fallen Empire: Legions page. Is there anything that can be done? EvanVolm —Preceding undated comment added 06:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC). reply

I do not actually work on these articles much, as I do not feel comfortable making detailed edits on games I have never played--and I do not play RPGs. Biut my general observations as a reader coming across these articles is that he is generally correct:

For Fallen Empire: Legions , I would support his edits. Individual weapons can be listed, but information on how to use them is probably better condensed. Try writing it in a single paragraph: The basic weapon is X, a tactical rifle; other guns with related properties include the sniper rifle Y, the machine gun Z, ....

For Starsiege: Tribes the information about patches was similarly too detailed. For Tribes 2, the material he removed also seems to have been out of proportion. In each case, my suggestion is to try to present it, but very much more briefly. DGG ( talk ) 14:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

You're misrepresenting this. First of all, I have received no such warnings. That is a lie. If you check the pages where I detailed my reasons, like the talk page of Starsiege: Tribes, you'll see that it's your viewpoint that was opposed, not mine. The only reason there were others agreeing with you was because some editor engaged in meatpuppetry. That's what this will lead to, and that's the reason I'm not going to respond to your allegations - Because they're bull. Just for good measure, check out the archived talk page of the Starsiege: Tribes article here: [14]. That is why I'm reluctant to take up this issue again - My side was favored, and citing the rules I operate by just leads to a debate about how the rules are evil or about how I am evil. That's called Ad-hominem by the way, it's when you attack the person instead of the the argument. I was going to write something about converting lists stuff to prose, but I can't be bothered because it will lead nowhere, as it did on those talk pages. I want to write something more here to seem sincere and interested in resolving this issue, but I'm really not as good faith went out the window long ago with you a long time ago. Eik Corell ( talk) 16:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply