Thank you for the feedback on the Catholic Encyclopedia template. It was a good point on putting the tag on the talk page rather the main page, which I will do in future. If you would like to go on the talk page on Catholic Encyclopedia project page if you have any other thoughts:

Wikipedia_talk:Catholic_Encyclopedia_topics#A_proposal_for_clearing_up_blue_links

JASpencer 21:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, i googled these commons:Category:Mainz psalter -- Cherubino 03:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC) reply

reply, criteria for deletion

(re-posted here for convenience--answered at Forsfrom talk.) I did recheck the criterion on speedy, and I of course find it as you say, and, in my view, incompatible with every statement about notability everywhere else in WP. And I do check speedies, and for things I recognize as notable and think can be clearly demonstrated as notable I go to the trouble of putting in a appropriate statement in what seems to be the expected language, and often do some editing to the article as well (I make no attempt to do this systematically unless I recognize something & think it can be defended, which is about 1 per day.)

I do not always get all of the procedure right yet, but I try. I notice some of the others in the debate were also unfamiliar with the provision. Perhaps those who have been editing a very long while learn to accept the odd parts and even the incompatibilities as part of WP life. I hope you're glad that new people are becoming active. If you will look at my edits you will see that they tend to compromise. I dislike the intensity of many quarrels here & have no intention of getting involved in them unless I can help reach a solution.

I recognize the usefulness of speedy in obvious cases, but I see it also being applied to non-obvious cases, and I will perhaps make some comments on that. I also plan to collect & analyze some data about the consistency of deletion practice, but not for a month or two when I'll have the time. I know some others are also looking at how well the various procedures work from a variety of angles. I have some background at that sort of analysis. That will of course be OR, and treated as such.

I intend this as a start of a friendly discussion, and if you have any suggestions I will be interested,and I even hope perhaps that you'd feel like joining the analysis. Two judgments are better than one, especially from people of different backgrounds. I like doing this sort of thing as a group.. which is one reason I'm here. Which talk page should we continue at? DGG 16:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply

DGG, btw Master of the Playing Cards was speedily deleted, after about 5 mins, by the over-enthusiatic User:Firefoxman, who in the same session had also managed to S-delete Rede Lecture by User:Charles Matthews which was already in a quite advanced form. Oddly enough, CM got an apology; I did not! Quite a few of his SD's around then were thwarted one way or another Johnbod 17:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG!

Thanks for your note. I agree there are many Wikipedia policies and guidelines which seem to completely conflict with other policies and guidelines. Regarding your question, of course I am glad that new people become active. Even with 6,000,000 user accounts, most of the work is done by a few thousand people. As users go on Wikibreak or suffer from burnout, if these users weren't quickly replaced, Wikipedia would soon become a mess.

I agree SPEEDY has often been applied to articles which don't really apply. At the same time, I've speedy deleted hundreds of articles I felt didn't meet the assert notability criteria; most of these were just trash. We get a lot of people that add "articles" about themselves like "Trisha Smith is a girl at Jones High School and she is soooo sexayyy!" or "MySpace.com/ThatOneDude is a great web site. You should go there." Articles like this aren't only about non-notable subjects, they don't even assert notability, and thus meet the requirement for (A7). I'm not sure there's much consistency when it comes to deletion, because WikiPhilosophy varies from editor to editor. I'm not sure I have time to work on an analysis of the data, but would be interested in the results. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply

==Speedy==

Speedy deletion means just that - it can be deleted at any time. Articles are always retrievable if there has been a mistake, or the creator can redraft to address the problem, if that is possible (notability issues might be insoluble for obvious reasons) jimfbleak 18:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Most speedies are obvious junk/copyright violations/nonsense, and genuine objections tend to come from the creators, who obviously know the content. I don't know if the list of deleted edits is accessible to non-admins. Any article in mind? jimfbleak 18:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I understand the point you are making - the flip side is that even with the present situation the list of articles tagged for speedy deletion is typically 200 items. Put a time limit on, even if it's restricted to sensible articles (and remember many junk articles are deleted before being tagged}, and I fear that admins will be overwhelmed. jimfbleak 20:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I very much agree, DGG. Speedy delete should be within 24 hours, not a matter of minutes or an hour (since AFD is a week or two weeks, I think). Wikipedia policies are becoming way too serious and nuts and its literally ruining the place. — Wackymacs 18:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply

It might be worth mentioning to Jimbo Wales. — Wackymacs 19:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure I have the time to gather lots of stuff together - I think I might be spending too much time on WP to be honest... — Wackymacs 19:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply

 ==N.H. Horowitz==

I am thinking about writing about Norman H. Horowitz, Caltech biology professor, previous department head etc. One can find some material about him:

• This piece on Norman H. Horowitz
• Horowitz oral history

And a huge number of publications. I do not want to have a deletion fight again, however. Suggestions?-- Filll 21:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Wondering if you had gotten a chance to look at some of the responses from science editors to your suggestion on the the FAC nomination for proteasome. In particular, it would be helpful to know how and where you are searching for articles or journals that the use of abbreviations is an impediment to successfully locating a reference. If you really think this is something that's worth pursuing as a proposed style standard for scientific articles, I believe a larger venue than an obscure FAC nomination is needed, as this would affect a large number of editors and articles; I'd suggest starting a thread on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources or Wikipedia talk:Scientific citation guidelines for wider visibility. Since the suggestion of using full journal names does not currently have the consensus of editors in the sciences, I'm going to leave it alone for now, and will make the changes later if it's agreed that this is a useful proposal. Opabinia regalis 01:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

(Speaking only about journals in the sciences), I think that full journal names are essential for WP users, particularly for older material. The abbreviations are enough for experts. WP articles are not written for experts. WP is written for a range of users, ranging from the beginner to the near expert; judging from user pages and user comments, this may correspond from junior high school students to graduate students in allied fields. Journal references serve several roles: even without looking them up, they give some idea of the nature of the evidence--and this is probably as far as many users get. To serve this function for new or for old, the title must be understood, and all users not graduate students in the field are more likely to make sense of the full title.

Or they serve as a route to further information. For material that is open access, the link (which should always be given in a WP article if there is an OA version) gives the access directly. For online material that is not, the link (which should be given even though not OA) will normally lead to at least the abstract of the article, which can be sufficient information in many cases.

For material that is not available online, all users must go through a library. Experts will recognize the journal, will usually have access to a research library, and will get the aticle if owned or ask for it if not, and any university library ILL department can deal with standard abbreviations. For all other users, they must look for the material in an online catalog. It is unfortunately not the practice in standard cataloging to make added entries for abbreviations as a routine practice, although they are sometimes made if they appear on the cover of a journal. It is not possible in many cases to guess the right title, especially if one is unfamiliar with the sort of titles that exist. The less experienced user will be much more likely to find the material by full title. If the user must go through an ILL service in a school or public library, the librarian there will probably be much more comfortable with the full title as well.

I say this on the basis of my experience. First, as a biology librarian at a major university. I know the mistakes that get made. They depend on subject; in biology--there are many standards, especially with older material, especially ewith UK and other European material. After 20 years of doing this, I know how to figure out anything in a latin or cyrillic alphabet, from 1800 on, and I know the places to check for anything older; as a beginner, with only a MLS and a molecular biology doctorate, I relied on persistence and study of journal lists, especially for anything out of the way to a molecular biologist. Second, as a teacher of librarianship. The ability of present-day incoming librarians, even science specialists, to find printed material is deplorable. For newer material, they can acquire the patience to keep trying things on Google until they find something. For print material, it will soon be a specialty, like manuscrip[t librarianship is now. Third, I have been responsible for organizing lists of print and then online journals; the peak was a computer-assisted but manually input list of 10,000 print titles. I and others always did these lists by full title. Although it startled some of the catalog librarians, we did add some abbreviations to help those who did know them.

There are 3 ways of doing this. One is to always use the full title. WP is not paper, but it does make for longer reference lists. The other is to have an abbreviation matching database and do a link. The third is to use ISSN's, the 8 digit serial code. This isn't as simple as it was last year, because there are now two codes for each journal, one for print and one for online--all the vendors are still rewriting their systems--I've advised some of them about it. The ISSN works in all online catalogs, but only if the user knows enough to enter it, which they don't until you teach them.

The simplest way to start is with full titles. The matching database is also underway, as something call the Missing Journals Wikiproject, aiming at entering all 12 or so titles into a WP article, complete with all codes. I'm in touch with the people doing it . They estimate 10 years, but if everyone listened to my instructions I think it could be done in a shorter time (smile). Using the entrez database would help in biomedicine, but not elsewhere.

• EdJohnston's experience with entrez is useful, but it doesn't work outside biomedicine. In biomed, a mass conversion could be done, but getting it entered from some of the nonstandard references people have used will require some work. If I had to sustitute full titles throughout the WP database by myself, I'd do them one at a time with a bot, and then look for non-matches. But it could be done more ambitiously, and if we ever want to undertake such a transformation I would help as well. There are some interface problems in the conversion--the length of articles and tables especially would be affected. I think we would want to try a number of careful trials and we would want help from some of the WP programmers.

For a particular article with say 100 or so refs, i would do them by hand. Since in any one article the journal titles will repeat, I'd copy and paste. I suppose if I had to do more than one article I'd copy the lists into BBEdit and use a grep search and replace, and then paste them back, for all the common titles. I am a great believer in patient manual entry.

Other comments

• I notice that O.r. has said she recognizes the abbreviations better, and so do I. But we are not the average users.
• &There's another problem, which is the use of full article titles. This really helps the beginner. In biomed, they could be linked through PubMed IDs, and some WP editors already use them. DGG 06:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

---

Opabinia, where do you stand on that Object? If you need help converting them in order to address the Object, I can help. Am I missing something, or would we actually have to do every one by hand? I can't find a database that can be used to automate it - if you feel it has to be done, we can divide up the work. I still resist the idea, since it would take a lot of manual work, and the PMID should suffice, but if you need help, I'll dig in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In the short term, my plan is to do nothing, since Circeus hasn't responded to the subsequent comments on his suggestion. I left him a note about opening this for wider discussion; a substantial change in style recommendations affecting as many articles as this one would deserves a wider discussion than a thread in an obscure FAC nomination. IMO it would be a bad precedent for future science-related FACs to make that change in response to one user's opinion without collecting some wider input. I don't know of an intelligent automated way to get this information, other than clicking through PubMed's journals link and screen-scraping the equivalents of pages like http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=Journals&term=%22Dev+Cell%22[Title+Abbreviation] sorry, can't get the link with brackets to parse right. If there's a larger discussion I'll certainly oppose this on practicality and text-clutter grounds, unless someone finds a common way of searching for references that requires the full names. FAC doesn't need more shrubberies. Opabinia regalis 01:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Without raising the long-term policy question, I don't think it would be that hard to convert the journal names in Proteasome. Assuming the reference uses a journal in the NLM list, you should be able to look up its journal name at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=Journals. This screen has a search box, where you can type in the standard journal abbreviation, and hit 'Search'. You then get back the full name of the journal. I also managed to download (by ftp) a plain text file called J_Entrez.txt (4 megabytes in size) that has both the abbreviation and the full name for every journal I checked. You could do a 'Find' on the abbreviation, and get the answer. So if you need help converting those references, I'd be available. EdJohnston 02:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Don't you think our readers would put up with the 'clutter' that would be caused by spelling out these not totally self-explanatory abbreviations? EMBO J, Cell Death Differ (my favorite), Mol Cell, FEBS Lett, PLoS Biol. I know that 'J Biol Chem' looks easy but not all of them are. EdJohnston 02:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the offer. I doubt it would take long to convert this article - anybody who's done biology work probably knows 80% of them anyway - but I'm strongly inclined not to set that as a standard for future articles, not least because there are screen-scraper scripts for importing PubMed references that would need to be extensively modified. I realize they're not all intuitive (my personal favorite official "abbreviation" is J Phys Chem B Condens Matter Mater Surf Interfaces Biophys) but as far as I've ever known, it's actually better for searching to have the abbreviation than the full name, because almost every database uses the abbreviations. Do you know of any common databases or search methods where that's not the case? I asked Circeus on the FAC page to elaborate why/where he had had trouble, but he hasn't responded yet. Opabinia regalis 03:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Right - the problem is not *this* article (which I'll help do, if that what it takes to get rid of the object) rather the sheer volume of manual work that would be required across all Wiki articles, with little benefit. I would also strenuously object to the change in policy, since it requires manual intervention for every journal, to replace the info PubMed provides. Just wanted you to know I could help if needed, but agree it should not be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Also: how about making the standard ISBN link produce a latent OpenURL like this: <a name='isbn=0-120345678-9' rel='alternate' title='OpenURL'>? Users with suitable browser plugins could then bypass the Wikipedia ISBN page and be directed to their home library's link resolver. --Helperzoom 17:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Book sources already has a latent OpenURL in the form of an ISBN COinS tag, right under the Notes heading. I've just added them to {{ cite book}}: Empty citation ( help), as well, so you can use OpenURL tools on the references section of articles. I'll expand it to other citation templates if it goes over well, and add it to the "Cite this article" page, too, as soon as they figure out which format would be appropriate for Wikipedia articles... — Omegatron 01:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. I had just finished adding a comment to an article about a completely non-notable (and no longer existent) website. I was patrollying the new pages list, which tends to be filled with non-notable articles. I came across the article in question, and saw it as non-notable(as it asserted NO notability), and possibly considered "little or no context", these categories being CSD:A7 and CSD A1,(as seen here). I tend to be a little on the deletionist side, mostly because I value the overall quality of Wikipedia. Thus I marked it for deletion, but it did not qualify for deletion after you merged it into an article worth saving.(have to leave now, on a schedule, == Academics ==

Thanks for the note. I look forward to working with you. -- Kevin Murray 20:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the change of "vote" on its deletion. Your integrity is notable and your comments well taken to heart. MichaelNetzer 21:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi. I edit conflicted with you and then dropped my new "peace" section above yours as it was in context to the prior statement. But then I thought that I was being rude. Would you prefer that I move my peace offering before your observation? Thanks! -- Kevin Murray 04:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I tried to wikify it on your user page but it does not seem to exist. When I looked for it, I was unable to find it. -- Filll 15:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, DGG!

I have nominated this article for deletion. You removed the PROD tag a few days ago, so I thought you'd like to know – you might want to participate in the AfD discussion. Please read WP:BIO first, though. If that guideline had been fresh in your memory, you would not have removed the PROD tag from this non-notable biographical article. Have a great day! DavidCBryant 16:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG, and thank you for trying to save one of our WP Films lists ( List of childhood-related films). If you see any more film lists nominated, please, notify us in WP Films. We had several of our lists nominated lately with no notification, apart for a notice in our categorization department about a CfD on a category that included several of them, so I got the chance to notify the project and we saved some of them. Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 08:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree with your view on the lists. Some of them have become somewhat of a playbox for editors who like trivial associations. Yes, "featuring" opens the door to such trivial entries. I am all for renaming, cleaning up and giving a short explanation after each entry as to the role the title element plays in each film. This way lists become informative and play some role other than duplicating categories. I will try to motivate list editors in this direction and will do some samples where I can. We already have such an example, List of films featuring the United States Marine Corps, which started during the AfD. And thanks for offering further help. Hoverfish Talk 08:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for removing the tags. Since your edit, I have added a few more references and stripped down the language further. Djbwiki 05:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Per Wikipedia:user page please post warning messages only on their talk page. Happy editing. Mkdw ^talk 07:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry to bother you with this, but I really fail to see a references section in the article, could you give me a pointer ? Alf^Photoman 23:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Could be, my problem is that I was looking like crazy but could not find any... maybe wrong glasses... thanks. It would be good to leave a note to the editor about comprising the references into a marked section so blind guys like me can find them Alf^Photoman 00:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Just trying to help.... thanks Alf^Photoman 00:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks. It might have been a mistake on my part - my brain gets into a bit of autopilot when looking at new pages. Do you know which article(s) you noticed? -- Strangerer ( Talk | Contribs) 03:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG. The information for the abus gun article appears to have been taken from the Age of Empires III game booklet. As a result, I could not tell whether the article described a fictional topic from an in-universe perspective or a real item. I read your to be clarified comment. Perhaps you can fix this so that another editor does not come by and slap a {{ In-universe}} template on the article. Thanks. -- Jreferee 08:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Your comment on the deletion page indicates you support keeping it to give minority theories a fair chance. The problem is that this article is filled with POV against the theory. It's created, Dbachmann, suggests it be moved to Hindutva revisionism or Hindutva and pseudoscience. An article well-written by minority theorists is Out of India theory, which covers all the facts of the IAT plus more. This article and Dbachmann's attitude towards writing such articles does nothing to support minority theories, it only shows how minority theories are random Hindu radicalist groups trying to change their history. — Nobleeagle ^{[TALK]  [C]} 08:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi there,

looks like we were right about the media attention the SJ incident would get... and its so bad I can't even feel any glee...

Now I think it is time to start thinking about the consequences this should have... if you have any ideas you can count on my input and help Alf^Photoman 22:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I have reverted your reversion. Read the entry, please. What does the first sentence say? -- CalendarWatcher 22:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Please give reasoning for your COI tag at Keith Ellison (politician) currently there is a move to delete many of the sub-pages about him that I've made, under claims that its mere pro-Ellison cruft while on the other hand many editors have found the segment which I had nothing to do with about his previous ties with the Nation of Islam as an unbalanced attack. Of course it could be something else, so please explain the problems you see with the article on talk:Keith Ellison (politician).

-- Wowaconia 08:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Dear DGG, As a teacher of psychiatry I always liked your attitude of dealing things. I will be glad to let you know that my research is now mentioned in an online article http://ezinearticles.com/?Concept-of-Death-Can-Influence-Mental-Health---A-Research-Finding-In-Bangladesh&id=478743 You can read it and any comment can be mailed to me at my e-mail address hmanjur@bttb.net.bd Thanks Mohammad Samir Hossain

Dear DGG, Thank you for your useful suggession. I am working on it already. I have submitted the full scientific article to the journal of the University of Iowa. I do not know whether they will accpet it or not. I am not doing these just to be included in wikipedia article, rather I am doing these with the same reasons of my writing in wikipedia. I want to share my authentic feelings and thoughts with many many other people so that any science in it can be shared by other researchers too- thats the goal here. Thanks Samir Shoovrow 02:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I have replied at my talk page. Cheers, Black Falcon 06:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC) reply

good job...

noticed that Brandt had something to say about his AfD ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alf photoman ( talk • contribs) 00:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC). reply

I added a comment in reply to your idea about categories. Basically I think that trying to duplicate all the many existing external lists of conferences is a non-starter. andy 11:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC) reply

You should read the wikipedia policy on attribution. It goes something like this: if something is true, but no published source says so, it cannot go on wikipedia. People's personal experiences or personal websites and forums are not allowed as sources. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments." Original thought that had congregated on the internet elsewhere is treated the same as original thought that generated impromptu on a wikipedia page. That is the difference between self published and published by reputable sources. Lotusduck 22:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Since you were earlier involved in the meta-discussion on superhero categories, please comment on the issue now that it's ended up on CFD again. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_14#Fictional_characters_by_power. >Radiant< 13:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Please see this page. Cellularesque is a sockpuppet of biochemnick, who has a history of making vanity edits. // 66.177.173.119 21:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC) I have replied to this anon user, who is also using 66.177.173.119 both multi-user accounts, at the COI indicated.. DGG 22:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Khachkar destruction, which you voted keep for recently, has reappeared on Afd. Also, I would appreciate your thoughts on Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_14#HHO gas, Aquygen, Brown's gas, Magnecular bond, etc.. I am mostly ambivalent to the latter, as the articles of mine (which you voted keep for; many thanks, as the nom forgot to notify me) are the two more important articles regarding this fringe science. John Vandenberg 10:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry, you are right. I jumped the gun. -- Kevin Murray 07:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC) reply

You wanted this article kept (which it has been) but stated it needed improvements. Perhaps you could make some, as I certainly think it needs them. :) Tyrenius 04:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for making a start! Tyrenius 06:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Welcome to the resource exchange... here's your badge! :) --- J.S ( T/ C/ WRE) 06:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Connection problems forced me to stop doing this on a regular basis . DGG ( talk) 20:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

This article is up for deletion can you kindly share your opinion on it [1] .

Thanks Atulsnischal 12:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I'd appreciate an explanation of what you meant by this comment: [2]. Did you think the Free Republic article was a proportional response to the AfD listing? Or did you mean something else? Thanks. (P.S.: I mean this as straightforwardly as possible, not in confrontation!) -- woggly 10:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Policy is very clear in these regards. Your interpretation of begs for closer reading of policy. Blogs and websites are acceptable from people about themselves in a much stricter sense than you suppose. The policy for use of unreliable sources describing themselves means that if you need a citation for why the musical group The Dresden Dolls got their name, their website would be a good source even though it is not published by an outside source or reviewed. You could not use The Dresden Dolls website as a reference for defining cabaret or punk because members of a group of people do not get to speak for that whole group on wikipedia just because they have a website. The same is true of a self published aquaphile journal as is of a forum post. It is very plainly another form of original research. Lotusduck 04:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Policy is not up for automatic interpretation just because it is called attribution not verifiability-- in fact the term is bent harder against use of things that we may agree on as true and promotes more use of cited sources. You do not need to tell me not to fight. You have assaulted my intentions, I have not yours. Lotusduck 05:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• comment by DG to put this into perspective: what I said in the AfD was

The nominator of this article has nominated a number of articles about non-orthodox sexual practices, and succeeding in deleting some of them.

The nominator says on her talk p. "This is not an attack on the big paraphilias, this is an annoyance with small chatrooms dedicated to a sub-subgenre of erotica pretending they have a medical problem on wikipedia. All in all, the whole phenomena is really annoying. I would start a special comission on non-made-up paraphilias and fetish if I even knew how."

(Given that, I think I accurately described the intentions). DGG 16:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Awesome job on finding some better references for Breast expansion fetish. (Um, that sounds weird now that I've written it...but anyway...) As I said in the AfD, it's not really something I have a personal interest in or even know a lot about (though I know more now from my search for sources) but I at least knew that it was something real and fairly prolific, deserving of at least a brief article as it seems to be a significant subculture. I'm preaching to the choir, here, though, and my babbling is probably ruining the smiley glow. So, have a good day and keep up the great work! LaMenta3 19:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello and sorry for the spam. You participated in this discussion, which was closed but now restarted as a new discussion by the closing admin. In case you're interested, please join the new one. Thank you. Regards, Hús ö nd 20:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Although you mentioned you're planning to remove glyconutrient from your watch page, I'd appreciate if you'd keep it around there just a little longer - maybe two weeks if you don't mind? You are a valuable presence, even just as an observer, in the discussion. Thank you. -- Ante lan ^talk 05:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey DGG I am new to WP (about 20 days). I have created an article which could possibly generate controversy so I want to have it as close to NPoV and as well-written as possible before the masses devour--it is nom for DYK. I saw an AfD about a religious topic and agreed with the philosophy behind your reasoning. Would very much like your input even if you wish to forgo editing. Will you proof Tom Short? Much obliged ClaudeReigns 16:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for this! As discussion at deletion appeal will show, I was caught in the middle of a battle over the Laurence H. Scott entry. Apparently people keep looking for Scott's own publications, when perhaps they might consider his importance as a printer, designer, and publisher of major poets. I've begun work to document that aspect of his career and would MUCH APPRECIATE someone's keeping the entry alive long enough for me to provide something that might turn that discussion into an informed debate. SocJan 12:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC) (from talk page) reply

Thanks for your note. I think mentioning his name violates WP:UNDUE, particularly as he himself has recanted his previous views. What do you think? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Please see my reply at User_talk:Dbachmann/Wikipedia_and_nationalism#Hinduvata_pseudoscience -- I am most open to discussing questions of presentation, article scopes and titling, please provide input at Talk:Hindutva pseudoscience. dab (𒁳) 12:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Since you commented on the afd, it has been re-Afd'd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindutva pseudoscience (2nd nomination). Baka man 19:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply

you may not be aware of this, but there is the possibility to {{ move}} articles. If you agree the topic is valid, as you said you did (and it is hard to disagree with this, since manifestly WP:RS are cited up front, as opposed to the "blogosphere" evidence we often let pass in Hindutva-fringecruft for lack of any real evidence), there is no way the article should be deleted. Sorry Bakaman, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT was never an argument. dab (𒁳) 09:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I noticed that in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurence Scott you're on record with two different recommendations—Relist and Delete. Might you want to strike through the one that no longer applies? Deor 00:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

You de-prodded Enoch Moore with the edit summary "Google??? He died in 1840." I disagree that notable people who died before "teh Internets" became popular will necessarily have no mentions of them on Google. I was prepared not to propose deletion if there had been even one result that indicated the subject had been involved in something notable as claimed therein, but there were no sources to back up that assertion. All I could find of someone who matched his name and birth place and year was some genealogical record. [3] Please consider an article's (lack of) claims to notability, and whether these claims are sourced (they could be totally made up if unsourced), before de-prodding. Thanks. Resurgent insurgent 03:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply

OK no problem with AfD. I gotta cool off before commenting on AfDs too... Resurgent insurgent 04:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey there. I understand that you have very liberal feelings about notability but your recent edits to the E. Converse Peirce articles and membrane oxygenator page seem like whole cloth fabrications based on little more than a perusal of the guy's publication list. With regards to the membrane oxygenator, he doesn't hold a patent for it's invention and, among the dozen or so patents filed for membrane oxygenators in the 1950s and 1960s, he's only cited in one of them. That particular citation references an article which he published describing a modification to an existing membrane oxygenator. His earlier work on a pump was prefigured by a 1948 patent for artificial blood circulation (U.S. Patent 2556043). In other words, he was working on this stuff early on but he was by no means a pioneer.

I'm also wondering what basis you have to suggest that he is a pioneer for organ transplants. There is a difference between "published articles about organ transplants" and "major pioneering work". His first published work on kidney transplants, in the 1964 article you cite, comes a full decade after the first successful kidney transplant by Dr. Joseph Murray. It's hard to say that he was a pioneer. Irene Ringworm 05:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey, I'll support you in your efforts to save articles. The citations you mention certainly confer notability and (as I've noted on his talk page) I have no more beef with the article. However, in my experience with you on this article and Alan W. Clarke my sense is that you tend to exaggerate claims of notability to justify inclusion. For a brief moment on wikipedia, moderately notable and well-regarded Dr. Peirce was promoted to "pioneer of transplants" and "inventor of artificial circulation technology", claims which are unverifiable because they simply aren't true. Liberal views on notability are one thing but exaggerating the truth to establish notability should give you pause. Irene Ringworm 06:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for you words, and thank you for completing my correction of the Gutenberg Bible article, in proper English. I was reading the Portuguese article about the Bible when I saw what I thought it was an error and from there I arrived to the English one(witch certainly was the source). Than I saw that also the Spanish, Esperanto, and I think the Svenska and Suomi also repeat the same. I corrected the two former but I can’t even try it on the two others! If you know anyone who can do it please tell them. Thanks, AntoniusJ 17:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply

(A copy of our conversation from my page, just to trigger the "You have new messages" box.)

how can this be stopped? Maybe today's seige will have an influence (smile) DGG 05:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply

David, I assume you're referring to The Never-Ending Chronicles of Billy Hathorn. I have no idea. He seems to be polite enough when contacted about his actions, but he keeps on doing it anyway. I almost hate to say anything because he's actually a pretty good writer, but his subjects usually aren't notable. It just goes on and on ... Realkyhick 05:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply

My pleasure. I hope that things can work out smoothly now; I've watchlisted the page to keep an eye on it for a bit. Good Luck! -- Avi 06:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't think the outcome if one of the DRVs should influence the other. LMRAdv. read much more like a game-guide because I never got round to cleaning it up. LMP1mgs, however, contained NO game-guide material whatsoever and so should NOT be affected by LMPAdvmg's DRV. Bowsy ^{( review me!)} 10:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, seeing you have been involved in previous Afd debates on the subject I invite you to contribute to this discussion to clarify certain issues about football player notability. I think clearer guidelines are needed to avoid repeated inappropriate nominations for deletion and time consuming discussions. Cheers! StephP 20:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the complement. I love local history, especially the areas around where we live and never really examine. I appreciate your review of the debate and for your kind words. Take care. Bhaktivinode 29 March 2007

Just wanted to alert you to my edit on DRV, as, if I'm reading your comment correctly, you thought the AfD was closed as a keep; you can check out the AfD here, where the consensus was clearly to delete. — bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC) reply

You gave two different opinions on this article (keep and weak delete). Could you, for clarity, strikethrough the one you no longer or least agree with? Thank you! Fram 05:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello. I am new to the wiki culture - as you can tell. The John Machemehl article has now passed its 5 days of debate. Do one of us need to close it? Sorry to bother you with this. Thanks. Bhaktivinode 2 April 2007

Following your contribution to the discussion on football player notability you might be interested in voting on this. Rgds, StephP 10:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Some of the Lexis sources mentioned the clinic in passing, other articles were about the clinic specifically. WHen I made that comment I didn't have the time to add the sources, as doing so would mean spending 20 minutes sorting them out. That's why I asked the original creator to help out instead as they obviously know where their info came from. - Mgm| ^(talk) 08:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, since you are a science librarian I was wondering if you might know anything about The Golden Book of Chemistry Experiments. It is said that this book (published in the 60s) was "banned" or "pulled" from public libraries because it was "dangerous" (presumably because it tells kids how to make chlorine, chloroform, hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, all that smelly, toxic, or flammable stuff...) It is a fascinating story, but unfortunately I haven't been able to find any evidence for it yet. What is a fact is that the book is out of print and used copies sell for hundreds of dollars! Cheers, Itub 09:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC). reply

David, I put dates of birth and death after people mentioned in the articles to benefit genealogists who might have an interest. Also it keeps the reader clear as to whether that person is living. As you say, excessive use of dates may clog up an article. So I can reduce them down where appropriate.

Thanks,

Billy Hathorn 18:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

DGG, thought you might be interested in this checkuser report, since their vandalism resulted in total deletion of the Gordon James Klingenschmitt article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/USMC_Padre Thanks for your efforts toward impartial editing. I couldn't make any progress either with that crowd of hackers. I finally had to walk away. But the admins exposed them in the end. Perhaps there is justice in wiki-land. ChaplainReferee 20:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The work I do is not a reflection of any personal moral position on sex. I don't recall ever questioning the existence of any of the fetishes or paraphilias that I've worked on here either (but there might be forgotten exceptions). I have no doubt that 95% of them really exist with some people, why else would they come here and write articles about them? I totally understand your point and I also understand why you think the way you do, it's a reasonable position in a way. It is not a position that is compatible with wikipedia's policies though. Just because someone believes in something doesn't make it notable by wikipedia's definition of the term. Also just because people talk about it or form internet groups do those groups act as reliable sources according to wikipedia's definition of the term.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not in the buisness of publishing things that are true simply because they are true. Everything that goes in wikipedia must be verified via the attribution policy. That's what makes it an encyclopedia and not just a public forum using wiki software. Simply coming here and adding material based on one's personal experiance or memory is original research and not allowed. I have no problem with these articles existing, as long as they can meet the criteria for inclusion according to policy. NeoFreak 08:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not really sure I follow you entirely. I suppose I'm saying that it is not our job to declare Notability but instead it is the responsibility of the editor adding material to prove notability which is done with attribution and reliable sources. I'm just going to have to flat out disagree with your assesment of what constitutes a reliable source. Wikipedia is very clear on the criteria for what is accepted as a RS and what you're advocating is not the same thing. I have no doubt that we'll get a chance to work together more in the future (or rather preach to the same audience) and from your demeanor so far I have faith that it will be a constructive experiance. NeoFreak 08:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I must say. Administrators are not making it easier to find information, the reason Wikipedia was created, but harder to. I hate self-loving, delete happy, idiotic adminastrators. No need to respond.

Wait a minute. Under copyright laws, if I give credit of the work to the original creator, like I did, it would be perfectly legal. Once again, no need to respond.

I'm keeping this one at the top. Tributes to my willingness to delete are always appreciated. Thanks. DGG ( talk) 20:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply

No problem. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

see my response to your reply on the article for deletion talk page, or just look at this link. [4]

-- Jadger 08:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

[ill-considered remarks deleted] . Jörg Vogt 07:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

When you have a minute, would you mind returning to the Deletion Review discussion on Frederique_Constant? The link to the AFD discussion was incomplete. While the first discussion only had three participants, the second AFD was more widely noticed. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello DGG! It seems that user Biophys has restored recently his Internet Troll Squads article containing his original research again, this time under Internet brigades title. Vlad fedorov 04:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately I didn't keep such rubbish and admins deleted the original page. The only thing that remained is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_26 and AfD log - link there. Biophys again publishes so-called typical methods or distinctions of these alleged teams in order to discredit his opponents. His term "internet brigades" is also original research. He also doesn't publish Tygodnik Powszechny to the end, because this sources explicitly says it has no any evidence. Vlad fedorov 04:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Vlad, thanks for the head up; in the Deletion Review I commented "Relist for further discussion", and further discussion is what I intend to do. on the article talk page & any subsequent deletion process. DGG 13:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Your revert of my edit was quite proper according to WP policies of attribution. ClaudeReigns 08:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply

It looks like we might be on different tacks toward the same course regarding the notability issue. I think it might be nice to discuss our objectives to see whether we have some common ground.

My goal is to simplify the notability infrastructure by the following: (1) eliminate superfluous sub-guidelines, (2) provide as much continuity among the remaining sub-guidelines and WP:N, and (3) develop a more welcoming structure for bona fide information while allowing us to combat the flood of spam and nonsense. Clearly this is no easy task and there are multiple ways to accomplish this or similar goals.

I see the broad inclusion of the pnc template as a good step toward continuity. If you look at the history at the template and at WP:N, you will see that I am not a supporter of the current form which I believe to be overly restrictive and subjective, but I do believe that if the template can be put into use and then prominently discussed in the light of day, more palatable language can be developed.

Your thoughts?

-- Kevin Murray 18:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm answering here, because it will be a bit of an essay

In general I prefer a small number of flexible rules. The problem is that such flexibility permits an unlimited flexibility in interpretation towards either inclusion or exclusion. On the other hand, excessive specification leads to results not conforming to common sense, and their consequent evasion at AfD.

But at present with the same discussions going on in multiple places over the same matters, I am concerned that it is likely to end in an ill-considered compromise adopted out of exhaustion. I very much distrust the current discussion for the confusion about what is being said  :

To protect against this, I think the best way is the development of entirely separate guidelines for special topics by people who understand the field and are prepared to defend their guidelines at AfD.

The problem with the guidelines for academics is that the majority of WP people do not think academics very notable in the first place. I therefore think we would do best isolating ourselves from the general discussions, at least until we see how they will turn out. With regard to the notability of academics, it is not a good idea to have rigid requirements--AfDs frequently delete reasonably good borderline articles. The spammy ones are best handled by editing. DGG 02:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply

An outbreak of the usual. I see you're keeping busy! I suppose the Master of the playing Cards is not near the top of the to do list now? Cheers Johnbod 04:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply

He has just reported me on 3RR here for daring to mention woodblock printing in Four Great Inventions of ancient China, so I better say thanks quickly! Johnbod 04:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes I saw. Another front opens tonight at Papermaking (not with Ma). Someone has found an 1863 book that says the Chinese did not invent printing at all (except actually it doesn't when you look at it). Seriously! Johnbod 05:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply

He has made a number of other easily findable errors as well. I have corrected them and commented in the AfC. That 2000 yr old paper is a good cite useful in several places, i was able to confirm it . DGG 08:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Many thanks for your comments! Do you have a decent ref for Cai Lun, ideally with the historical source for him? Of course the article still remains China-less, for now. Johnbod 14:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually for the moment this appears to be sorted. Johnbod 21:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree with you on the single sourcing, and am actively trying to see that acknowledged in the template. I don't like the language of the template yet, but I would prefer to see consistency among the various permutations of the notability infrastructure. I think that if consistency is achieved, then people will join the overall effort to clean-up notability rather than fort-up in their own little domains. Right now a few editors have a lot of influence at WP:N and a few editors have a lot of influence at the individual permutations, but if the proponents of inclusion who work at the permutations get involved in the central effort, the project will become more open and simpler to understand. -- Kevin Murray 21:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I went ahead & developed this, but it can certainly be expanded - I think you had Helmutt L-H, although others seem a bit sniffy over him! Johnbod 03:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Why do you think Dufferin Mall is not a notable mall? Kingjeff 04:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I recently received a lot of mails/ requests from Wikipedia admins that questioned the articles posted. I would like to remove the articles, is it possible, since I created those to instantly delete the pages or do I have to go through the deletion process??

Huh??? [5] [6]

The words practice what you preach come to mind - if you had searched the web you would have found this guy is extremely well known for founding the internet infidels website. Sophia 08:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for changing it to AfD - I have no problems seeing what the community feels and will comment shortly - right now the dogs need a walk! Sophia 09:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi David,

I like your idea about a bunch of us tackling a school district a week, merging the stumps. I added a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don G. Giunta Middle School saying that if you point one out, I'll help. If we do this, perhaps we should go to individual editors and ask them on their talk pages if they'd be willing to merge one or two school articles a week into a school district article as a team. Wasn't there someone creating huge numbers of these in Alabama a while back? If you decide you really want to do this and can find the districts, give me a holler. Noroton 17:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Dear DGG, I have greatest respect for your work, but you know I never agreed with the article on History of typography in East Asia - I really feel it is quite irrelevant when there is no page called history of typography yet... Thanks for your efforts to try to draw me into that article - but I just can't see the point of doing an article like history of X in Y when there is no article called history of X!! What is in that article anyhow is not typography. For that matter, there is also no article called history of printing either! And in any event, I don't feel like touching the subject of printing after my bitter JG experience. But thanks anyhow! mukerjee ( talk) 19:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

PS: And how about adding a (talk) to your signature?

please see the reply on my talkpage. If we begin to base AfD outcomes based on people having feelings about them, as opposed to considerations of encyclopedicity or, after all, policy, I'm afraid we'll have to delete about half our articles on Islam, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American politics. dab (𒁳) 09:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi there! I also posted this on the AfD talk page... not just the B schedule on the Library_of_Congress_classification was deleted ... ALL the schedules were deleted, classes A-Z. See any old version to follow the red links... if it's not your impression that this was the consensus from the AfD, would a deletion review be in order? I would be willing to start one. I feel pretty strongly about this; the LoC pages are great examples of unusual browsing schemes for Wikipedia content. -- phoebe/( talk) 05:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply

FYI, I have proded the books by this author as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Alcorn (author) ... you might want to keep an eye on them as well. — 68.239.79.97 ( talk · contribs) 18:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Please see User talk:Yannismarou#Books by Susan Alcorn ... would you be willing to follow through with this if Yannismarou declines? -- 68.239.79.97 03:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits, such as those you made to John H. Cade, Jr., have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť (Talk) (Contributions) 03:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

(note: i replied on the article talk page that I did not consider it worthwhile to challenge over this one article.) DGG 03:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi. I see you started Category:Academic journals, which seems to cover much the same ground as Category:Journals. Do you agree they should be merged? Dsp13 12:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

You have found a real problem, where the terminology reflects the lack of consensus.

The basic problem is the confusion between the two uses of journal--a general meaning, including almost any periodical publication, used to distinguish journals from books,in which such publications as Scientific American are journals, and the use in the academic world to contrast peer-reviewed journals from (non peer-revieweed) magazines, with Scientific American being an example of the latter. Both meaning are in simultaneous use, and people are not usually clear about which they have in mind. :So if you look at the items in category journals, there are many which do indeed fall into the category of academic journals, but there are also some which don't. The actual terminology used in WP articles is similarly confusing--people have called the publications almost any of the various possibilities.

Furthermore, the general category for the group is Category:Serials, periodicals and journals, omitting magazines altogether. Journal, at present, is a redirect to Magazine.

Don't understand what you mean by saying journal redirects to magazine. Dsp13 12:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I've been a science librarian for over 20 years, and this has continually been a source of confusion If you look at what libraries actually call things, quite a variety of terms are used. I've taught the subject as well, and there is no real agreement in the textbooks, and the key term "serial" has never been really defined, and has now been abandoned in the cataloging rules in favor of "continuing publication".

so which way would you like to merge? In my personal opinion, "Academic journal" is a made-up term -- and i gather that is your opinion also--, but some of the other WP library science people disagree and want to keep using it, as they think "journal" non-specific. I added the cat to prevent people putting things in "Journal" which were clearly not academic journals. I think we would not get consensus on either, or for that matter on using both--it would by 1/3 1/3 1/3. When I came to WP I though it could be straightened out, but if you check the page history of the various terms, you will see that basically I and everyone else who has tried, all gave up.

Thanks for filling me in. I do recognise the distinction between peer-reviewed / not, and as you say there are distinct article pages for Journal and Academic journal at present. I've much less experience in thinking about these things than you, & no firm view on how to label the categories. I don't personally mind the made-up term Academic journals as long as it is consistently applied. What bothers me is the present haphazard duplication, which is a mess! As far as consensus having proved difficult to achieve, which page histories should I check out? Perhaps this is a discussion which should happen on Category talk:Journals or Category talk:Academic journals? Dsp13 12:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply

In any case , I think the first step is to rename the broadest category, Category:Serials, periodicals and journals to Category:Serials, periodicals, journals, and magazines, and I am going to propose it. DGG 01:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Sounds sensible to me. Dsp13 12:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Just wondering if you could take another look. The article's creator has added some independent sourcing. Thanks, Pan Dan 13:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC) (done). reply

Ma has been adding ^{citation needed}, and (a new one for me ^page needed everywhere - some of the stuff is I think yours - Man, Christiansen etc. If you have a minute perhaps you could pick up his trail & see if you can add any. I have done all or most of mine. His own contributions are hardly distinguished by their detailed referencing of course, but it's one law for Ma & one for the rest of us.... Johnbod 02:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't have Man in fact; I think many of them can be left. Even the most extreme user cannot, I think, remove as uncited stuff with no page numbers. The AfD on the list is the same guy as at Papermaking, and again includes many references by him to my Chinese ethnocentrism, sockpuppets etc. Meanwhile Ma has had something of a Pauline conversion on woodblock printing on textiles, after finding another, rather throwaway, quote from an author I referenced (A Hyatt Mayor). Having spent a lot of energy trying to remove all references to textiles, he is now going around adding them everywhere, when not adding pics of Gatling guns to the 4 Great Inventions (no kidding). All the best Johnbod 13:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, this situation can be dealt with by firmness in keeping to what is reasonable. DGG 21:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC). reply

Hi, DGG. Just to clarify, the merger proposal is to combine Full English breakfast ("any combination of fried bacon, eggs, sausages, tomatoes, bread, black pudding, baked beans, grilled kidneys and kedgeree" [7]) and Full Irish breakfast ("very similar an English breakfast, consists of bacon rashers, eggs, sausages, baked tomatoes, mushrooms, white pudding, black pudding" [8]) into one article called Full breakfast. (In so doing also combing the Scottish and Welsh varieties, which currently direct to English Breakfast.) This spat has been going on for years, with both sides unwilling to relinquish their national name in the title. "Full Breakfast" is the common name used throughout Britain and Ireland ( see here for the Lonely Planet's description of the "phenomenon"). I see it is also used in the US, for example here, among other terms. -- sony-youth ^talk 18:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply

And why should it be deleted soon? I removed the prod. It should not be reproded. NO reason for speedy deletion that I have seen. And if it goes for AfD might not be deleted. Also, I never said I would improve it! It has been almost 16 years since I lived in NY and more than that since I have been to Brooklyn. I don't remember enough to add anything other than that there is a subway station in the Williamsburg area and in the Queens section of the street is where Dad once had an office. Hardly wiki worthy! 172.163.189.62 21:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply

You put the article up for deletion and i was just wondering on your tips for improvement ( 86.133.68.97 21:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) reply

Thank you for your concise feeback with reference to my article on Karen Karch. I have taken a whack at responding to your concerns and would like to get your further reflectioins on whether I've, indeed, been responsive. Thank you, again, for your comments. Regards, Maclenin 22:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Billy's now "filed harassment charges" against myself and Dhartung; apparently we're somehow being mean to him by voting "delete" on some of his articles. Be aware that at some point he'll no doubt remember you as well as part of the conspiracy against him.

It's faintly ironic that me, Dhartung and Mwelch - who, along with you, are probably the most fanatical "no I'm sure I can rescue this" inclusionists of the AfD regulars - are the Evil Deletionist Vandals here. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't think Connor Stevens meets the definition of WP:NONSENSE since it makes comprehensible grammatical sense. If it's not CSD A7, then it's complete bollocks. Pete.Hurd 15:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I just want to let you know how much I appreciated your words of support regarding the Karl-Henrik Robert article. The references are great. However, as you will note if you look at the article as I've re-written it, he is more notable for establishing the system conditions of sustainability and founding The Natural Step than he is for his cancer research. His was one of the first operational definitions of sustainability and he has thus been popular far beyond the scientific community. Again, thanks! Sunray 23:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello ... would you please close these AfDs?

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bomb Town
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Clinch
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christoff Johnson

There does not seem to be much more that can be added to any of them. Thanks. — 68.239.79.97 ( talk · contribs) 07:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC) reply

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. -- Kevin Murray 23:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC) reply

You say on the page it is probably not notable but then on the history page your edit comment says nearly empty article. What exactly is your problem with hte article. And please speak in definitives, it is confusing when you use probabilities as it shows you really don't know what you are talking about. Cheers!!! Alamar2001 03:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply

In general (and thanks for encouraging me to write it out in full)

1. When I know or strongly believe something is notable (more exactly, encyclopedia worthy in general) then I don't put on a deletion tag, or if some one else has, I remove the tag altogether. If anyone really disagrees, they go to AfD.
2. When I know for sure something is not notable, and fits in a speedy, I speedy. If anyone disagrees, they can remove the tag or "holdon" if they're fast enough, or go to AfD or Deletion Review. I don't do this much, because I rarely do new page patrol, so the obvious stuff has already been deleted by others.
3. When I don't know for sure, which is pretty often, I usually put it for prod so other people can see for themselves. If nobody feels its worthy of keeping, it gets deleted and there's no fuss. If anybody wants to keep, they remove the tag, unless they wrote it, when they have to ask someone else to remove it. I see that on my watchlist, and depending on what they've said, I usually defer to them but sometimes send to AfD.
4. For shopping malls and schools, I never speedy, because I know that they will all be contested & I don't like to speedy in hope of avoiding a discussion. When a number of malls or schools are in question, I may well prod them all, and let other people decide what's worth saving.

• • But, as for Country Club Plaza (Arden-Arcade, California) I thought it an almost empty article, and probably not notable, but that it was possible you or another editor would know of something more to say. I hoped that you would either add enough to make it notable, or let the article get deleted. That's what prod is for. But of course if you think it is notable as it stands, just nominate it according to WP:AFD, and I will go by the consensus as always. I'll nominate it for you if you prefer. So it's up to you. (Some eds. I know would just have speedied and not even notified you, but I don't like to do things that way.) Further discussion welcome. DGG 05:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Use

 
 {{Col-begin}}
 {{Col-1-of-2}}
 Column 1 here
 {{Col-2-of-2}}
 Column 2 here
 {{Col-end}}

Or

 {{Multicol}}
 This text appears in the first column.
 {{Multicol-break}}
 This text appears in the second column.
 {{Multicol-break}}
 This text appears in the third column.
 {{Multicol-end}}

The latter's obviously more flexible. Hope that helps, -- Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 02:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply

As a librarian, could you take a look at this deletion debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. Several peer-reviewed journals from Emerald, which as far as I can tell is a reputable publisher (my university subscribes to it), have been nominated for deletion. The articles look a bit spammy, but I guess that this could be fixed. (It seems that an article on Emerald has already been speedily deleted as advertising.) Pharamond 06:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks as the nom for taking time to comment and take action on this. I'm always keen to see better content arise from an AfD and editors like yourself make this happen! -- Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 01:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply

And I found one more from the same publisher, if you have time to investigate... Thanks again -- Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 01:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Don't worry, I wasn't going to dump 50 articles into your to do list! That last one was the only other one I found and it was an oversight that I didn't co-nom it at the time of the others. Thanks -- Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 02:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Just to let you know that this article is up for AfD as no notable reviews of the individual in question could be found, even in Serbian. If you know of any reasons why he should be considered notable, please feel free to leave them at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zlatko Krasni. - Yupik 11:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply

A question regarding [9] and [10] - are you an admin/sysop on Wikipedia? I thought only they can remove {{ prod}} templates etc. Apologies if you are a moderator, but there is no way of telling!

Ignore, that, I've seen that anyone can remove {{ prod}} templates - it's the {{ afd}} and {{ db}} templates which need to remain on the page.

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 14:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply

You can tell if someone is an administrator by looking for their name in WP:LOA. EdJohnston 15:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply

There are also some nifty things you can do with Special:Listusers, under the special pages on your left. -- HappyCamper 20:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply

As I understand it, you will see that anybody except the author can remove a speedy template. See for example the template {{db-bio}} " this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with this page’s proposed speedy deletion, please add: {{hangon}}. I do it about two times a day, after explaining on the talk p. and edit summary why it was wrongheaded, or after improving it, sometimes to the point of rewriting. Once a month or so, whoever put on the speedy objects, and then it goes to AfD. People who are not admins also have been known to remove speedies I put on, and I usually feel that this shows I was probably wrong to have added it.

Authors have also been known to do it, but the system apparently keeps track none the less.

What an admin can do with speedies, and a non-admin can not is:

1. actually remove an article after someone puts on a speedy
2. remove an article immediately it it obviously should be removed, without listing it as a speedy first.
3. override hangon tags if he doesn't think they have merit.

Each point on this is open to reinterpretation, and is all discussed repetitively on the WP:CSD talk page. If you want to continue, we should do so there. DGG 22:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC) as for the school districts, I responded on your talk page. DGG 22:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Use

 {{Col-begin}}
 {{Col-1-of-2}}
 Column 1 here
 {{Col-2-of-2}}
 Column 2 here
 {{Col-end}}

Or

 {{Multicol}}
 This text appears in the first column.
 {{Multicol-break}}
 This text appears in the second column.
 {{Multicol-break}}
 This text appears in the third column.
 {{Multicol-end}}

The latter's obviously more flexible. Hope that helps, -- Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 02:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply

ANDRE MEDICI

Hi! I thank you for your suggestion on my page. I added some references, but overall some of the suggestions you gave reflected what was already the format. The article does not look like a CV...at least no acceptable CV. It is a biographical article, which I only wrote after many people at my school asked for one source where a lot of information about Dr. Medici could be drawn. In fact, a lot of people that I know have used that article as a reference to get to more article about him and obtain the titles of some of his major papers. If you do have any suggestions please feel free to let me know. Hopefully you won't recommend it to be deleted anymore since it is very useful to many students. Thanks!

Could you please please help me ... remove the incorrect accent from the first e in the name Bénoît Gréan and make it Benoît Gréan ??? ( Klaus rabe 18:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)) reply

thank you for your help and other comments - very much appreciated! ( Klaus rabe 22:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)) reply

actually, I met the other poet, Zlatko Krasni, now under "attack" by AfD, twice last year; it is very strange to find how appearance on the web is the only convincing argument for someone's existence, at least for people living out too much time here instead of in the real world. please keep a friendly eye on him as well. your intuition about transliteration could be correct; the name is more regularly written with a "y" and not with "i", but krasni follows the transliteration used by the former jugoslavian authorities when treating serbian names, I think. ( Klaus rabe 00:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)) reply

Spammy, but workable(?) User:DGG/Emerald Group Publishing Limited. When you've got it in a state worth keeping, do a regular page move to Emerald Group Publishing Limited (or, perhaps, Emerald Group Publishing); that'll keep the page history intact. — coel acan — 03:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply

After I wrote that you were a "resident inclusionist", I questioned whether that was right. It seems you understood it in the spirit I intended. I have seen you vote for delete on many occasions, and though I don't always agree with you (it's just not possible for that to happen with the sheer volume of cases), I always respect your thought process. From my point of view, an inclusionist is someone who thinks carefully and doesn't just vote to delete when he/she sees something suspicious. By that standard, you qualify. If after careful thought you decide to delete, that's cool. I hope my respect for your work here is leaking from between the lines. YechielMan 04:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I've just closed this AfD, and I noticed that you'd accidentally contributed two opinions to it. Mercifully for everyone concerned, one was a "keep" and the other was a "weak keep", so you hadn't recanted your views or anything very odd. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi!

Seems my temp page has been nominated for deletion! I barely started rewriting and fixing the article! I do not know how this process works on wiki. Would greatly appreciate if you help me. Sincerely,

Hetoum 14:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, I meant to move it under my user name I suppose. I am currently rewriting the article, and I'm trying to avoid an edit war in the process. If you may move this under my user page it would be greatly appreciated. I do not know how to do so. Sincerely, Hetoum 01:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Done, and much obliged! Hetoum 15:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I placed {{ db - userreq }} tags, and the article was deleted. Was I supposed to do this once I had finished writing and replaced article? Can I retrieve work I had done?

Hetoum 22:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I sent you an email the other day, did you get it? Majorly (hot!) 00:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC) reply

OK, just double checking you got my reply :) Majorly (hot!) 23:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Eugenics in Showa Japan is a malignant venomous article on Japan. For instance, National Eugenic Law is a law that permits the artificial abortion for the maternity protection including economical reasons. Please write your detailed policy again. [ [11]]-- Azukimonaka 15:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Please be good enough to put right type of deleting tag in article Hanging in NDH or I will return speedy because to tell truth I do not know to put any other. -- Rjecina 19:40, 19 April 2007 (CET)

Hello, you recently participated in this AfD. There is a discussion going on at the article's talk page about the title of the article, so I am notifying everyone who voted or commented on the AfD in case you wanted to participate in the discussion. Thanks! Tufflaw 00:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, I am wondering if you have time to help get a WikiProject dedicated to Journals underway. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Journals. John Vandenberg 01:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC) reply

A few people seem to have been caught out. IT was User:Bnguyen. Thanks, Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your comments on the AfD page for this book. I was happy to establish the notability of the book but I am perplexed by some the other comments left there and would appreciate your advice on how I might improve the article further. The comments I refer to are:

"The article reads like an advert for the book, which is not what WP is for."

"until the "spammy" feeling can be dealt with, I have to go with weak delete"

"It needs cleanup"

"too promotional in nature"

Thank you for your time, if you are able to donate some to this. If not, thank you for your previous contributions. -- Lesley Fairbairn 09:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Please stop "vandalising" articles as the one for Steve Vickers (see discussion [12]). 147.188.192.41 14:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I was wondering if you would have a second look at Sunder Nagar and the discussion on AFD: ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunder Nagar) Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply

See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#taxonomy stubs. Anthony Appleyard 20:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Okay, so I just put the publishers name for the books in Birdsall Viault? The works are notable because it meets the requirements that many schools use them.

Please see WP:BAN. Banned users are not permitted to edit Wikipedia. The whole point of reverting their edits and deleting any pages they create is to enforce the ban, particularly in the case of prolific sockpuppeteers such as this one. He's at well over 200 sockpuppets now, and 3 today alone. If the pages stay up it encourages them to keep editing, when they are not permitted to do so. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 22:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I am not very impressed that an apparently experienced editor would remove a CSD tag (contrary to its own instructions) without at least leaving an explanation on the article's talk page or informing the editor who placed the tag. If "all villages" really are notable, then you could explain as much, and that requires more than a curt edit summary. If there is a different policy set out for villages, that's fine, but I would like to know about it for future reference. I have to question the wisdom of such logic, however; what makes all villages notable? How can they be apparently exempt from the normal notability requirements? Surely that undermines the ethos of notability. The article in question certainly appears to fail to establish its notability. Adrian M. H. 22:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your prompt reply and explanation. It certainly is an odd point at which to place the notability boundary, as it were, but if it has consensus, I won't worry about it. There are worse articles around! Personally, I would rather not remove a CSD tag without consulting the editor who placed it, but we'll agree to differ on that one. Regards, Adrian M. H. 23:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I've responded on my talk to your question. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi. Sorry, I didn't know being mayor was notable per se. I'll try to put some more info on him if I get some time. Thanks. Slacker 08:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Eventually there should be an article about this important Safavid philosopher and thus I decided to create one with my limited knowledge of Islamic philosophy. I am sure others will be able to expand it but I'll do my best as well.

Hey, just wanted to let you know that I struck out your comment on the Jocelyne Couture-Nowak DRV. The wording was correct -- the AfD ended in delete, therefore it should be "endorse deletion" or "overturn and keep," not the other way around (as you wrote). Thanks and let me know if I made a mistake -- Rockstar ( ^T/ _C) 02:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the note. Yup, you're right -- this is far from the average deletion review. Rockstar ( ^T/ _C) 03:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply

We've both just !voted to delete a school. Is this a sign of the dawn of the End Times? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 08:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Basically speaking, yes. But it's not so simple: OrthodoxWiki's copyright policy seems to have changed over time, which makes matters a bit difficult. If you want to get involved in the whole effort, we're trying to coordinate things at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. Mango juice ^talk 02:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Just wanted to let you know that I responded on my talk page. Thanks! Rockstar ( ^T/ _C) 18:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Could you please provide some evidence for your claim that I committed a copyright violation at Property and Freedom Society? It is inappropriate to use the template that you used without any explanation of your reasoning. DickClarkMises 19:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for taking a second look, and for moving the dicussion to AfD. DickClarkMises 04:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC) reply

left comment on his page. hope it helps and I can be helpful. thanks once more for past help to me. Hetoum 04:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I recently checked your edit count using the "Wannabe Kate" tool. Based on those statistics and my general impression of you from AFD discussions, I'm fairly certain that sysop rights are yours for the asking. You should consider making a request at WP:RFA. If you want me to nominate you, I will. Best regards. YechielMan 10:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC) reply

←I am a little confused by what happened to this page SPARC - Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Corporation you changed to a redirect yesterday --I see the speedy for the redirect but I did not notice the speedy or other deletion process for the original. In any case i want to recreate it as it is one of the things I know about & I'm sure i could do a proper article whatever may have been wrong with the first--If you're an admin could you restore it to my user space for the purpose? DGG 00:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The SPARC mess was confusing, I'll give you that. :) Someone — I don't know who — moved the SPARC article to the silly title SPARC - Scalable Processor ARChitecture, and created the new silly-titled page SPARC - Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Corporation. Someone else sensibly requested that SPARC - Scalable Processor ARChitecture be moved back to SPARC. I'm not actually an admin, so my contribution to the mess was limited to moving SPARC - Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Corporation to Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Corporation, and proposing it for speedy deletion since its only content was a link to the organization's Web site. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Scholarly_Publishing_and_Academic_Resources_Corporation for the entire text of the page.) Since then, somebody else has speedy-deleted Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Corporation (per my suggestion), and SPARC has been moved back to its rightful place.

If you would like to create an article about the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Corporation, then Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Corporation is the right place to do it. As long as you can find something encyclopedic to say about it, I wouldn't worry about the fact that a previous page on the topic has been deleted. -- Quuxplusone 02:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

You may be right. I have discussed the over use of speedy delete (and A7 in particular) on the CSD talk page several times, as you may know if you follow that page. In the past such complaints have been not infrequently dismissed as theoretical in default of sufficeient examples, and when i did point to a particualr example i was told "That's what DRV is for". I am hoping to build up a list of several examples on which there is celar consensus that a speedy was not warrented, and then use them together in a discussion on the CSD talk page, or perhaps at the pump. Do you think this plan worth while?

But it is also true that I don't feel that it is proper (except in an emergency) to reverse another admin without some form of discussion, and FRV is the sanctioned palce for this particualr topic. DES ^(talk) 03:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the comment! BTW -- I like the way you have your user page laid out. I might try the "What I know" etc. organization. -- Myke Cuthbert 05:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello! Please see my talk page for a (rather belated) reply to your comment! :) matt.smart ^talk/ contribs 15:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi. Since you contributed to the article's first deletion nomination discussion, I thought you might want to contribute to its second nomination. Thanks. - Eep² 04:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Re public domain: Good call. I always tag unattributed cut-and-paste, however. The person who did the copying gets an opportunity to quickly fix the problem (a simple attribution would have been sufficient in this case) and an admin gets to have a second look at the page.

I feel that an editor who takes it upon him or herself to copy and paste from external sources has a responsibility to make certain that copy was allowed, and to justify it. Lack of attribution is always a bad sign.  :-) If I had been an admin, I wouldn't have deleted the article outright either-- just tagged it so at least one other pair of eyes could look at it. Coren 16:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Please tell me you didn't think "varous tyops" was genuine mistake rather than humor to illustrate my point. If so, your joke detector is stuck or something.  :-)

Hey! Are you stalking my edits? Coren 20:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply

(P.S.: this was a test of your joke detector. If you did not detect the joke, your detector is indeed defective. Please bring it in for servicing at your nearest service center.) Coren 20:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh, no! I'm sorry you misunderstood me. The whole exchange was meant to be good-natured humor with no hint of reproach! (Oh, and by the way, the edit summary (of the original bit about spelling) was meant to be a tippoff: "I are not perfect") Happy editing! Coren 20:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I will take a look, and sort it out.-- Anthony.bradbury 20:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply

It does appear that your assumption is wholly incorrect.-- Anthony.bradbury 21:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply

What the? I think you might have confused the perpetrator with the victim. User:Referenced did use a sock to vandalize both my user and talk pages (which I have duly reported. I'm not sure why you got confused by the contrib history, but given how hapazard User:Referenced's is, I guess that shouldn't be surprising.

(paraphrased from my reply on User talk:Anthony.bradbury Coren 21:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the comment on my User Page. I did not know that. Thanks for the information. I appreciate it! ( JosephASpadaro 20:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)) reply

I'm going to draft a co-nom and leave it at User:YechielMan/Other stuff/DGG. If I disappear for some reason, it will be there, and you can just change the timestamp. I say this because I have final exams coming soon. YechielMan 03:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The answers look good. There's one place where you forgot to close a ), and in the link to the AFD you should replace WP with Wikipedia. YechielMan 13:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms...--

Hi, This is Hetoum,

Sorry to bother again in such a short time. It seems I cannot log in with my current username, keeps saying my PS is wrong, and I do not have an email accnt linked to my wiki one. What can I do?

149.68.164.13 05:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply

If you were using a password the same as your account name, there was a security problem & they were all disabled, & there is nothing much to do but create another account. Other things happen, and the easy way is to do the same--start another. Just indicate on the new user page who you used to be. Happened to me once. DGG 07:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you! Got a new one. Wont make the same mistake again! Hetoum I 20:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply

My apologies for deleting your vote at Auer. I don't know how I managed that; it certainly wasn't deliberate William M. Connolley 08:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply