User talk:DGG/Archive 38 Mar. 2010

Thank you for removing the speedy deletion nomination. I noted on the talk page for this article reasons why I believe the article is free from any copyright violations. Hartboy (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

commented there DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

DGG, would you have time to weigh in here (both in general terms of pseudonymous authorship in regimes where political persecution is common, and with respect to the specific book)? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the speedy response! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello DGG. I've come for your opinion. I think this is not sufficiently notable. Notability hinges upon a single event-- being the victim of a heinous crime perpetrated by a monster. Or am I overly squeamish? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

You edited Covers, Titles, and Tables: Anthologies and The Formations of American Literary Canons, removing the speedy deletion template with the explanation "has a ref for notability". Can you explain what you meant? There are no references in the article; there is only a link to the website itself. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The ref is in paragraph 2: Brogan's book. It's easy to covert this to a formal reference, so the bot will pick it up. whether the project is actually notable is a more difficult question & would take looking for additional refs. DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Your comment on my role in the anthology Glass of Green Tea, was incorrect. I was not a simply contributor to this book; I initiated the publication, co-edited it, solicited material from all the contributors (which included a Nobel prizewinner in literature, and many other prominent authors), and saw to its publication.

Hhgould (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I go by what's in the record. What so say seems to confirm it. You were, as i said, co editor, but wrote only one article. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, you can only go with what you find, I guess. Yes, I contributed one article. I also contributed a poem, the introduction, and an extensive bibliography of Honig's works. Hhgould (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC).Reply

I deleted this after you did. How now do we 'salt" this one? Bearian (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

it took me a while to figure out. Go to the page, where you should see that there is a protect tab. click it, and a box will appear for protection. I usually protect only for a feew months , to allow that it might be notable some time in the future. But I use a gadget that simplifies some of this: it's the 4th one down under User interface gadgets, " Add page and user options to drop-down menus on the toolbar. Works in Monobook and Modern skins". It gives instead of the protect tab, a "page" drop down menu, one of the options of which is "protect." I'm not going to protect right now, so you can do it yourself and see how it works. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

How is the reference you re-added to this article a usable ref to this article? Does it mention the subject or help establish its notability in anyway? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have now given an explanation at the AfD. You will note I have not expressed my opinion, but I have examined the history of the article, and I am not comfortable with the process of removing all references and then urging deletion as unreferenced. The people who comment at the AfD can determine the relevance. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've downloaded the pdf. Since the original book is nearly 900 pages long, I haven't read it all, although the first section is a summary of the contents. From what I've gleaned from that and skipping around and reading several sections here and there, it doesn't seem to pertain to the Choctaw in Florida, but the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and their legal battles at the beginning of the last century. Was your main criteria for relisting it because it's located at an American Libraries Internet Archive? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

You'll notice I have not defended the article. I think your view of it, and of the sources, is likely to be correct. But I continue to think that when one encounters an article with erroneous sourcing, there are two good courses: if there is enough left for an article, remove the bad sources; if there will not be enough left, leave it as is, and nominate for deletion, explaining why the sources are worthless. I apologize for any implication that you might have not acted in good faith, for it is clear that you did. --my view is perhaps excessively jaundiced by dealing with those who did not. The reason for not removing the sources before or during AfD is because it can give that impression,even when it is not the correct one. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, this whole escapade has me a little terse and tense. Its my first and possiby my last experince with an AFD. Most of my on wiki activity is Native American history, mostly the archaeology. I've taken plenty of stubs and fleshed them out considerably and created plenty of new articles, and most of the subjects are pretty obscure, but when it comes to the subject, I'm usually an inclusionist. This was the first article I've run across that seemed to have that low a rating on the notability scale and that poor an understanding of history, plus some pretty atrocious writing. Its the first time I've ran across an article that was that bad. When I started checking the refs, and then looking to see if there were any refs not used that could be incorporated, zilch, or at least none that would have made them look credible. I prodded it, was contested and removed, then brought to AFD by [[User:Uyvsdi(an editor who focuses on expanding coverage of modern tribes). If anyone had a chance of fixing the article to a keep state, it probably would have been one of us. Sorry for the long explanation, like I said this whole thing has me a little frazzled. If I ever get involved in an AFD again, I'll try to remember your pointers above, might save me some stress next time, lol. Anyway, might've worked out for the best, because at least one other editor after your post at the AFD checked the refs in the history and agreed with their removal as well, commenting on it in the AFD. Thanks for the advice, kind regards, Heironymous Rowe (talk) 05:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC).Reply

I read a little of it myself, and I see no reason to disagree with you, so I !voted to delete. Please don;t give up on afd--it takes a while to get used to the peculiar style of working there--and more people participating may eventually have the effect of making it less peculiar. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Outdent: Thanks, will keep that in mind. Guess its not so much the AFD as dealing with the Ip, who seems to have a bad case of no WP:CLUE and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. From a few of the short discussions I had with them, I think they found some of their sources by googling Choctaw and Florida and adding whatever came up, see the last part of this for an example. Anyway, once again, thanks and kind regards, H. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 05:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

yes, I reached that conclusion about their working method also. alas, it's not all that uncommon here. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi again DGG! Do you think the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boss Audio was appropriate? I have no idea, but you always seem to know these type of things. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

no; an admin is obliged to follow consensus and there was consensus to keep. If he disagreed he should have joined the discussion. If it gets taken to deletion review I will see it there--but it would help to have some better source for notability available first. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do you think any of these articles are useful? Perth DBL -Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well DGG, I've approached X! about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boss Audio (see User talk:X!#Like a boss). Your input/thoughts would be appreciated. Take excellent care, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your note. I've gone ahead with the deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 March 3#Boss Audio. Again, take care, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, DGG. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Titus (2nd nomination), you may be interested in Talk:Steve Titus#Requested move. Cunard (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi DGG. First, my honest apologies for writing a long post to you. I do it because I do believe there are big problems in the RS case you have commented upon, which might not be apparent to you. I weighed the risks of saying nothing directly to, and find them too big. Based on recent experience, trying to stick to topic and follow policy is not enough to be able to edit on Wikipedia. You can not assume that others will check links and background, and so increasingly one needs to be able to provide background information to admins in order not to end up being pushed out of editing just because of having had the bad luck to bump into one of Wikipedia's more aggressive types.

I note your remarks to me on my talk page, and I also note that you've made a point of making a difference in your remarks to User:Rudrasharman. Specifically it seems that you wish to emphasize the issue of saying "you". There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this of course, but do you really consider it more important that repeatedly calling someone a habitual writer of bullshit?[1], an habitual fillbusterer, someone who has no credibility because he has a genealogy webpage, and so on? Rudra has received no remarks about such things.

Just to take an example from his most recent postings, the word "explicitly", which rudra (not me) now focuses upon with such vigor[2] as proof, apparently acceptable to others(?), that I habitually write bullshit, was introduced by Rudrasharma himself[3] making a false citation, and only used back at him by me. The real point was that the cited journal did not criticize JOGG's editorial process, just distinguished it from "traditional" peer review in an academic style journal. The point is lost and the opposite impression is now being built up, without anyone raising any objection. Of course it is understandable that people are not going to check the background to every remark. I have not even tried to respond to most of these types of "asides", but they are clearly forming the core of all discussion in a consistent way.

I have asked several times that others frame their discussion in terms of Wikipedia policy, without sinking into this pattern of making it about me personally or genetics article sourcing generally or historically. If someone keeps making reference to, for example, an old NOR case I was in, and it seems acceptable to others as relevant(??), then should I respond by talking about that old NOR case? These requests to stick to the subject have not only been ignored, but even attacked and criticized, on the basis that by mentioning how other people are going off topic, I am going off topic.[4][5]

Here are a series of postings by rudra in the middle of the discussion. Perhaps none of them use the word "you", but they are obviously ad hominem and off topic. Please understand that these are not occasional outbursts. These this is just a small sample of the style of MOST of his postings on the RS board, which are politesse incarnate compared to his flaming on other Wikipedia pages.

• [6]Edit summary: you have been nosethumbed, folks
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]

So with all due respect I frankly think the problems are much bigger than the word "you" and that I am effectively being told not to respond to the core of the other party's postings. One editor is being allowed to argue using innuendo, links to irrelevant things, and personal attack, while the person he is harassing is being asked not to respond. But I should justify the word harass. Have a look at these personal attacks for example: [11], [12]. What is the good faith interpretation of these? This person's project here is getting me unable to edit. I am just telling it like it is. Here is a sketch of Rudra's thinking about haplogroup articles:

The significant problem I foresee is that consensus on a list like this will not be achieved. This is because the lack of secondary and tertiary literature usually means that an article should not exist at all. However, this has been overruled by "popular demand" in the form of a core of editors with an abiding or long-term interest in the subject. As a rule they are into the topic deeply enough that they will be tempted to nominate themselves secondary experts by proxy and apply their own judgement of things like WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE, on grounds of familiarity with all relevant issues, etc. And they may want to reserve the right to plug their own favorite exceptions to the rules, or the latest and greatest hot off the press to keep up to date. This means endless edit-wars and long wandering talk page threads, but that would be no downturn from the current state of affairs anyway: they seem to prefer this.

Wikipedians applying their own judgement of things like WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE. That's how Wikipedia normally works of course. He also knows that none of these articles is only based on primary sources, and nor would they in any way be better or less controversial by making them more out of date, obviously. The edit wars on haplogroup articles are repeatedly started by aggressive "visitors" with ethnic concerns about them, like frankly User:Rudrasharman, not because of any problem finding the scientific consensus.

Of course it is always difficult to know when to react to personal attacks, or even when to respond to "off topic" remarks. I would say that the decision to do so needs to consider whether you believe, as I do, that the personal attacks and off topic allusions are having a major impact on discussion. But there are no easy options when your find yourself in that situation. And third parties are an enabling reason that this situation can exist. If I was not being treated differently than rudra with respect to Wikipedia policies, there would be much less need for me to defend myself so much from off topic diversions. Nearly all third party remarks in the entire discussion lock onto the subject of "genetics articles in general". Rudra also consistently feeds this. I have no problem discussing this subject as such, but I have been asked not to, and indeed the JOGG is not necessarily anything to do with this subject, being a fairly special case which is not even being used very much.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am aware there are major substantiative problems with this & similar articles. My thought was divided between commenting on them rather extensively at the article talk page , or commenting very briefly there or at the RSN discussion, or not going into the fundamental issues at all. I think that the discussion does need to be approached quite generally, and we do need to discuss the way sources are being used & criticized in these articles, not just this particular source, but I am already engaged in too many other things. So in the end, I decided to merely do what I felt obliged to do: respond from my professional knowledge about the particular sourcing question, & give people some help in avoiding getting into trouble here

as for who is making the personal attacks: well, it is both parties, as usual, and I do not usually try to figure out who is more in the right--that aspect of disputes needs attention sometimes, but I prefer not to engage in interpersonal dispute resolution here, partly because I dislike our formal practices. But there was a simple piece of advice to give which tends to lessen the perceived personal nature of the attack. (the other party's comments showed they had already learned at least that ). It's a rule I try to follow in an discussion about an article: never mention an individual's username, or refer to them directly, although sometimes in a policy discussion it is inevitably necessary to give the usernames to keep things straight, Earlier on , I did not follow that rule, and used names and personal references rather often, and I was repeated criticized for this, until by now I have learned that every time i write these words I should go back & check if they are necessary. Even if one is determined to make a personal attack, one can make it without those words, and those words always give a handle to one's opponent. It's worth reading back what one writes in an dispute, because the way one first thinks to write an argument is not always the best. I give you the same advice that people gave to me. It helped me, and it will help you. DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Dear DGG, I guess your judgment on the importance of the word "you" is consistent sounding, but I still do not understand why you say that even just based on this one single criteria "the other party's comments showed they had already learned at least that" justifying your different remarks on our respective talk pages. I honestly think you've misread something. Just to quote the most recent posting he made, just before you made this judgement (emphasis added by me):-

As I've written before, had this been Usenet, I would have plonked you long ago. The limitations of the medium here prevent my arranging to make what you write disappear from my view, so occasions will arise where I'm more or less obliged to address you directly. This is one of those, hopefully rare, occurrences. It has become necessary to point something out. You seem quite unaware that apparently persuasive phrasing on the order of "formatting error", "major journal", "two top geneticists", "specifically", "explicitly", etc. -- are all instances of bullshit. Not only do you seem oblivious of your propensity to bullshit, you also seem incapable of absorbing the incontrovertible evidence of your bullshit when presented to you. You also seem untroubled by the fact that bullshit is fundamentally abusive behavior, especially in Wikipedia's culture of WP:AGF. People are not fools or naifs to believe what you write simply because you wrote it; nor are they imbeciles incapable of reading and comprehending evidence for themselves, who need others to exercise judgment for them. Yet these are the expectations of others that you convey by your bullshit. Please examine your behavior and try to free yourself of what seems to be an unconscious habit. Thank you.

I hope I do not sound too dumb if I say that not only can I not understand your even limited positive descriptions of this, but I also see nothing equivalent to this in anything I have posted?

I also think it worth pointing out that in one of the links I gave above, in his first discussion with me[13], Rudra received a complaint from another editor that his entire discussion was amounting to a personal attack upon Andrew Lancaster serving no positive purpose for Wikipedia. The response was not a denial, but a defense explaining that he believes Andrew Lancaster is not an asset to the project. The list of complaints are bizarre but show that he had been obsessing about me for some time before posting. So these are not isolated outbursts of PA. There is an conscious and open decision to ignore normal Wikipedia rules about how to work with other people. He is deliberately trying to make it difficult for me to edit and discuss things on talk pages. There are quite clear Wikipedia rules about such things but like you I do not really like starting formal procedures. I do however think it best that people be aware of such obviously major problems, if they are commenting on related issues.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

this is a recurrent problem once ethnic issues, or what people consider ethnic issues get involved. The only rational approach to a personal attack is to defend one's position in a reasonable way and ignore the attack otherwise. People here are by and large not particularly stupid, and if your position is right and your argue it fairly and briefly, uncommitted people will agree with you, and if there is a clear aggressor, everyone will realize by themselves what is going on. As for convincing one's opponent, that's often beyond hoping for. DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Back to the subject matter, small remark: you forgot to sign your last posting on the RS board.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

thanks, I went back and signed it. (if you ever see that again, please just feel free to add it for me). DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mahadeva Sambasivan. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahadeva Sambasivan. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

DGG - just closed the Afd for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninjatō (2nd nomination) and added the appropriate template to Talk:Ninjatō. This was my first AfD Close. Think I did it properly but would appreciate any process improvement feedback at your convienence. Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

the close is certainly correct, but even when it's as clear as this one, you should give a reason. You can go right back in and add one. something like "The consensus was that it was sufficiently sourced." DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Your right about the reason which I forgot as I focused more on the technical process rather than the communicative one. Thanks again for the feedback.--Mike Cline (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. It looks like you accidentally made two keep recommendations ([14], [15]) at WP:Articles for deletion/Baldwin P. "Bulletproof" Vess. I tagged the first with {{unsigned}}, and you should strike one of them. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

fixed--it did seem a little familiar... Thanks. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Amity University Rajasthan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable/ Notability has not been established. There are more than 300 universities in India. I do not see the point in having articles on each and every such private university. Please note the original contribution of this article was copyvio. See history of the article for details. (If you can establish notabilty you are welcome to do so.)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nilotpal42 (talk) 12:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

if you do place a prod on it, which you have not yet done, I shall immediately remove it. Our invariable result at AfD is that we do intend to have an article of every university in every country-- see WP:OUTCOMES. In addition to it being the current practice, I think it is the desirable one . They are significant institutions, affecting many people and about which many people seek unbiased factual information. Sources can always be found for notability with sufficient work, though for some countries, such as India, it currently requires manual searching locally. It is therefore wrong to reject the articles because of the difficulty of immediately finding them. this is particularly true for universities in India, where, as we both know, for accurate information on them is very difficult to find on the internet. I know the original information was copyvio, for I removed it. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this message because you contributed to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and have not participated at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC or been directly informed this RfC has opened. Please accept my apologies if you have been informed of and/or participated in the RfC already.

This RfC has opened and your comments are welcome and encouraged. Please visit Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I confess that I was lazy and sloppy! That article was one of my earliest attempts to incorporate CRS material. Subsequently, I had somebody create {{CRS}}. The info that you put into the Source section is now reproduced in that template.

By the way, kudos for your comment at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/poll ("The proof that this is a bad idea, is that people are voting for it without knowing the details."). It changed my vote. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 03:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I noted my entry for Softlink was deleted, and whilst this was part of a discussion, I feel that it does warrant an entry due to the number of users worldwide, and it would be a central encyclopedic source for verified data. There are other similar entries for comparable products, so I am curious as to why those were passed while Softlink was deleted?

At the least could you please restore to my user page for me to work on, or even up to Softlink (software)

Is there anything else i can do to fix this up? Sjritchie (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I didn't delete it: you need to ask User:Cirt, who closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Softlink. Ask him to move it to user space, which he will probably do. What you need, quite simply, is to find some articles or reviews that discuss it or talk about it in a more substantial way. Nothing else is really likely to work. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi DGG. Thanks for your help with Martin Reyners. But perhaps you are not aware that New Zealand and Australia are two separate countries. Thanks very much.Rick570 (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I seem to recall having heard about NZ before somewhere. Interesting, the things you learn about in Wikipedia :), DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia certainly combats ignorance! Rick570 (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I notice that you closed the review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Revengers (film) after only two days. I think that retaining this article would make a mockery of the notability guidelines. In my deletion request, I am the one that mentioned The New York Times less than 300 word review, which was not a full review. I am the one that found many mentions of the film in newspapers that were not on-line. Having reviewed those, I came to the conclusion that the film did not receive substantial coverage in the press, nor in subsequent books. The film did not receive two, or even one, full reviews by a nationally known critic. The film was not theatrically re-released. Yet you closed the Afd. Can this be resolved in discussion with you, or are you adamant that notability was somehow established? By the way what does "SNOW keep" mean? --Bejnar (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you want to continue the discussion, I will re-open it. I'm not stubborn about such things. It;'s not my field, but it seemed obvious to me that any NYT review is enough for notability of a film, and I think you will find so also as the discussion continues. SNOW means that the closer does not think the result could conceivably have been different, as in a snowball rolling down hill. DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you about SNOW as the editors so far seem to be unwilling/unable to address the notability guidelines as written. --Bejnar (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Anyway, as I went to the work of reopening, it's reopened now, so you can try to make your case. All our rules are subject to interpretation, and the community has the right to make whatever exceptions in whatever direction it has consensus to make. the result is that all notability guidelines in practice are whatever regularly happens at AfD, and in fact this is usually the way that general consensus changes. Since a guideline takes an undefined super-majority, and an AfD does not require such a high degree of consensus, this is inevitable in our system. Nobody could really claim as the merits of a wiki like ours that it will be highly consistent or even necessarily rational. DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can you verify any of the claims in this BLP, and thus chime in on the AfD? Bearian (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

commented there: Delete--typical coterie argument. DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

This live? Dlohcierekim 04:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

now it is. Was waiting for the co-nom. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Per your query. I've been talking with MQS about his adminship for some time. Glad he finally feels ready. Votes are going well. Do nominator's votes count? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Because of the bureaucrat range of discretion it's never a situation where one vote more or less makes the difference. A single person can make a difference though in what gets said, one way or another--because this does influence others--including the crats. Despite all the nasty things that get said sometimes in the course of an AfD, the actual resolution is, in my opinion, more often reasonable than most other processes at Wikipedia. what makes the difference is partly the large number of participants, and partly that this is the only process where only a few selected people can determine closure. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

If I wasn't clear before, I am interested in adminship. Your thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it was clear. I've emailed you, and we can plan about it. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

We'll talk later, but thanks for the e-mail. I'll give you any/all specifics then. Until then, let's worry about MQS's nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Atmoz also tagged Keith Briffa for speedy deletion as G7, and User:Juliancolton deleted it. You might want to take a look at the deleted article and see whether notability can be established for it. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I saw much less of a case. He's a member of the unit, not holding titles of distinction otherwise. I didn;t do a thorough check beyond that I've moved to it your user space as User:Eastmain/Keith Briffa. If you feel justified, move it back to mainspace, but if you do, please notify Julian DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I don't want to get involved in Wikipedia politics--regular politics is harsh enough. BUT: Briffa is indeed notable (perhaps against his will) because he is the object of attack by some involved in the controversies over climate change. For example: the Climate Realists blog has a post claiming a Wikipedia conspiracy to protect Briffa by taking down his page (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5395). I'd put the page back up myself, but as I said, I want to avoid involvement in some big deletionist admin battle! So why don't one of you do it, OK?!Jeangoodwin (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

"In S r 1991". You sourced it to http://www2.augsburg.de/ but a ctrl+F of the term Breu came up with nothing on that page. When you get a moment, could you fix the sentence and/or the source if that's needed? Thanks. Killiondude (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I copied that from the deWP. I'll check. It should be possible to source it completely indepedently in any case. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for considering me suitable. I accept the nomination and will try to make you proud. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted the article D. Jeffrey Wright because I am the original author, I read the talk page and see you were the last one to wiegh in on it. I am a psychologist these days and it is very clear that User:Lacbolg is conducting a witch hunt and had removed important reference material and has a personal problem with the article or the person and it is obvious that this User:Lacbolg knows Wright. I welcome your edits and removal of unreferenced material, but not the questioning by User:Lacbolg who has viciously made this attack and removed reliable reference material and hazed the article in general. If he were a legitimate editor he would not have created an account to inflict personal harm on another.

I have reviewed your work and it appears that your work is very essential, I also know that someone requesting speedy deletion for an article that is several years old is doing so for personal rationale and is not a legitimate Wikipedian or familiar with the guidelines. User:Lacbolg made 28 edits all in an effort to discredit the subject, his entire presence here on Wikipedia reflects the same..

I will be looking for some other administrators there are several who have edited this article in the past and I know several others and I will ask them to take an objective view of this article and invite their edits, I am also going to contact my journalism professor and ask him to help me improve the content based on your opinion and commentary. I have also identified 18 additional news and book references that I will include. I admit the article needs more work and references, it was my first and I will improve it.

To say it is not notable to distribute 10 million trees, fight over trademarking the name of a global observance, and other achievements is definitely not on key here, there are thousands of bio-articles on Wikipedia in need of improvement and references which can be edited but User:Lacbolg is involved in a personal vendetta with Wright and should be removed from Wikipedia immediately. He is an obsessive compulsive personality and his edits are unwelcomed by me, and I am sure would be unwelcomed by admins especially after removing referenced newspaper materials which he should have been read by him as a responsible editor (which he is not) My citations I have found and researched on Lexus Nexus, and there are many more from 1988-2010, so when I improve the article I will include such.

I am asking you as an administrator first to remove and/or undo the damages and allegations made by User:Lacbolg and remove his talk etc, especially considering he is in clear violation of Wikpedia policy and a self proclaimed non-existent user. Ingenosa (talk) 08:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have compared the last version I edited it and the last version Lacbolg edited, [16] and I do not see any personal attacks. What I see is some questioning of various vague statements that do indeed need specification or documentation, and a removal of two links to the subject's unpublished writings, that are indeed somewhat questionable by our policies. I have then compared the changes you made, which removed both the work I did and the work he did.

I urge you to read the policies of WP:PEACOCK, WP:COI, and WP:OWN.

I had not finished editing, and I inttend to remove a good deal more promotional language and puffery than he did. A state that one has consulted for many organizations without giving third party sources to say just which of them is indeed subject to question and removal. You do not have any more rights over the article than anybody else, and it will be edited to fir our standards in a fair manner. As it is an article on a living person, it is particularly necessary that every that might be reasonably challenged be properly documented.

I have no knowledge who either you are, or the other editor is, except that it is evident that you have a connection with the subject. If so, I warn you that further editing on your part will not be regarded favorably. It is not evident to me that theother editor is a personal enemy. It is not evident to me that he has made any personal attacks of any sort in editing the material.

What is evident is that you have made many pefrsonal attacks against the other editor in the material above. I intend to edit the article the way it ought to be edited, and I warn you that if you make further personal attacks, here or elsewhere, I will ask some other admin to block you. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict--I had written the above reply before the following posting) DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am the user 'Lacbolg'. In response to Ingenosa's discussion above, I would just like to say that I welcome the review of the article in question and all of the edits. I have no personal feeling about Mr. Wright as I have never met him, nor have I communicated with him in any way.

As you will see from the edits, I have culled material that I found to be inappropriate, given reasons for those changes, and left material in the article with tags to indicate where I believe there should be improvement. If there are improvements to be made, I encourage Ingenosa to make them without the wholesale reverting to previous, unedited, versions without discussion on the article's discussion page.Lacbolg (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

see my comment above. I intended to post it last night. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see that the article is now nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. Jeffrey Wright. It will certainly be easier to delete it than fix it, given the borderline notability, so I'm not going to work on it further unless it should get kept, which I doubt. Another case where, if the author had let other people improve the article, it might not have been even nominated for deletion. There's good reason for the WP:COI guideline. Though it is possible to write a good article about yourself or your close associates, this is not at all easy, and most people who try do not mange to do it. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well Admin User:DGG I understand the policies and the program here well enough to know that administrators do not tolerate first time editors coming in registering a user name and editing a single article all related to the same person and basically destroying a great deal of my work, the person has also removed references. The article and its content has relevant sourcing, the challenges and demands for citations necessary based on public records do not need to be noted and I do not see the need to use the same reference 3 or 4 times if it was already cited, if an editor fails to seek and review the sources, he should not edit out. If you choose to permit this it is fine, I strongly believe that my work and contribution which has existed a considerable time is being very harshly criticized and citations are being requested where none were necessary simply because of a brand new editor that came here with clear intention to diminish the credibility of the subject. On the issue of objectivity, I have no personal connection to the subject he was a neighbour several years ago, I found him interesting enough to note his work considering that he organized environmental events where Al Gore was the keynote speaker, and distributed 10 million trees is basis enough for inclusion. and I wrote the article as part of a school assignment. I guess I will just have to work harder and pay to read, include and have the other articles I am missing. Meanwhile I will remove all my work that is being challenged. But really reading the article it is clear that User:Lacbolg has targeted this article it is evident in the last sentence of the first paragraph where I wrote "He got started in the non-profit sector and green causes in the late 1980s through prominent people[who?] he came to meet working as a communications installer and electrical protection engineer installing lightning rods, auctioneer, and pastor in Wilmington and Greenville, Delaware." The article from the Wilmington clearly shows his involvement with the DuPonts and Sen. Joseph Biden as do other articles. I will rewrite the article now and remove everything that can be challenged. Ingenosa (talk) 08:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can't speak for other administrators, but I certainly highly approve of new people coming here and writing articles on notable people-- I will help them all I can and defend their articles if the person has any reasonable chance of notability as long as the new editor cooperates enough that thye can be effectively helped. . It was not clear to me that this subject was notable, but I tried to help anyway. I think the other editor was trying to help also. If the article is kept it will because there are good sources for the notability of what he did, but that he met distinguished individuals does not confer notability. Good luck with it. I will keep track. DGG ( talk ) 08:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

It appears to me that that both Wikipedia administrators and editors MAY have a tainted or even a corrupted view over the article about D. Jeffrey Wright and that the editor User:Lacbolg is manipulating or using special favors to harm someone's reputation and now administrators are becoming criminal accomplices of User:Lacbolg who claims he has no connection to the subject of the article, but I know User:Lacbolg and know what he is doing. Yesterday, I posted comments over this article on the talk page and gave my opinion over deletion (AS A WIKIPEDIA USER) in the 'Deletion Discussion' after following this for several days because I was asked to give my opinion and find out why the subject of this article was being attacked and harassed on Facebook and in Google, now as a professional researcher and Wikipedia user I have become very interested to know why the subject of this article is being discounted and why reliable reference material has been removed from an article that I read last year. Further want to know why my comments posted yesterday were deleted and what special interest is helping User:Lacbolg. Please read my original comments: (redacted)

Now I see that User:Happy-melon has used (abused) his special administrative privileges to delete my comments yesterday in the deletion discussion and further Blanked User:Lacbolgs talk page and suppressed the history, who is perhaps even violating laws relatively. User:Happy-melon deleted what he said was a valueless comment, but how can it possibly be valueless (redacted). As the waters are made dirty it becomes more difficult to see, what is going on here. Rokrunestone (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

For information, I have blocked this editor for personal attacks and harrassment. See their talk page for details.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

thanks. DGG ( talk ) 15:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 21st, Columbia University area Last: 11/15/2009 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Day NYC, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Lights Camera Wiki, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example User:ScienceApologist will present on "climate change, alternative medicine, UFOs and Transcendental Meditation" (see the November meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feast of Tabernacles (Christian holiday) -- The result was actually delete, and the closing admin made a point of explaining that he was forgoing a redirect. This redirect was re-created following the deletion by another editor. There doesn't seem to be any reason for it, and I think it's misleading for it to exist, as it still implies that there's a separate Christian entity. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:23, 13 Mar 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the admin , SilkTork, that the redirect isn't necessary for findability, and in fact I think it's an extremely unfortunate redirect. However, the admin at the close may have thought a redirect not necessary, but the page history--in fact it's the page history fo explicitly says that material was taken from the deleted page--revisions [17] and [18]. As I understand it, copyright overrules everything, including common sense--I don;t really know how to handle this otherwise. What I slipped up on, and I apologize to you and him, was checking with him first and discussing it. What I'm going to do, I asked ST If he is quite sure about that part also, and if so I will re-delete. But otherwise perhaps the best thing is to take this myself to RfD, and whatever people decide there will happen. I think it's better than DRV for the purpose. I've notified SilkTork. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The page's history wasn't restored by an admin, it was just created anew by an editor, so I don't think any copyright problems are solved with this. Also I don't see any actual material from the deleted article in Sukkot. But thanks for notifying him, and maybe we'll see at RfD. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:56, 13 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some material from Feast of Tabernacles (Christian holiday)‎ went into Sukkot. I should have merged histories. I'll do it now. SilkTork *^YES! 18:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

DGG; I've nominated an article you de-prodded 8 months ago for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of disgraced United States politicians You said it has potential, but I don't see it having been developed- I thought you might be interested in the discussion, and I would like to hear your opinion if you're so inclined. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do you ever have the time to review an editor, DGG? If you do, I think I could benefit from you doing a more in-depth analysis of my work. Either way, thank you for your consideration.--~TPW 17:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

not formally, especially with all the current nonsense going on, but 2 small hints: 1/be careful not to mark an edit minor when its a nomination for deletion, 2/ some of your edit summaries are a little snarky about the subject--NPOV applies there also. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi DGG! I sincerely hope I'm not overstaying my welcome on your talk page ... please tell me if I am! I was just looking for your input on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the War on Terrorism, and the resulting discussion here. I certainly don't expect you to read through all that, but was wondering what your opinion was (and of course don't agree with me just to agree with me (not that you would anyway)). The question seems to be about whether the article was to be deleted as original research, or kept as fixable and sourceable. Again, you have no obligation to make any notice of this, but at the very least have a good day. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

it will be easier to make the new article than convince the admin about the old one, or to go to Del Rev about it. The simplest way is get it into user space and work on it there. I'm sure Jayjg will move it for you. If not, ask me. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks greatly DGG! You always seem to give me a solid second opinion, I hope I don't call on it too much for your liking. Take excellent care, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note, but I don't at all deal with BLPs enough to know what to do. I encountered these ones while deleting expired PRODs, and obviously I found the others problematic. No complaints about deletion; after all, I was asking for them to be deleted :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the suggestion to merge into the article for the North Carolina School for the Deaf and Blind. You know there isn't such an article, yes? Ironholds (talk) 05:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

But there is: North Carolina School for the Deaf, DGG ( talk ) 14:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I really should have consulted you before doing this, but I admit i slipped up here--and I do not want it to appear like I was deliberately wheel-warring--I was just correcting something which you seemed to have forgotten--please see the talk page discussion for the reasons : [19] If you are quite sure about that part also, please just tell me, and I will re-delete. But otherwise perhaps the best thing is to take this to RfD. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

You're right. My bad. I didn't do a history merge. I will merge the history now, then leave the redirect in place. I would have thought "Feast of Tabernacles (Christian holiday)" to be an unlikely search term, but if there is at least one person who feels that somebody might do a search for such a term then we can leave it in place. Redirects are cheap, after all. Though I would have no objections to the redirect being taken to RfD. I wouldn't join in the discussion as I am easy either way. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 18:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

History merge done. The redirect is now clear to be deleted or taken to RfD. SilkTork *^YES! 18:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Redirect deleted as G$, by consensus of the 3 of us. will protect if recreated DGG ( talk ) 15:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi DGG,

This is to request your opinion on Talk:Ghost#Is this a pseudoscience topic? I suppose this is canvassing, but since I am only canvassing one person, know you will mention my request in your reply and have no idea what your view will be, think it is acceptable. Often when I ask for your opinion, I sort of wish I hadn't because you tend to give the wrong answer. But somehow I keep asking for your opinion. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I can't decipher out the course of the discussion well enough to even figure out what your opinion is. But as I said there just now, I think it better to hold to a rather restricted definition of that term. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the input. Makes sense. I only got involved a week or so ago. My opinion is that this article is a bit lop-sided, overly focused on Western beliefs, but could grow to be an interesting article about the rich subject of ghost lore in different cultures and religions around the world. Unfortunately it has turned into a battlefield over the very minor aspect of "paranormal research", which is strangling further development. The main arguments are "is so", "is not" and "you're another". Maybe this RFC will help to calm things down. Thanks again, Aymatth2 (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi David. I hope you don't mind my quoting you here. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've contested merger, but User:Crusio merged it without any argue or talks. Talk:The Magnificent Seven#Bernardo O'Reilly. What should I do next? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

This was discussed r [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernardo O'Reilly]]. I closed the discussion as "merge", because I thought that was clearly the consensus--I expressed no particular opinion on this one, but it seemed reasonable to me also. Crusio had initially asked for deletion, but by the end of the discussion agreed that merge was a good solution,. I consider that discussion to have been the way AfD discussions ought to be, not a conflict, but as a search for a generally acceptable resolution. If the question is how much material is merged, it should be discussed on the merged talk page. Note that some of the material was merged not to the article on the film, but the article on Bronson. DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

It even worse than deletion. Because if it would be deleted, I would requested to replace it in my space, corrected, fullfilled and expanded. Instead it was in a critical way cutted by nominationers, eventually becomes a redirect link. Now there are scattered remarks about it in M7 article and in Charles Bronson. You can easily check it.
As for discussion result, it's not obvious. There were no conflict but there were a clear split: 3 users (+ me) voted for keep, 3 for merge, and 2 users has't defined point whether to keep or to merge. So I expected further debates on the talk page after I posted there. But there were no discussion. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

But you can and should expand the sections in those two articles from the material in the edit history of the original article. That's the advantage of merge--as the sections grown, they can be expanded, and if there are eventually enough secondary sources, they can be restored to an article. In fact, I think from the edit summary of Crusio's last edit, he intends himself to merge further material --"to be merged here". I think leaving it as a bare link is entirely against the intent of my close--it's a redirect, not a merge-- and if I had thought he would want to do that, I would have argued for keep. I would suggest adding about one long paragraph--you can do that as well as he or anyone else. As I am guilty of never having seen the film, a situation I ought to correct as soon as possible, I'm not the person to do it myself. There's been a lot of discussion over articles like this, and I often vote keep on them, often enough that if I think a disputed one is a keep, I will join the discussion, but I will not close a disputed discussion in accord with my own opinion. People would really complain if I did that, and rightly so. But i will close against my opinion if that's the clear consensus, and I will close as a compromise close. My feeling is that we should be focussing on increased content, not necessarily on increased number of articles. I've mentioned my comments to Crusio, and I expect he will comment here. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I merged most information that was contained in the "Bernardo O'Reilly" article to The Magnificent Seven, except for some information that was more about Bronson than about the character, which I merged into Charles Bronson. I then redirected the O'Reilly article to the article on the movie. Some text was deleted ("further reading"), as I did not know what to do with that. If there's anything useful in those sources it should be added to the articles and the further reading sources used as proper references. As far as I can see, no useful information was lost. I thought this was what you intended when you closed the AfD as "merge", but let me know if I erred. --Crusio (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see the part about Bronson, which was a good merge. I do not see anything merged into the article on the film. I would have expected the paragraph about the "Description" to be added. Had I done the merge, I would have included both parts--your idea to separate it was a good one, better than my idea, but it is only half completed. DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• • You're absolutely right! I have no idea what happened here, I definitely remember merging stuff to the film article. I'll have to check my other computer later tonight to see what happened. Perhaps I didn't click "safe" or something. My apologies to you and SerdechnyG. I'll correct this as soon as I have time. --Crusio (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

you may have clicked save, but received the message , "sorry , no longer in the cache" and not noticed it. I've lost a number of edits that way if I keep windows open too long. DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• My home computer did not solve the riddle, so I just did it again. Let me know if you feel I left out something worthwhile. --Crusio (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• My question to DGG: Is it possible to delete the article, and to replace it with all its history in my space for further edition? Or to create such copy without deleting original? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

So... Is it possible? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

No we cannot delete the article since the content was merged. Yes, you can create a temporary local copy from the history in user space to work on it. I would suggest instead, though, that you work on paragraphs about the other characters for the main article. DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC) .Reply

Yes I would. But I don't want to make one extremely big article, but a few convenient articles which are connected by navigation template. Thanks. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can you, please, move this tread into Talk:Bernardo O'Reilly. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this note because you participated in this TFD. Some of these have been re-nominated here, where you may wish to comment. Thanks, –xeno^talk 14:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am disappointed in the decision reached in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bergil. That makes two articles in the last year that were not, in my opinion, properly kept at AfD. Abductive (reasoning) 02:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Two?. So far this year I could probably find 200. Checking my guess, there's about 100 articles a day, 80 days so far=8,000 articles. If half were deleted, and there's a 5% error rate = 200. since the bias at AfD is towards deletion, that makes probably 100 improper keeps as well. It's unrealistic to expect that a chaotic process like this, relying on the consensus of a half dozen people chosen not even at random, but as those who have definite feelings one way or another, could possibly do better. Now, on to the next stage of the problem, which is making sure all the material gets merged. And then on to all the other articles.... The only way to keep from feeling hopelessly frustrated here is to not look back. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Dear DGG, rather than get involved, I thought I should alert you to reinitiation of efforts on the Schlessinger page by someone called 'Cancer research TRUTH'. Suspiciously similar to Truthertruther and 'Science and Truth'. Initial action is to highlight 'peacock' terms - which could certainly be edited. But, references to defaming Imclone issues are likely to follow given the tags on the changes so far.Hillhealth2 (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I saw that you commented on the AfD for New South Hall and thought you may want to also comment on some similar discussions I've started. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darnall Hall, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schapiro Hall, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodward Court. Thanks--TM 03:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

one keep, one maybe, one delete. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

As you know, I adopted your words as my own. The next step is to try to move beyond parroting, e.g.,

Comments?

If you're interested, see also User talk:Tenmei/Subpage Mentorship-A?

Thank you. --Tenmei (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you declined the speedy delete of this article. I would like to note that it is still an obvious close paraphrase of the two sources that were listed and thus still a copyright violation. Am I missing something in this situation? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

its easy enough to rewrite further. Only obvious copyvios get deleted at speedy. DGG ( talk ) 14:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reply! VernoWhitney (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

DGG - I closed this one as a keep, but also took your lead and protected the article--Admin Indefinite with a {{pp-dispute}} tag. Probably not the right combination but as it was my first protect, I thought I'd run it by you. Will change the protect based on your advice. Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

not indefinite--that is rarely done without much stronger cause than here. just long enough to prevent people from coming immediately to mess it up. I would have done one or two weeks, but looking at the history a month or two might be more appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks - changes made. Appreciate the advice and I'll keep an eye on this one.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do you not already have access to Credo via a library?   pablo_hablo. 11:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

not quite the same package, but close enough. I'll strike my name. ` DGG ( talk ) 15:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey DGG, Just wanted to drop you a line since you were involved on talk:Harvey_J._Levin. We did indeed receive permission to use the page so can be used if you want to follow-up there but of course doesn't change your main argument :) James (T|C) 07:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

speak of efficiency! DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Uh Seeing as how you agreed to that peacock terms were made on the joseph Schlessinger page and YOU made the suggested changes accordingly, why was I given a "final warning" for disruptive edits? Are you on a power trip here? Cancer research TRUTH (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Because of the edit summary. The rules about BLP apply to all aspects of all pages, including there. As you noticed, I agreed with the change in the article. I think it would be an extremely good idea if you refrained from editing this article. In fact, since another admin chose reasonably enough to block you indefinitely for block evasion, I must change that to saying I think it would be an extremely good idea if you refrained from editing this article, under any user name. If any thing, my mistake was in not blocking you immediately myself; i sometimes tend towards an unnecessary degree of patience. DGG ( talk ) 15:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

DGG, as far as I can see, this editor is not blocked. --Crusio (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

[20] (by Tim song) DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Teneuesbooks/teNeues taking up your offer to look after this article, and moved it to the mainspace after a bit of tweaking and de-peacocking. I have added a reference to an interview with the boss, but I couldn't at a quick look find much comment about the firm, though there are enough listings about their products to suggest that they are indeed notable. Regards JohnCD (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nancy Stockall is probably not notable, but you might want to take a quick look at the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank for the referral. asserting someone is a professor of any rank at a university is an assertion of sufficient possible importance to pass afd, because the bar there is deliberately very low. Unless those papers of hers' are very highly cited, I agree with you that its not too likely she would pass afd. ` DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't think you did. A PROD is the worst way to go because once removed, the article should proceed to AFD. Thanks mucho. Forgot to sign and sorry that I was so blunt but this is a re-creation for the fourth time. --Morenooso (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! --Morenooso (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I seem to have been somewhat careless, but in fact the controlling factor is that it was deleted at a prior afd -- with what I consider minimal participation. You replaced the a7 speedy tag, which is not quite right either, it should be g4 if the material is unchanged, which I am now checking. Checking, I see that the text was considerably rewritten but is open to the same objections--it is if anything worse than the article that was elected because it doe not even have the minimal referencing there. I could justify sending it to AfD, but I've deleted it by G4, recreation, as the simplest way to deal with the inevitable result. I considered protecting against re-creation, but there is no reason why a decent article could not be written on this subject. Thanks for calling my attention to the error. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for being understanding on this issue. As a Page Patroller, I try to learn as much as I can when I review an article. When I looked at its creator's talkpage, I felt like "here we go again". I see many re-creations as I keep deleted pages on my Watch list. The mechanics of nominations sometimes eludes me. I felt saved because you did not close the PROD brackets which is why I went back to a mechanical entry of a7. I'll have to look at G4. --Morenooso (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

G4 is one of the things that actually requires an admin role to judge, because others cannot look at the deleted versions. But anyone can still take a guess, based on the previous discussion, of whether the article seems substantially better than it is likely to have been at the time. (The place to deal with really disputable G4s is deletion review, where a number of people will look, and the deleted article can be temporarily restored so everyone can see it.) But again, I need to thank you-- for it was my responsibility to have checked the user page and the log. This is one of the reasons I support not having admins delete single handed without a prior tagging, so more than one person alone will always look at it. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Now, I am really confused. When I saw the article come up as new on the Recent Changes page, I only knew it was a7 Speedy Delete. In looking at the talkpage is where I discovered this user had re-created it three times prior. I've seen in some that a user has re-created that were stored in my Watch list that it was the same article only the name had been changed. When I saw that this user had just changed the name a couple of times and then re-used in this case, I would have to assume that he re-created the article. Which would be better at this point, A7 or G4? --Morenooso (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

there's no way to tell, the article will be removed in any case--had my prod on that article been removed by the author, I would have taken it to AfD & there's no doubt about the outcome. You did the key thing that a patroller needs to do, which was call enough attention to the problem to get it fixed somehow. don;t worry too much about using the right procedure--it makes things smoother, but the point is to do something that will in the end be effective. But we have both fallen into the trap of concentrating on how to remove a persistently inadequate article--that's not our real priority--our priority is to try to teach the user write an acceptable article, since it is an acceptable topic. (And even when the topic is never going to be acceptable, to find a topic that will be). I tried to explain a little of this on the user;s talk page [21], but I know I did not really say enough. What is needed is to try to give specific guided help to examining the related articles, seeing what's needed, finding suitable sources, and figuring out how to say what needs saying. I rarely have time to do this, and neither does almost anyone else; I try to make time every once in a while, and have even rewritten the article as an example--especially if its one of a group of related poor articles or the author could go on to write other similar ones. We need to spend less time on process altogether , and more in helping new people. DGG ( talk ) 21:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sigh. Yes helping new users is much better than what I usually encounter. Although, I do pick up articles in my wiki-travels that I save, add to or try to improve. And there's today when I get a chance to edit an article like Thomas Grace (California). I am better adding to an article versus creating one although I do have one in mind. Thanks for your advice! --Morenooso (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I hope that I've got this right, but please feel free to contradict me (or to "finesse" [ugh I hate this verb] what I wrote) in one way or another. -- Hoary (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

the word you are looking for is "adjust" ; but no adjustment was needed. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Jebheimist population‎ hoax page that I flagged and you speedydel'd has reappeared, from the same user. I'm unsure of the best method to keep this from becoming an endless loop. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I protected it against re-creation. Standard procedure when this sort of thing happens. Given the user's talk page, also blocked them from editing. Also standard when necessary. Ask whenever needed. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

...for taking care of Bill Bob from Arkansas. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi DGG. As I'm editing more and my watchlist grows I find I'm involved in reverting more and more vandalism, particularly in areas prone to unambiguous vandalism such as popular videogames. I'm now at the stage where rollback permissions would make that work easier and less prone to error. I was wondering whether you would feel comfortable enabling rollback on my account, for use only in cases of clear an unambiguous vandalism? Naturally no problems if you don't feel okay with that; I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'll jump in and grant the request. Scanning your recent edit history, I see nothing to suggest you would misuse the rollback tool.--Father Goose (talk) 06:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I'll endeavour to use them well (and sparingly). - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

We could use your input, one way or the other. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Emailed you. DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply