User talk:DGG/Archive 49 Feb. 2011

ARCHIVES

Reminders
Topical Archives:
BLP (Biographies of Living People)
Deletion reform, Speedies, Notability , Sourcing,
In Popular Culture, Fiction, Bilateral relations.
Academic things & people, Journals, Books & other publications,
General Archives:
2006: Sept-Dec
2007: Jan-Feb, Mar-Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec 
2008: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2009: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2010: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr , May , Jun , Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2011: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr , May , Jun , Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec

The MLA Style Manual

Could you perhaps have a brief look at this article? An IP has been adding examples and such, but although it looks fine, I'm not sure that this is encyclopedic (that is, it's become a "how to manual", perhaps). I' appreciate your opinion. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

An argument might be made that this should go into a separate article, title, "MLA bibliographic style", which is notable in its own right, quite apart from the book that publishes it, and for which there are in fact multiple other sources describing it, but I think the information is useful enough here to make a reasonable exception to avoid complications. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

A quick question

At this edit, you removed a speedy tag because A7 doesn't apply to schools (which is true). However, the article wasn't tagged with db-a7, it was tagged with db-g11. I'm not asking for a quick delete—I've PRODded the article instead as subsequent edits toned it down—but I found that explanation very curious. elektrikSHOOS 08:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

My apologies--I use TextExpander keyboard macros for some of my common responses, & I seem to have accidentally picked the wrong reason from the list. (similar to what can happen with Twinkle) Anyway, I'm going to remove the prod, because, despite COI, the article is at this point purely descriptive. A great many school articles are highly promotional, talking about the excellence of the school at great lengths, but even these can usually be made acceptable by some extensive cutting.. (Occasionally, there will be one so extraordinarily and pervasively promotional that it is not worth the fixing, and then G11 does apply--actually, when that's the case, copyvio is almost always present as well, and is a sure reason for deletion unless it can be quickly rewritten --but doing that can take serious work, & I rewrite that extensively only one article a day on the average, and nobody should feel obliged to use that much effort when they encounter copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Need your help in verification

Hi DGG! Please look into this problem if possible. [1]. I understood that there was a lengthy deliberation about the above referred books. It was concluded and I was notified that it is appropriate to use the books as reference in Wikipedia articles with proper page citation. I would like to ask you to confirm this statement. Thank you very much. Best regards, (Salmon1 (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC))

Hi DGG! I cannot thank you enough for taking the time to write such a wonderful discussion. I certainly learned a lot from it and was somewhat embarrassed. Very best regards, (Salmon1 (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC))

commented. I'll check tomorrow. This particular one is not a matter of opinion, as there is a 3rd party authoritative RS to show that this is a RS. (and, indeed, probably the preferred source for the subject area) DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. (Salmon1 (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC))

Your Appreciation is Appreciated

I answered your comment on my talk page. I am sure I violated every rule on Wikipedia in my response. Best to ban me immediately, thus leaving more room for the people who actually have time to find where the templates and their numerous conflicting made-up rules are documented here. Most of those people, I assume, are the PR departments of corporations writing biographies of their great leaders, or fanboys who get bent out of shape when someone didn't add the appropriate number of tildes after a comment. It's funny, I used to be a nice guy here, playing by the rules, taking my time to do everything just right, but one too many member of the Stasi knocked on my talk page and ranted about how I didn't read his latest musings on why we should re-direct the re-directs or whatever, and so I decided if I'm going to contribute to this project, I will do it on my terms, swear-words and name-calling and all. Take it or leave it. As a volunteer effort, I suggest you take what I offer and leave it at that. --Free-world (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I went back to your contributions list [2]. within the last 2 months I see " added link to illiterate, puerile juvenile "report" from that sophomoric piece of nonsense wonkette)" , "MGM has enough money for its own PR website; it doesn't need Wikipedia to offer glowing bios of its leaders." "utter and complete bull shit." As to whether you used to "be a nice guy here" , I see from earlier, " some self-righeous ass-for-head hadn't deleted the jack rebney page, you'd have seen your "citation" for this there. so i'll add it HERE, AGAIN." ,"If the Siera Club wants a platform, they can add another energy-sucking blade server to their colo to add another 100 web pages of position papers" ,T"his reads like crap. It probably needs a complete rewrite." . Regardless of whether your comments about promotionalism or other problems are justified--and they sometimes are--you may not use insulting or deprecating language in edit summaries. To the extent such comments are on individuals, they violate the BLP policy, which applies everywhere. Wikipedia is a very prominent site, the edit histories are public indefinitely, and this is inappropriate: we are no longer a MUD. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Why I see you did in fact answer me way back here. You went through the trouble to go through and cherry pick the edit summaries that made your point for you. Excellent! True wikipedia scholarship. Did you happen to also review the content, especially going back to when this was apparently "a MUD?" It's not important. Really, I am leaving for good this time. It was just interesting to see what you said, since I'd never bothered to look, and now I see how petty this all really is. And people think this is the future of human knowledge. What a world you all are creating. --Free-world (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Editor assistance list

A problem has been identified at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/list. You may like to read Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/list#Problem with inactive accounts on the list. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

List

Hi! I saw you were involved with a previous nomination for deletion of List of suicides in fiction, and felt you should be informed of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suicides in fiction (3rd nomination). Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

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

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

WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February

Thank you everyone who participated in the January Collaboration, it was quite a success with 5 new C class articles, 3 stub kills and several articles were removed from our backlogs. In support of the Great Backlog Drive, the WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February is going to help remove backlog candidates in the backlogs related to WikiProject Novels. Please join us, and help us wikify, reference, clean up plot sections and generally improve Novels content, Sadads (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You are recieving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Novels according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Members

Assertion of notability versus notability

Hi DGG

Please see my comment here and the associated change here. I would welcome your thoughts and comments.

(FWIW, this is something that has irritated me a for a long time, but finally the speedy deletion of Van Dykes—without the courtesy of a notification to its creator—spurred me into action.)

Best wishes to you in the year of the rabbit (or cat, if you happen to be Vietnamese).

^Bongo_matic 07:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand the excellent intent of the change, but the wording will cause some problems--see the talk page. it is not the best of ideas to make changes in fundamental policy before actually obtaining consensus. This is not a place where it is well advised to be bold, even when changes are badly needed. . ` DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Salmon1

Hi DGG, Rather than reverting recent edits [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], or posting a notice at the COI or other board, I'm dropping a note to you and SlimVirgin, the last administrators to have contact with Salmon1. Thank you. JNW (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you said you'd consider blocking if Salmon continued to add her own self-published material. She has started doing it again—for example, here. She's also repeatedly posting links to her books on talk pages, and I have to say it looks like an attempt to increase their exposure. She undertook to stop this, including in emails to me, so it's a concern that it continues. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi DGG! My intention is not to increase exposure but rather provide information. The books provide unique references that cannot be obtained from other sources:

1. Article: 9th Street Art Exhibition. This article could not haves been created without the benefit of the book, New York School Abstract Expressionists Artists Choice by Artists, (New York School Press, 2000.) ISBN 0-9677994-0-6. p. 10; p. 13-14; p. 16-17.
2. Article: New York School. This article could not have been created without the benefit of the book, New York School Abstract Expressionists Artists Choice by Artists, (New York School Press, 2000.) ISBN 0-9677994-0-6. p. 10; p. 20; p. 20-29; p. 31-34; p. 36-39.
3. Articles on American abstract expressionists’ biographies able to utilize previously unpublished statements provided by the book, American Abstract Expressionism of the 1950s An Illustrated Survey, (New York School Press, 2003.) ISBN 0-9677994-1-4 Previously unpublished statements provided to the editor: p. 30; p. 54; p. 74; p. 86; p. 114; p. 134; p. 138; p. 182; p. 258; p. 362.
4. Articles on American Figurative Expressionists’ biographies able to utilize previously unpublished statements provided by the book, American Abstract and Figurative Expressionism Style Is Timely Art Is Timeless (New York School Press, 2009.) ISBN 9780967799421. Previously unpublished data: p. 20; p. 40; p. 64; p. 96; p. 100; p. 108; p. 124; p. 128; p. 160; p. 176; p. 188; p. 200; p. 208; p. 224; nbsp;232;

I understand [[WP:SPS}. I believe that some self-published sources can be used, “in the exceptional circumstance that there is known reliable discriminating third party evidence to prove it, as there is here.” All the referenced three books were "Highly recommended" by CHOICE, Current Reviews for Academic Libraries. One of the books: won a gold medal, OUTSTANDING ACADEMIC TITLE ~CHOICE, Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, July/August 2003. CHOICE derives its recommendations through the system of peer review. The referenced books carried the page numbers. (Salmon1 (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC))

To claim that articles on such broad and widely covered topics as a seminal art exhibition or an entire art movement could not be written without the use of a single book, no matter how inclusive its content, is difficult to comprehend [10]. There are prominent art historians on this subject, like Dore Ashton [11], [12] who are not referenced at all in these articles. The claim is compromised when made by the author/publisher of the book, and based on previous posts, I confess to being dubious about such assertions--more flatly, I don't believe they are true. These are not esoteric topics, and are not dependent upon a single source. What has struck me as curious is the certainty that a scholar would have access to many publications by multiple sources on their topic of expertise, and yet would refer so often, and at this point nearly exclusively, to their own publications. Rather than maintaining that an article could not exist without self-references, it seems to me that with an awareness of neutrality and conflict of interest a scholar would wait for an uninvolved party to access their contributions, weigh their value, and then add them to Wikipedia. That any of these constitute an exceptional circumstance necessitating inclusion is a point that would be better made by a neutral party. JNW (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

[13]; [14] and [15] Thank you for your attention. (Salmon1 (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC))

WorldCat is a listing, and it lists many such publications. DGG, I don't expect you to be the sole arbiter on this, but this is where the most recent thread has unspooled, so there we are. At your suggestion I'd be pleased to copy this elsewhere. I would raise the same concerns if something similar happened closer to my backyard, say an author on the works of Thomas Eakins or Edgar Degas dropped in dozens of cites from their books, with numerous links to their books. It's biased and not necessary, especially in a field where there's a plenitude of scholarship. JNW (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

JW, and others, I have repeated told Salmon not to add references to her own works; if they are important, others will do so.. In fact, others, invcluding Modernist, have added such references, recognizing their importance. No reason why others shouldn't if they are the right reference at a particular point on a particular article, since the Choice reviews validate it--otherwise, I would have my doubts, &so would anyone. it doesn't matter how important they are: the author may not add them. It's an important rule, in order to avoid self-promotion. If anything, adding one's own work as references or links diminishes one's own credibility--people might say, as some seem to be saying here, "if it is really a good reference for this particular point, why does she not let others add it?'" So, as I said I would, I'm giving a final warning, and will block to avoid further disruption if it happens one more time. But adding the links to talk pages of articles for others to judge is in fact the way an author of a book is supposed to do it--that is not wrong. I think it's unnecessary to do so at this point, since after all this here at Wikipedia other editors certainly seem to know about them. DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

DGG, adding them to talk pages is wrong when it's done to this extent, so I feel that has to stop too. The problem here is that even the tiniest bit of encouragement will cause her to continue. I asked her before to stop adding herself to articles as a source. She agreed by email, but then continued doing it anyway. When challenged, she said she had only agreed not to add her books if they were not being used as an inline citation.

And so it goes, the goalposts are moved, and promises are made with fingers crossed behind the back. There has to be an unambiguous request that she not post these books anywhere on Wikipedia from now on, except for her own userpage. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Salmon1 should not keep adding references to her own work. My own efforts to persuade her to follow policy have had little success. If this continues, the matter could be taken to a wider admin forum. Even the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard could be something to consider. The answer I see from Salmon1 above seems to be, 'No I'm not violating policy, because my books are truly valuable.' I think that is missing the point. Even adding these items to talk pages is pushing her luck, given that others have not supported her view. EdJohnston (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

SV, you are right. Even before you posted, I decided to amend this. Just as you say. even adding references to the talk pages is getting disruptive. Although it is technically within her rights, it is not within anyone's rights if it gets disruptive. I shall block to prevent further problems, if it continues also. As DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you to DGG, SlimVirgin and EdJohnston for your efforts. Much appreciated, JNW (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Okay thank you for explaning that on the edit on the music piece, I thought maybe someone meant to put that on a page for the musical entry that it was in the film. Since it was so bare I was unsure.

Kamkek (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Jackson J. Spielvogel‎

Thanks for the save, I didn't see anything to verify that the textbooks were widely used, but if they are, they are. Much appreciated. --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 03:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I go by the multiple editions, and also by the workbooks--and even juvenile adaptations--of them listed on the WorldCat page. that last is something I've never seen before for this sort of material--it generally happens only to really famous authors. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You make a compelling argument.  :) Thanks, I appreciate the explanation, it's an idea I'll keep in mind in the future! --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 03:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, quick note

Hi, please see my response to your comment at my talk page. I would appreciate it if you would leave me a note to let me know if this matter has been resolved. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks in advance, got to go, --CrohnieGal^Talk 00:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm responding here so that you are sure to see my comment. Thank you for fixing what I did. I didn't even see that I had deleted anything even though I did hit an edit conflict. I thought it was with the editor directly above me that caused it. I wouldn't remove anyone's edit unless I gave a clear reason for doing so. I appreciate you taking the time to fix my error. Anytime you see an error like this from me or something that needs to be fixed feel free to adjust. I don't get upset about my edits being fixed. Thank you again and I'll try to be more careful in the future. Thanks and take care, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Article Ratings and Traffic

Hi DGG. Can you please answer these questions, or tell me where I can go to find answers? I have looked at assorted FAQs and two books on Wikipedia, but have not found exactly what I want. Thanks! 1. How do article ratings affect pageviews? And how do you get a rating? 2. How can you tell whether pageviews are from real people vs. bots? 3. When visitors are people, how can you tell whether they came to your article from a link within Wikipedia, or de novo? Saenger (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume you mean pageviews on Wikipedia. By ratings I suppose you main the classification of articles as Featured article/Good article, and the A/B/C/Start/Stub classes.

1a. For a general description, sewe Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment As with everything in Wikipedia these are community-driven processes. For Featured articles and Good articles , anyone can nominate in article, and anyone can review it, but the discussions are mediated by the Featured article procedure and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force For the others, these ratings are normally organized by the relevant Wikiprojects: anyone can make a rating, anyone can discuss it. There is also a new endeavor coordinated by the Foundation, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Assessment. FWIW, I think anyone's attempt to promote the status of an article that they have been the only author of would not be looked on with favor.

1b. I am not aware that anyone has studied the relationship between article ratings and number of views. If nobody responds here, I will place the question on the appropriate mailing list, Wikiresearch-L, or you can join it yourself.

2. You cannot tell if an article is read by a bot. You can tell if it has been edited by one, from the page history.

3. I do not think we have these record on a per article basis.

Thanks, David, and have a good weekend! Saenger (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Request from Michael Paul Heart re: Tahash edits

I appreciated your comments regarding article Tahash when you were first asked to take a look at it. Please look at the following versions of the article for comparison, and at the comments on the talk page regarding what one editor has been doing for the past week. His edit summaries do not fit the material being reverted, appearing as if he had not bothered to read it, or even considered their actual relevancy. It does not look like NPOV to me. Please respond on the article talk page. (Compare recent comments on my own talk page.) The second version listed [2] is how the article looked after my own 2-week reduction and revision edit for NPOV. The third version [3] shows how it has subsequently been altered (to date).

Versions: [16], [17], [18].

I'm not asking you to arbitrate but to render your own informed opinion based on your knowledge of the subject. I don't want to use formal template warnings to him if specific commentary will work instead, but more so if my concern is really offbase and misguided. Thank you. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll get there, but not today. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate it. Understood. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

DGG, you know I appreciate your opinion, and will gladly hear of it. For what it's worth, I like to think that I'm editing with NPOV in mind, certainly on this matter. I do have an opinion on this article, of course, but it's guided more by WP:NOTDIR than by my own political/religious/taxonomic slant, I hope. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

please add your profile to the Online Ambassadors mentors page

Hi DGG!

If you're still interested in being a mentor this term, please add your profile to Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors/Mentors. If you have any questions about the ambassador role or what you're interested in doing as an Online Ambassador (whether mentoring, pitching in in other ways, or something else), please let me know.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I've applied at least two times already. I am still interested and always have been, in any capacity. I'll do it once more, in any case.

Did you not get the email I sent welcoming you to the program? You've been accepted as an Online Ambassador, since a while ago. All you have to do now is add your profile to the mentors page, so students can sign up to work with you. Sorry about the confusion.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Printing wars again

Hi DGG, Please keep an eye on Printing press, where Gun Powder Ma is on the warpath again, now edit-warring to keep out links to printing which he says is completely unrelated (because contaminated by Asian techniques of course). He seems to be extra-active elsewhere too. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this the world according to Johnbod or just the usual agitation of yours? These Far Eastern techniques are unrelated to the history and development of the printing press, and this never-ending obsession to include at each and every article on Western printing East Asian techniques, however unrelated, calls by now rather for a doctor than a serious rebuttal. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Westbrook Technologies

Hi Dgg. I have finally edited the article on Westbrook. You can find it on my user page from when you userfied it. Please let me know if the edits I have made are better, if they make the article closer to being published, and any tips you might have for how to make it better. I tried to fix the language to make it more encyclopedic. Odonnetp (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

replied on your talk page. DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

RfC notification

I have started Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan (not certified yet). As one of the editors who have prior knowledge of the dispute, and who may present a different view than the one by me and by the people I invited to help me draft the RfC, I would like you to present your outside view to the RfC, so that we get a more fair and balanced overview. Fram (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Les Balsiger

You probably recall your involvement in this dab page/legal issue. I don't know if this is still on your watchlist, so I thought I'd point out that the dab page was removed--perhaps you can comment. There must be a better way to make it clear the situation is based on consensus, reaffirmed just over a year ago. Perhaps consensus has changed. Anyway, I have to run, but I'll try to follow up later. Valfontis (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

this will take a little checking. Looking at my note 14 months ago, I protected it only to avoid an edit war over a BLP article. I see the problem, but we need a better stable solution than I myself can find. i'm copying this to the BLP noticeboard, at [19] in the hope consensus can determine one. DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I want to interject some insight about »A Little Princess Sara« . . .

Many salutations!!! I noticed your 03:23 deletion of the article "List of »A Little Princess Sara« Episodes" on 14 @ February 2011 . . . I just want to let you know that it was not my idea to do that. There was nothing wrong with the name of the article and it would have been fine the way it was. I am scratching my head over the mindset of the editor who made that change.

Dairi no Kenkyo (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

As you see, I just deleted the redirect, certainly not the article! The redirect I deleted was placed using the French style of quotation marks. Sometimes people redirect from such alternate forms of punctuation, but we do not usually do that in the English WP, certainly not for articles not involving the French cultural area or French language--or we would have tens of millions of such redirect pages. It's of course assumed people coming here know English, and that people who wish to use French use the French Wikipedia, which has good though less extensive coverage of this anime. It was not perverse, just unnecessary. DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

OFIS Architects

I agree with your decision. I'm familiar with the {{hang on}} handling, I just wanted to draw the attention to the discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#OFIS_Architects. In my opinion the company is notable for Wikipedia ... searching for the names of founders is more productive. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

right. in fact, I had not noticed that discussion. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: AFD

In your position at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick T. van Beuren, Jr., M.D., one of your justifications was a "full obituary" in Science. I do not know if you looked it up. It was six lines with "Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons" filling more than a line. I do not know if you saw it, so I wanted to make sure.Novangelis (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

oops-I judged from the fact that the citation extended over 3 pp. I'll go back and fix. DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I know you aren't the type to overhype sources.Novangelis (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it turns out my interpretation of the p. listing was correct. I found it on JSTOR, 1375 words, 1.5 full pages, quotes giving proof of meeting several WP:PROF criteria. See my comment at the AfD. Probably what you were looking at was the entry for the obit in the journal's index. DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No, that was the obituary for Stephen Walter Ranson, whose notability is not in question. The subject of the article in question is Frederick T. van Beuren, Jr. He has six lines in the recent deaths section at the end of p. 256.Novangelis (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I can use it to draw a moral,: Nobody should have confidence in their own unchecked work, nobody should rely on the action of anybody here being right, or the correctness of any edit, and -- I certainly hope -- that nobody should be blamed too much for making errors. ( I found the actual item and fixed the AfD). DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That's beyond a moral. That's the raison d'être of Wikipedia. Like the scientific method, WP:V allows the ongoing correction by the collaborative process. Everyone makes mistakes, but we have the eyes of other editors. I can learn from it as well. If I had originally stated "in the Death notices at the end of the section", there would have been no confusion. Experience is the worst teacher: it gives the test before it covers the material. Having said this, I'll see where things stand. This was not an easy case. Thanks for putting in the effort (and not just on this case).Novangelis (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Somatosensory Rehabilitation of Pain

Hi DGG. I just read your self-portrait at Wikipedia:Online_Ambassadors/Mentors and wonder if I could ask your opinion about this article. It may fail notability, and seems to fail RS, but I've never taken anything to AfD so would appreciate an expert opinion. I have tried unsuccessfully to engage the author on their talk page and the article's talk page, and asked at the medicine project. Somatosensory rehabilitation seems notable and supportable, but somatosensory rehabilitation of pain seems to derive from a couple of small primary studies from one group. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the references & citation indexes tomorrow. It's not as much what the concept is derived from that matters, but how widely it is used and cited. (And there are considerable difference between medical practice in different countries, which are not covered adequate by most US sources. If anyone seeing this can check in Excerpta Medica, it would be helpful--it's the most relevant database, but I do not have routine access to it.). DGG ( talk ) 09:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

SOSBACKUP

I have to disagree with you. The NYtimes link is not an article about them. If you go to the link, you'll see the editor just put a link to their website in the article with no mention of them what so ever. That is a promotional advertisement and not an article about them. I also see it was deleted in 2006. Please review. --Yourjourneyrealised (talk) 10:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewed. The NYT is a selective list of one recommended program per category. Looking at the 2010 article, in the body , under the heading "BACK UP YOUR DATA ", the recommended program is this one.. Then. at the bottom, is a corrected url for one initially published. I took the occasion to quote their actual (enthusiastic) recommendation. I wouldn't know if they are correct: it apparently doesn't work on the Mac. While I was there, I copyedited to remove duplication and promotional language. My opinion is a NYT reco and PC magazine Editor's Choice is not just enough to pass speedy, but is actually notable. I've noticed articles for a number of PC backup programs have been deleted recently, and i plan to go back and check the actual strength of the refs, in case there are some other pleasant surprises. If you disagree, AfD is available; I think this will stand up, but one never knows, and some of the decisions on computer programs seem to have been downright peculiar.

By the way, when you list an article for speedy deletion, it is required that you say so in the edit summary. It is also considered polite to notify the original author, and almost everyone does that. And remeber that the criteria for passing speedy are very weak--only the obviously unsuitable is removed there, and any editor not the original author objecting in good faith is enough to prevent it. There are certainly enough to remove, and I have no hesitation in doing it--I've deleted 13,060 since Ive been an admin. DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

More on Lorenzo Iorio

Hello, dear friend. I've implemented all your suggestions, and I also commented in the Deletion review page. Thank you Michoball (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

AFD comment

I took the liberty of changing this; it seemed like what you intended based on your comment overall. postdlf (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

sure. thanks. DGG ( talk ) 16:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

On the Deletion Review of the page about Lorenzo Iorio

Ok, I've rewrote it as suggested by you. Please, take a look and send me your comments. Thank you Michoball (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Input requested

I'd welcome your input on the question I've asked at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7_and_sources. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Oz characters AFD

The result was merge for the 20 or so minor characters I had nominating. You had mentioned a tiered system of nominating...if you feel that that there are additional articles that could/should be merged into the main characters' article (and there probably are), you can merge request some of them Purplebackpack89 01:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

as I may have mentioned, I regrettably don't know enough about the books to deal with it intelligently. -- Col. Warden might be a better choice. But I am delighted to see that you are doing a proper merge. So many things of this sort have been done wrong, that I always worry that a merge of this sort might lose too much content. Very good work you're doing, it seems to me. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Prod I missed

You just deleted the article on Phillip Rhee as an uncontested prod. I totally missed the prod being put there or I'd have contested it. He easily passes WP:ENT, having starred in Best of the Best and the 3 sequels. All 4 films have their own article. His role in all of them was a starring role, never a minor supporting role etc. He also was a producer for all of them and the director for 2 of them. Can you restore the article? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Actually, I was not sure about that one--& I did not check the Wikipedia page for the film, as I should have done. I did see the 2 cited reviews, which were very unenthusiastic, but I suppose it's the kind of film where the reviews may not matter all that much. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I added some explanation on the talk page about why I contested it. This is simply a matter of an article that needs better sources and some expansion. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Please, DGG, help me with the otehr admin!

DGG, please come and read what that admin write!! It is totally absurd! He refures to read what I wrote!! He ask me to..demonstrate that Iorio was born in 1971 and that he lives in Bari!!!! He did not read anything about what I wrote about NASA ADS, bibliometry, and so on! He still asks me to prove those information with reliable secondary sources!!!! Michoball (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, he's discussing it in a manner which resembles what we call IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and is immune to logical argument. I repeated what I said for clarification. Please try not to get upset about the irrational things that happen here. DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Infobox film

DGG Why was the "preceded by" and "followed by" in the Infobox film disabled? Savolya (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:PROF question

Hi there.... Would Hope Leichter notable? I think she is notable, based on her research and holding a named chair at Columbia Univresity Teacher's College. I don't know her, but she's two degrees of separation from me. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

holders of named chairs at major universities are always notable by wp:prof, though the articles on professors of education (and for that matter, some other subjects with a demographic factor in common) have a tendency to be challenged. Get full publication data. DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ken Marlin

Hello, I agree with you that Marlin is notable, and I appreciate you removing most of the copyrighted material. However, the lead sentence is still a quote from copyrighted material but is not in quotation marks. The article about his company also appears to be a copyvio from Bloomberg Businessweek. I don't have time to work on this mess right now, but will return to it this evening, and see what your thoughts are. Thanks. [[User:Cull

Scientific journal archive access

I posted the new article, Frederick T. van Beuren, Jr., M.D. I am grateful for your participation in the afd for it, which proved pivotal. The access you have for scientific journals could help me with further documentation for that article and another I posted. In the later case, I can cite references I can not access in order to use for expansion of the article (the Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry and Science). In the former (van Beuren), I would be seeking a list of relevant references (especially from the journal, Science) that I could sift through for ones that seem to have information that would be good material for inclusion (in order to be selective when asking for your help with content). Please let me know whether you are available for that type of assistance. 83d40m (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC) I can certainly help you with these, though I am at the moment having Javascript problems with ACS journals from home, so it may take a little longer with those. But I am not sure at the moment what further documentation you would want for this article--if anything, what it really needs is some abridgment, especially of the personal life and family portions at the end. The length of an article should be proportional to both the importance and the amount of significant sourced material available, and I would advise not adding much if anything to this one. What might be a much better thing to do is to work on additional notable people. Whom else are you working on? DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC) en328|Cullen328]] (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

i'll rewrite the sentence & stubbify the article. My felling is to let the orig author earn his money and do the rest of the rewriting DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring students: be sure to check in on them

This message is going out to all of the Online Ambassadors who are, or will be, serving as mentors this term.

Hi there! This is just a friendly reminder to check in on what your mentees are doing. If they've started making edits, take a look and help them out or do some example fixes for them, if they need it. And if they are doing good, let them know it!

If you aren't mentoring anyone yet, it looks like you will be soon; at least one large class is asking us to assign mentors for them, and students in a number of others haven't yet gotten to asking ambassadors to be their mentors, but may soon. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

groups of students in need of mentors

Hey DGG. One of the classes working with the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, Jonathan Obar's Media and Telecommunication Policy, is working in small groups and would like us to assign a mentor to each group (rather than having students request the mentors they'd like, as other classes are doing).

I invite you to sign on as the mentor for one or more groups, especially if any of the topics catch your interest. To sign up, go to the course page and add yourself as "Mentor: you" in the section for that group. They students and/or professor or campus ambassadors should be cleaning things up soon to list all the usernames for each group and add a few more groups. Once you know who the students are in the group, you can leave them each a quick introduction to let them know you'll be mentoring their group.

Thanks!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I noticed you nominated a page for deletion. The page happens to have been about me, and I agree with you that it should be deleted, but according to what I read, the result was "keep", due to fans of my company. There is no reason whatsoever that I should have a wikipedia page, it is filled with all kind of incorrect information and I found myself arguing with a station agent in Wisconsin to try to persuade him that I am not married. Very odd. I would really appreciate hearing from you about what I should do in a situation like this. I do not know how to use wikipedia, and so am not sure how to deal with this. I would appreciate some level of privacy, so I have not added the page name to this post. Looking forward to hearing from you. Thank you. Shisoarrow (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

unfortunately, I will not be able to reply unless I cancan figure out what page it is. Either activate your email in user preferences and email me--it will be completely confidential, or give me a hint on your talk page--which i can then delete. Alternatively, see WP:BIOSELF for the method of proceeding. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks how do I email you once I've activated my email? Also please can you let me know what the process will be? Will it mean that there will be a message on my wikipedia page for a long time saying nominated for deletion (I'e seen those before on other pages) or is it something that we could just discreetly delete? Shisoarrow (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

first, make sure you have confirmed the email address, which you do by accessing you email--there will be a link provided. After you have done that, go to this page, & you will find a link in the left hand bar labelled "toolbox"; expand it, and there will be a link "E-mail this user". I shall have to see the page before I can say anything specific, but unless the page is libelous or violates a reasonable expectation of privacy, it can generally not be deleted immediately if there was a prior decision to keep. Otherwise, there will be a public discussion, and sometimes the discussion will lead to the conclusion that the page should not be removed. If it leads to the conclusion that the page should be removed, the discussion can be hidden also. The community makes the decision, and neither I nor anyone has the authority (except for the special and fortunately rare circumstances mentioned) to delete a page the community wishes to keep. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Alodia Gosiengfiao

I've removed your full protection here, as it seems like complete overkill; firstly, all the vandalism I could see came from IPs and non-autoconfirmed users, and secondly, nothing happened for four days before you decided to slap on admin-only restrictions. Let me know if there's something I'm missing. Ironholds (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

And again, for the love of god archive your talkpage. Ironholds (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

And before you come in with "oh, it's not a problem, people can just scroll down" - the reason it's me dropping you this note is because the editor who noticed it spent ten minutes waiting for your talkpage to load. Even now, my typing is going at a snail's pace if the screen is to e trusted. You've got messages from 2008, a contents section it takes a full twenty seconds to pass by, and so much content that certain users find it physically impossible to contact you. cut it down. Ironholds (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Piggybacking off of what Ironholds just said, why do you archive things and then leave them on the talk page? Doesn't that just defeat the purpose of a talk page in the first place? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I agree I am about a year behind in this, so I've moved things temporarily. But my intention was to keep key currently important material here that I want visitor to see--however, by now I see there is simply too much of it, & I shall have to revise my method of flagging. The more you do you're here, the more material is important. I shall be moving some more back on, but this will relieve the pressure for the moment. (some of the problem was when I did try to archive, I edit-conflicted). DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think info from Feb 2008 can be considered "currently important", unless I'm missing something. And the full protection of that article? Ironholds (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection now or ever if you or any any admin want to change a protection I set, or undelete anything I deleted. I do like to know, so I thank you for informing me. As a general statement, I trust my colleagues. DGG ( talk ) 15:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing everything! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Okay; I was more wondering about your motivations behind it. Ironholds (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There appeared to be an excessive amount of promotionalism and vandalizing. Possibly it's par for the course in that subject field, & possibly I over-reacted. This is the sort of BLP article for which we would need pending changes if it were available. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a single edit for four days before you strode in with the banhammer - I'd go for the latter, yes. Very well; thanks for explaining, sort of. Ironholds (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

SCNM

Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine was deleted by you and I'm requesting that you restore it. Once you do, I'll go in and remove the advert material and strip the page down to the basics and continue to monitor it more closely... Please see List of accredited schools of naturopathic medicine in North America and Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges Thanks! --Travis Thurston+ 19:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the article and moved it to your user space at User:Travisthurston/Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine. When you have done the necessary removal of information useful only to a prospective student and general information about the merits of naturopathic medicine, you're free to move it back to mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to say, big mahalo on remedying the situation. --Travis Thurston+ 20:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Aidan_Brown

Is this article even worth sending through AfD? I initially prod'd it, but in retrospect I'm thinking I should've speedied it. Requesting a second opinion, DGG. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Stephen seems to have already deleted it. Looking at the deleted article, I think the reason he gave for the speedy was technically not really correct: it does assert some minimal level of notability, and it is possible he may have done some other work or that this work is highly cited. The name is too nondistinctive for Google Scholar, so I checked in Scopus. And I found the article is a total hoax. There is indeed such a paper, but it is by other scientists: Durnin, J.V.G.A., Womersley, J. "Body fat assessed from total body density and its estimation from skinfold thickness: measurements on 481 men and women aged from 16 to 72 years" British Journal of Nutrition Volume 32, Issue 1, 1974, Pages 79-97 . It is, by the way, indeed a famous paper, cited 2417 times, & Durnin, the principal author, is notable. I have warned the user appropriately. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ardanaiseig

Hi, My Ardanaiseig post was moved to Gordon m campbell/Ardanaiseig Hotel due to it looking too promotional - sorry about that! Can you have a look and see if it is ok to be published now? Thanks, Gordon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordon m campbell (talk • contribs) 10:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

it's still promotional. The local attractions section is only suitable for advertising.What you need to do is write the article about the building, not the hotel, and give proper exact inline references for the description to outside 3rd party published sources, not Wikipedia And you need to use our style for linking:--when referring to other Wikipedia articles, we use links, not references: see our guide to writing Wikipedia articles. For more detailed information, there's the free online version of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual by John Broughton (also available in print) DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

ChHP211

Hi, you said my book was not notable, why not, even if it is self-published it's still a book, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChHP211 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No. You need to show notability through references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. For a book, this usually consists of published book reviews in newspapers or reputable magazines. Until you have such information, do not reinsert the article. Please see the discussion at the AfD for the material, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Houses of Love. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers, will crack on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordon m campbell (talk • contribs) 11:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you 2

Thank you for archiving your talk page fully. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Advice on new articles

Thanks for that - I do appreciate it. I archived that thread, but I wanted to tell you that I have certainly noted it, for future use. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  16:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Yes, that was helpful information. I didn't realize academics had separate criteria for notability independent of the usual general notability criteria for people. Warfieldian (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_February_24#Giridharilal_Kedia.
Message added Odisha1 (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox pseudoscience

Template:Infobox pseudoscience has been nominated for deletion. I borrowed your thinking from the first TfD in making the 2nd TfD nomination, so I'm notifying you. : ) You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Spam-whitelist

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Page creation assistance - Michael Gruneberg

DGG, I've had the page I created deleted twice. I'm trying again, although not publicly. Would you mind taking a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bobg508/Michael_Gruneberg and tell me what I need to do so that it doesn't get deleted again? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobg508 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

DGG, I was wondering if you've had a chance to take a look at this page for me? Thanks. Bobg508 (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

almost:what you need at his point is some reviews of his books--they will make excellent 3rd party sources, & citation counts for his articles. . Any librarian can help you find them If you need help , let me know. DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patroll

We're currently investigating a possible glitch with the yellow highliting and daily display of Special:new pages. I've left a message with one editor who may be able to provide some input, and I noticed you are expressing concerns about their tagging. While running checks on the page display problem I came across some further issues concerning their interpretation of WP:NPP guidelines. I believe you are already providing some advice so if you have a moment, perhaps you could follow through? --Kudpung (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Investigations are continuing: See the thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Special:NewPages only displaying the latest 50 new pages DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I devised the system, SN programmed it for me, and it was me who started the ball rolling on the present trouble shooting, and WereSpielChechers made the first enquiries about it on the VP. The tech. problems you commented on on the NPP talk page were part of an old problem during the developmental stage. I was hoping you would be able to help investigate whether Kamkek was in any way responsible for the sudden clear up of around 20,000 pages from the backlog. If he was, then the problem is solved, but he patrols very quickly and I'm not sure that all the pages are sufficiently controlled. As you have mentioned something on these lines to him already, I thought you could follow through. Let me know if I was mistaken. --Kudpung (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

He did a great deal of patrolling a few days ago, too many to do carefully, and I'm discussing it with him. NPP patrol is a danger that way--myself, when I do too much at a time, I go in the other direction & delete more than I ought to, but the way the symptoms of over-concentration appear are very individual. And NPP done without sufficient care is at least as harmful as not doing it at all. What I do not know, however, is whether there was a technical failure as well. What I really like is the new proposal to not lose the information after 30 days, but move the remaining items to a subpage. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

ChHP211

Listen, I hear what you're saying, but I need to advertise my book, could you please give me the name of a well-known website where I can do that, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChHP211 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Author for Deletion, perhaps?

I enjoyed the Freudian slip you made at Kudpung's RfA. That's how I feel about RfA sometimes. Don't know if you want to leave that up though. --Danger (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

fixed, and, considering the pettiness of some of the objections, since I was there anyway I decided to change my vote from neutral to support, for the reasons I just gave there. DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Oscar Humphries

Hi DGG. I came across Oscar Humphries yesterday while watching recent changes and I see you tagged it for {{notability}} last December. I've tidied it up and added more references today – would you care to take a look at it when you have a moment? Please ignore the AfD: I'm trying to improve the article, not canvass. Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

My tag was mistaken from the start--I seem to have overlooked the editorship. I'm normally reluctant to remove a tag during an AfD, but since it's my own tag, and a clear error, I did remove it. I also commented at the AfD. I recognize you were not canvassing--it is appropriate to notify people who have previously made a relevant tag, and how could you predict that I might not have decided instead to justify it. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

In that version of the article his editorship of Apollo was unsourced and there was no claim that the magazine was notable, so your tag was reasonable IMO. Anyway, it'll have a happy ending: the article is much more solid now, and I don't think the AfD was serious anyway (the username of the nominator implies some connection with Humphries' school). Thanks again - Pointillist (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)