User talk:DGG/Archive 12 Jan. 2008

patent trial

DGG: Could you take a look at the schlessinger page? it looks like the last two paragraphs were deleted by 'joseph schlessinger' (which may be letsnotlie/hillhealth sockpuppet?) Are there any WP rules for self-editing out information? Thanks & happy new year.Truther truther (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The sections have been restored and the user warned. That's what is currently appropriate. DGG (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow...shouldn't you be on vacation??...thanks!...but it looks like your handiwork has already been undone...appears to be another sockpuppet??Truther truther (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I can't explain away my behavour the last night except that I lost my temper, plain and simple. I had someting to say; I said it once, twice, trice, and then unfortunatly, a few times more. You got caught in the crossfire, unfairly, and then I acted ugly, and I'm sorry. For what its worth I thought you were one of the stand up admins in earlier discussions, and my openion hasn't changed. I think its a pity I acted like I did. Ceoil (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Accepted. I'm glad to see you also apologized at ArbCom. There was a good deal of impatience at all sorts of things expressed all over WP yesterday & today. Must have some relation to the time of year. :) DGG (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes but no but, there was a 2nd reason. ...and war. Sorry again. Ceoil (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Help please

Hi, I should be grateful if you would please revert a wrongly place 3RR warning from my talk page. I have tried to reduce an unduly large campaign slogan. The edits complained of were here, here and here. Not only was the third edit well outside the 24 hours limit but it was different and an attempt to find a compromise. BlueValour (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC).

Comment on your page and his. DGG (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; and yes it was pretty lame! BlueValour (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Vague note

When you're right, you're right. I don't like RfAs. :P They make my stomach hurt. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Schlessinger

Meh, it's an m:OTRS thing. I had to make at least a token effort. DS (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Putting the inappropriate-behavior suit in the Personal Life section would be a good idea. Also he should probably have the section on his scientific work expanded. DS (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I will do it. The patent matter however obviously is appropriate, though it needs to be worded carefully--& integrated with the science. The science part is already reasonably extensive. I wan to check if it needs updating. DGG (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks card

Hello, DGG, thank you for participating in my request for adminship, which closed successfully with 47 supports, 3 opposes, and 0 neutrals. I am glad that the community thinks it can trust me with these tools; I will try and use my new mop and bucket (or vacuum cleaner!) carefully. I would like to personally thank you for your support. I recognise there are problems with CAT:AOR, but I will still add myself to it. I hope I meet your expectations in serving the community. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:Frank West merge

Well, I wasn't aware of that. I agreed to the merge because it appeared that the user Smile Lee didn't want to end the discussion that had shown a consensus and had been dormant with this consensus for an extended period of time. I had no intentions of a "Tag Team," but I just felt that the discussion was done merely to delay the discussion unnecessarily. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 23:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I only agreed to keep an eye on the article to prevent disruption, not necessarily to presever a "favored" version. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 23:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

you havent done anything wrong --I left the same message on a number of pages--everyone I could see who was involved in the discussion--it seems fairer to do it that way. My apologies if it seemed otherwise. DGG (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC).

Ok. Thanks for clearing that up for me. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 00:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

insight on GC comment

DGG, I know what GC's talking about although I would suggest it's a bit of a strawman. Here's a link to the section. [[1]] If you look above RPG project was against the ropes and gearing up toward an RFC. Then one editor on the project page made a personal attack toward GC (which was denounced by several members) However the project felt it was time for the RFC, not connected to the attack IMO. (Not trying to butt in, just thought it might enlighten)--Cube lurker (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC) -- yes it does give some context. still shows the attitude I thought it did. Thanks. DGG (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And best wishes for the emergency. Dealt with too many of those myself.--Cube lurker (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you working too hard

So, here is a cup of coffee and donut! Thx Igor Berger (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Change of focus

Well, DGG ... I've had another epiphany, and Template talk:Warn-article#Change of focus shows the change in focus for the templates, from Warning to Notice ... they're no longer a "threat to delete" but a "caution about notability" ... I've changed their icons and the default headers generated ... now they should be "kinder" as well as "leaner" ... examples of the current versions follow the discussion ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 08:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Right to Resist

?

Re: List of things that come on sticks

It falls under this criteria. Do you honestly believe any deletion discussion would have had a different outcome? east.718 at 00:05, January 7, 2008

Thanks for the heads-up

The comment about the links is perfectly reasonable, and I moved most of the content to a 'secret' location ;).

In all seriousness, best of luck with your family. Thanks again. --CobraGeek (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks, things are beginning to work out. You are doing well to keep material not immediately going to used in articles off Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please do something for me?

You seem to be online at the moment, so I ask you (you're the first admin I thought of) because another admin just went offline. See User_talk:East718#Beliskner class cruiser. Please? :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 01:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Just make it again correctly. Explain what you're doing on the talk page, and leave a clear edit summary, saying something like"correct target this time"DGG (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about restoring GDFL because of the merger. – sgeureka ^t•c 02:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Remind East718 tomorrow, as a first step. DGG (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, nevermind. :-) I was just under the impression that an accidental typo in a non-controversial action would not (1) result in deletion of the whole article, and (2) that it would take so long to undo it. I'll leave another note on East718's talk page then. – sgeureka ^t•c 03:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Schlessinger Sexual Harassment and Patent Trial

DGG, I really fail to understand why you are *Burying* schlessinger's sexual harassment trial and patent trial within his bio. "harassment" isn't the same thing as "sexual harassment." Isn't WP supposed ot be a NEUTRAL source? I am very frustrated at the fact that you are almost exclusively listing positive things and with prominent headers, at that. What gives?? what is the advantage to hiding and reducing the truth here, esp with someone who is sockpuppeting multiple usernames?? Truther truther (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:BLP. What he is known for is primarily his science. The patent issue is interesting, but primarily in context of the science--I am not yet really satisfied with how it's worded. The sexual harassment matter is secondary. It is in my opinion significant enough to include, but even that could be conceivably debated in good faith, especially since there were never any criminal charges, let alone convictions. Harassment these days usually does imply sexual harassment. and the term sexual harassment is linked, and therefore reasonably prominent. The news stories are used as references. Their headlines are visible. In my opinion this is appropriate emphasis. The use of other accounts to change the article has been reverted, and if they are used again they will be blocked. I remind you that you have every right to pursue the matter elsewhere, but so does the other sides, and you may find an even more unsatisfactory result. it is possible that another admin might think the matter best omitted as inconsequential. As I said in the beginning, a fair treatment of such things usually leaves both sides unsatisfied. I remind you of WP:COI. which clearly affects both sides of this, as would only be expected and it is affecting the treatment of other matters than the sexual harassment. WP is not the place to pursue justice or obtain publicity for your views--it is an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines harassment and sexual harassment differently, and as two entirely separate pages. It really should read sexual harassment. Please take another look.

What is the problem with labeling the patent trial for what it is? Also, I have a proposed draft sitting on your old discussion page ready to be reviewed by you when you have the time. Truther truther (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Vote for a post-meetup restaurant

I'm charged with making the reservations for us, so let's make it official. We'll do this via voting and everyone including anonymous voters, sockpuppets, and canvassed supporters is enfranchised. Voting irregularities and election fraud are encouraged as that would be really amusing in this instance. Please vote for whichever restaurant you would like to eat at given the information provided above and your own personal prejudices at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC#Let's make it official. The prevailing restaurant will be called first for the reservation. If a reservation cannot be obtained at the winning restaurant, the runner-up restaurant will be called thus making this entire process pointless. Voting ends 24 hours after this timestamp (because I said so). ScienceApologist (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Netfirms Article Deletion

Hi DGG, I was referred to you by another user. The Netfirms article I wrote was deleted on December 29th and went to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netfirms. I'm new to Wikipedia and would like the chance to improve the article so that it meets Wikipedia standards. Is there any way the article can be re-posted? Thank you. Jess Taylor (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Further to this, the page you sent to User:Jeff Taylor/Netfirms and then User:Jeff Taylor/Netfilms -- did you want it to go to, say, User:Jess Taylor/Netfirms? --Popplewick (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

oops, and oops again. I think its OK now. Thanks for catching it. DGG (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Elena Fernández

Hi there, DGG ... please have a look at Elena Fernández (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ... this is an example of an article that survived an AfD over six months ago because at the time, it was less than a week old ... it's even less of a stub now than it was then ... since it never left my radar, I've put the new {{Warn-article}} on it ... do you agree that it should have Some Other name, like {{Notify-article}}? Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 21:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

quick answer: not my subject, but from IMDb the career looks possibly notable. I';d just add a tag asking for references. DGG (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Oehlkers Wright - delete discussion

Hello DGG, you voted "Weak Delete" two days ago. For your information: Meanwhile I added further facts, see my "Remark:" on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elizabeth_Oehlkers_Wright#Elizabeth_Oehlkers_Wright. --T.G. (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC) I have seen the recent changes in the article. I have added a comment to the AfD, and may add another. DGG (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

availability problem

I am still available less than usual due to follow up from a family emergency, now fortunately resolved.
I thank my friends for their good wishes.

Dear DGG, I am sorry to read that and I hope that your family will be okay. Best wishes. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that. MBisanz ^talk 15:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. We can wait. Family comes first. --Abd (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks, everyone, I'll try to be here a little each day when I can. DGG (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope God blesses the hearts, minds, souls, and/or bodies of you and your family. Shalom and God bless dude. Smile Lee (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

David, sorry to read that there is an emergency, but family comes first. I hope things work out for the best. Be well and don't forget to take care of yourself also. Peace and best wishes. — Becksguy (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! I came here to ask for a favour, I'm leaving you my best wishes instead. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No need for action(David Eppstein's taken a look at the deleted version of R. S. Wenocur and finds the current doesn't qualify as CSD:G4). Best regards, Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC) yes, a difficult situation. DGG (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XX - January 2008

The January 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot -- 13:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Exergen Corporation

Could you please explain what significance is asserted by this article? Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 23:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It asserts they hold a number of patents. Its not much of an assertion, but its an assertion. It also asserts one of them is a significant invention; if so they might even pass AfD. perhaps it will be possible to document something more specific. DGG (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a quick search through United States Patent and Trademark Office online supports a multiple patents claim for Exergen, though I'm not sure how the source can be easily massaged into a single supporting citation for all patents, except perhaps as a ugly search string URL. Press releases show they have won a patent infringement suit on their temporal artery thermometer, too. As to whether these fact are sufficient to support keeping article, I cannot say, but lower-hanging fruit for deletion is certainly present on WP. -- Michael Devore (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Walt Brown (creationist)

Hi DGG. This is an article that is up for deletion which I think we might keep. Comments?--Filll (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on Category Redirect template

Because you are a member of WikiProject Categories, your input is invited on some proposed changes to the design of the {{Category redirect}} template. Please feel free to view the proposals and comment on the template talk page. --Russ (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Schlessinger page

Hi DGG, I just noticed that someone named Joseph Schlessinger and kiki1945 have tried to delete the harassment and patent trial sections from the Schlessinger page. I wanted to make it clear that this was not me (although I agree completely with their suggestion - I had tried to do this in November). I am keen to continue working to get the appropriate emphasis on this page. My perspective is clearly orthogonal to that of Truthertruther. Rather than have my suggested edits dismissed as possible 'self edits' or whatever, I shall follow your suggestion and go through the talk page as before.Hillhealth (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes; that was a little earlier, and I warned them appropriately.. If they do it again the accounts will be blocked. Glad to know it wasnt you. DGG (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making a civil civility warning elsewhere

This edit was exemplary, making a very effective point while keeping it clear of lecturing and the quite, quite inflamed disputes that all three of us are involved in. I came to the page to do much the same, but I wax verbose a lot and my version, though it probably wouldn't have been taken as a political move, would've crimped future working relations in resolving said disputes. --Kizor 11:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I thank you, though unfortunately not everyone took it in the same spirit. DGG (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Not effective enough? Then I shall endeavour to make my warnings concise, polite and straightforward with only a tiny bit of flaming. --Kizor 12:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hell no, to put it mildly.:) I think it is better to defuse the immediate situation, and I regret I made a further reply there myself--Despite the temptation. I dont think there's much hope of reform to be expected. Anyway, much more effective if warnings are spread out as reasons for them occur. DGG (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Feedback requested

Hi. If you have a minute, I would really appreciate the feedback of a level-headed fellow like you. I've just engaged in a BLP skirmish with a user attempting to restore a link brought up at BLPN to several articles. I left him a couple of messages, one at the beginning of the skirmish and the other when the dust had settled. I know that BLP issues are exclusions from 3RR, but I suppose I would feel a whole lot more comfortable with that if the website in question were not otherwise such high quality and if more editors had responded to my request for additional evaluation. (See Wikipedia:BLPN#Primal_Therapy and Wikipedia:BLPN#Arthur_Janov_and_others, if you want to.) Do you have any advise for handling this kind of thing? Is there something I should do or should have done differently? What would you do if it resumed? Your opinion would be much appreciated, and I've watchlisted your page in case you have time and inclination to offer it. :) Seeing your notice about limited time (I hope your emergency has resolved well), I will completely understand if you have neither. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the compliment. I've protected the Janov page for 24 hours, in what by pure accident happens to be the right version for a change. I know you're a sysop but of course you know not to edit in the interval. I suggest not using BLP unless necessary. The main discussion of the validity of the theory goes in the article on Primal Scream. Since the objection to removal was that it discusses the theory, not Janow, this should cope with the situation on the bio page. The wording in that paragraph there could well be cut down a little. There are enough good sources that the theory is not generally accepted. & one would be enough for balance.

As for use on the page on Primal Scream, its a little more complicated and I've commented on the BLPN page you mention. DGG (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I'd rather have nothing to do with it at all. :) The only reason I brought it up the second time at BLPN was because I felt guilty that the complaining editor's concerns had not been more firmly addressed, even though said editor seems to have as much of a POV as those on the other side. I think the problem with the link is this subpage, which incorporates unreferenced, anonymous allegations of sexual misconduct from the therapists that was overlooked by personnel. I'd have been much happier if more than one other volunteer at BLP had chosen to weigh in on the question of whether or not the link was a BLP violation (but, truly, was grateful for that one!). I appreciate your time and your participation there, and I will go and see what you have to say about it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I finally read that actual subpage on the site. It is not an accusation about any particular named individual--names are redacted. The editor of the site actually edited the transcript in a responsible manner. Unless I actually knew a good deal about it, i couldnt figure it out. I do not think the material there is a BLP violation, unless it is used to support a claim in the article of sexual misconduct. DGG (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not comfortable with it; while the therapists are not outed, those who run the center are accused of unethical conduct in knowing of and overlooking the sexual behavior. There are no names, but I don't know how easily those names could be discovered.

The bigger problem is, I think, that it reads to me like derogatory material and doesn't meet my interpretation of the BLP guideline, which indicates ELs must be "of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies and external links guidelines"; WP:EL states that "material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links". (Of course, I know you know this; I'm just gathering it into one page.) It does seem to be, after all, only a personal website in spite of its quality, and hence no more reliable than any other personal website. That whole interview could be made up wholecloth; the scholarship must be suspect, even though it may lead to sources that are not and can be used.

Though I do feel strongly that it's inappropriate by BLP, I remain unsure if it is such an egregious violation that it "should be removed immediately and without discussion" as material that "relies upon sources that do not meet standards" set forth at WP:V. That's why I sought your opinion when it was restored to the article after I removed it. I respect your opinion. :) If you don't feel that it's an egregious enough violation to warrant removal by BLP, then I'm going to let it go.

I left a note for the editor, evidently a SPA some hours ago telling him that as you (another uninvolved admin and all) didn't oppose its use as an EL, I would not, since there was no longer consensus that it was a BLP violation. I also encouraged him to discuss issues in the future. I don't know if he will.

And I wikilink policies and guidelines so automatically that I had to go in and remove a couple. It's second nature, I think. :)--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

those are relatively vague charges, and they are made against the center, not against an individual. Yes its derogatory material, but it's about the center and the therapy, and only by implication about the person, who may as an individual no longer have much to do with what he started. This is BLP creep, which will destroy the honesty of not just the bio articles but every article about any controversial topic. I do not think implied BLP is subject to the policy, unless extreme; this was not extreme, but responsible criticism. . My take on BLP is to apply it strictly, but narrowly, to what it was designed to do, or should have been designed to do: to avoid harming the innocent victims of tabloid journalism. Our general rule, that 2RS=N, made them vulnerable to whatever nonsense was picked up by the junk press. Anything beyond that is a misapplication. (and, to a lesser extent, to avoid exaggerating the misdeeds of the guilty, when they are trivial. Not avoid mentioning them, just avoid emphasizing them.) In this case, its objectively a good site. I hold with using what are good informal sites, given for BLP, judging them individually--more and more of the information in the world will be on such sites.

I share your (implied) general concerns about the article. The existing one on the therapy is a NPOV failure, scarcely redeemed by a section on criticism. The bio one needs additional material to keep it from degenerating. I have no great confidence in any of the eds. involved to do it objectively. We've learned how to deal with junk science. Junk social science or psychology is much trickier. I, like you, do not want to get trapped into editing this one. DGG (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a mess. And it's bedtime in my part of the world. Thank you again for your response. I do appreciate it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinon

Howdy, could I get an opinion on this issue User_talk:Mbisanz#Muayyed_Nureddin. I tagged this page [2] cause it seemed like there were BLP issues with a person's entire bio being centered around this one incident. I later de-tagged them as the user address the concerns I had. In an unrelated conversation that Fremte found and jumped into User_talk:Pwnage8#BITEing, I mentioned that using templates from Category:Under-construction_templates is a good idea during page creation. Fremte then drops that category into [3] into the article!(I saw via watchlist). So I went back and swapped it for a template [4]. Now he says I'm staking his edits to the article and dropped a nice one in my editor review. Any advice or is this all in a days work? MBisanz ^talk 03:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Days work, just as you suspected. Arguing over tags is futile. The underconstruction tag was needed to protect the article, but I think it can stand as is with the sources that have been added. DGG (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Ah a nice one here [5] considering my several comments here Talk:Muayyed_Nureddin and in edit summaries. MBisanz ^talk 03:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

dont worry about it. Not sure if its even worth a comment. DGG (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what he'd say if someone ever AfD' an article he wrote [6] if that's his response to a tag from 2 days ago. MBisanz ^talk 06:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

== Molecular biology ---> library ==

Hi DGG, I've been aware of your presence on Wikipedia for some time, but I just now took the time to read your userpage. I find it remarkable that you transitioned from being a molecular biologist to being a librarian. Have you already documented this change of heart somewhere on-wiki? If not, do you think you could? (Even in talkspace, of course.) This doesn't really merit a reply unless you have free time, but I would love to know more.

Thanks, Antelan ^talk 07:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Just send me an email or enable yours. DGG (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Your upcoming presentation to fellow librarians

Please keep us updated on this. And, if there's a digital component, you can place a copy online at meta:Presentations/en. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

See User:DGG/LG. This is of course just a sketch. When I gave it, and as I will give it, there's no formal online component--it's a live demo based on the current pages in Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Amateur computer club invite

Here is where I read about it. Maybe Mark remembers more. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Arnold Murray

I would like you to reconsider your thoughts on the previous state (and the salvageability) of Arnold Murray based on my review of the page's history and sources. It is pretty clear that this page has never been reliably sourced, and that notability has never been established (and it seems that this is because no such notability exists). --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you please take a look at this AfD again, not for content reasons, but because User:Tss8071 (also editing from the IP 65.87.185.73, easily confirmed as the same in the article's history) is making personal attacks and injecting long rants into the discussion (rants about "sanitizing" and "templates" etc). I've been moving the irrelevant stuff to the talkpage, since it is not relevant do the deletion debate, and now he's started removing relevant content to the talk page. This is borderline vandalism, especially since he's sockpuppeting to do it (not to mention double voting by logging out in the first place). --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think in general it is not a good idea to move material during an AfD debate unless it becomes much more abusive than this. And if it is necessary it should be done by someone neutral. I continue to see the AfD as consisting of attempts from various directions to settle a content dispute--and it's a content dispute I do not want to get involved in. DGG (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, I just feel like he's soapboxing (not to mention the personal attacks), and his comments are making the page highly unreadable. I also think that every user can and should reserve the right to move comments from a discussion to the talk page if they are not germane. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Weldon

Thanks for the note about speedy delete/hoaxes. It seemed appropriate, but in this case was doubly wrong, since I was mistyping the surname as "Wheldon" when looking for confirmation of basic facts in the article. No wonder it looked like a hoax! I am chastened and will be more careful from now on. 76.10.153.220 (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Films?

Which films? Corvus cornix_talk 05:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, those films. I tend to zone out when people start making WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments. Corvus cornix_talk 06:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

ballet categories

May I ask that you provide a professional opinion concerning four entries on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 11, please? They are:

Category:New York City Ballet Repertory

Category:New York City Ballet dancers

Category:American Ballet Theatre dancers

Category:Ballets Russes choreographers and Category:Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo choreographers (one entry for both).

I believe the argument for retaining the first of these, Category:New York City Ballet Repertory, is very strong.

The person who proposed deleting these five categories is opposed to moving the entries for NYCB and ABT dancers and Ballets Russes (and Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo) choreographers to:

Category:New York City Ballet

Category:American Ballet Theatre

Category:Ballets Russes, etc.

He (or she) says only that this would still constitute overcategorization.

A third party has weighed in on the side of retaining Category:American Ballet Theatre dancers, an argument with which I certainly agree and which would apply as strongly to Category:New York City Ballet dancers; if not moreso, in that NYCB is significantly larger that ABT.

In the case of the Ballets Russes and Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo (which were completely seperate companies albeit with some overlap of personnel) there would be little harm in lumping everything in two über categories, Category:Ballets Russes and Category:Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo respectively, but I don't understanding the party of the first part's objection to doing so.

I hope that all is well with your family; am presently in Sweden, and will return to City Ballet (and City University, alas) the 24th. Robert Greer (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, another line of arguments for me with the same over-deletor. (not your fault, that). Be sure to notify the appropriate wikiprojects--in a neutral way--just say there is a discussion, without argument. DGG (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I just did, thank you! Robert Greer (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

followup--3:1 keep:delete ratio at this point--Only the nom is supporting deletion, which is only as would be expected. DGG (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

DRV

I just wanted to inform you of yet another DRV for the "Right to Resist" userbox, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 12#User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist. I hope you'll comment, as some neutral reasoning is desperately needed there, and you're the most neutral person I know. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:07, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Ross Jeffries

Thanks, that was a really terrible article. I'm sure the "seduction community" will rant and rave about it. I appreciate the offer of support, I'll take you up on it if there's blowback :-) Best, Gwernol 22:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on bibliographic data needs revisiting

DGG: Please continue your response found here. At present, 1) your response fails to answer the actual question asked, and 2) your response is premised on less than full information. Since you saw fit to comment as you did, it would be appreciated that you now revisit your remarks based on better disclosure.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

and so I have done. DGG (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If you want to offer more, it would be appreciated, too.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Joeydq

Thanks for looking at this for me; I am still a little concerned that there is enough information on his user page to identify him IRL, and whereas we adults understand, and can deal with, the consequences of that, I'm not so sure that we should not err on the side of caution in protecting RL identities of minors, their wishes notwithstanding. I have not had a reply to the email I sent him, which I purposely couched in very neutral terms, but sometimes I think we should be bold in taking protective, if temporary, steps. If Joey, having discussed this with a responsible adult, still wishes to have his details there, fine. Meanwhile, without advocating paranoia, I merely raise the issue again. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

In general just removing it from view is sufficient. The real goal is to communicate with him about learning prudence in general--there are much more dangerous places on the web than this one. I'll check back on his page tomorrow. DGG (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll be keeping an eye on it too. I've been here long enough to have seen bizarre interactions between WP & RL, so I hope you'll understand my caution here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone seems to have jumped in and declared the discussion over. If there was a consensus, I don't think (though really, I can't tell) that it was to delete. So, was this an example of the mysterious ways of the Wikipedia administration process, or did someone with admin powers go rambo? Is this whole thing crazy or just me? --MQDuck (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

unrelated topic

This is Bobby Birch, and I have recently had my articles deleted, and I need this to stop. My writings have little importance and are rarely looked at, except for you and your friends who delete them without a thought. They are funny and amusing. Seriously its Alaska. STOP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbybirch (talk • contribs) 03:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

NYMagazine

Yes, I agree that it may not be the best source for notability, but I think it's enough to make deletion doubtful enough to avoid a prod and to use AfD instead.

I'm not sure which article you are actually referring to here, because I was reviewing proposed deletions today and came across what seemed to be a mass nomination from one editor of a series of about 10-15 articles on surgeons and researchers at the Columbia University Medical Center, all with the reason "Advertisement, Self-promotion, Spam, Non Notable", and most of whom appeared to be notable either according to sources in the article or with trivial web searching. I admit that by the time I was getting to the end of these I was just choosing the simplest explanation I could find for removing the prod tag simply to save effort. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those are the articles--I've been looking at them, and left a note for the author, who is apparently the pr guy for the dept of Surgery at Columbia. Some of the people are clearly notable,& I've removed a few others based on awards etc.--But I certainly dont blame whoever tagged them all. But looking ahead to the AfDs that are almost certain to follow, I wonder how many people receive that NYMagazine designation--one of the article referred to their list of the top 100 bariatric surgeons (if that's nationwide, it's possible, if its just in NYC, that's another matter).DGG (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So far one of the articles from which I removed the prod tag, has come up for AfD, and that was quickly withdrawn by the nominator. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [7]. --Maniwar (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I made some comments you should see. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theistic rationalism ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC) -- (commented further there) - DGG

RE:Peter Clift

Hello DGG. Thank you for your note on my talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

American Journal Experts

In keeping with your suggestion that sources be added to the article rather than only be mentioned, I have now cited actual sources and provided links in the article. Hopefully this is what you had in mind. Perhaps now you will vote to keep the article so that the sources can continue to develop. I also put an example of spam on the talk page.BlueDevil1 (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Output budgeting

Not sure what to do with this if it isn't an advert. I can't keep reverting the IMF links -- I've already done that twice. What to do? Ignore it? --Busy Stubber (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The IMF is a fairly well established international organization ( http://www.imf.org/external/about.htm ). I'm not sure about the status of their official blog though. The book reviews seem relevant. fwiw, --Versageek 03:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the IMF is a well-established international organization. That doesn't give them the right to advertise their services or books via Wikipedia. What does "fwiw" mean? --Busy Stubber (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(FWIW= For What It's Worth.) Anyway, IMF publications may well be notable, and listing of them for a relevant subject is not necessarily spam. I suggest trying to find additional references, including outside reviews of the books mentioned. And I rather doubt they are the only ones to have published on this topic. If necessary, ask for help from the economics of other WikiProject. There are lots of ways of editing and improving articles, and nominating for speedy deletion is not one of them. If you find there are no additional references possible after doing a reasonable search, then the final resort is AfD, where the article will be discussed with the community. But that's only if you cant improve it enough yourself. DGG (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

DGG, thanks for explaining "fwiw". With utmost respect, I can't personally support what I see going on in the article output budgeting, so I'll take it off my watchlist. I've been scanning business stub articles to try to help clean up the business stub group. I think of this as basic triage work, not any major improvement of articles -- just sort of make them meet miminial standards in wiki for a stub. Sometimes I look for sources, sometimes it just doesn't seem worth the time to try to fix articles that are truly COI problems. The economics and business-related projects are not well supported. I'll avoid suggesting deletes and AfDs, but I'll try to tag them for pertinent projects. --Busy Stubber (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I too don't have the time to really improve articles as i like, to, and I am increasingly forced to limit myself also to the sort of triage work you mention. I've called the attention of one of the more likely WP editors here to the article, and maybe he can be do it justice.

The business article here have me just as concerned as you--there are insufficient people here who care about this subject to make the notable ones encyclopedic--its perhaps the worst covered area of any at WP--there is such a high proportion of spammy articles submitted that could be useful and respectable if they were improved properly. I appreciate your efforts--and if you could encourage some other knowledgeable people to join, it's the best way to get things really better. DGG (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Where did that nonsense "I too don't have the time to really improve articles as i like, to, and I am increasingly forced to limit myself also to the sort of triage work you mention. I've called the attention of one of the more likely WP editors here to the article, and maybe he can be do it justice" come from? It was unsigned and I can't see the history on it.

Apparently automated responses like that make me think that Wikipedia is playing a game, not seriously developing an encyclopedia. --Busy Stubber (talk) 05:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

All you had to do is check the edit history--I seem to have typed 5 tilde marks instead of 4, which leaves just the date. And I dont see why what I said is nonsense. I did in fact ask someone I think knowledgeable about the topic to see if he could help the article. And I said that just as you couldnt take on extensive rewriting, that neither could I, and I understood why, & wanted to explain that I had not meant to blame you. If you doubt my credentials for rescuing articles, look at the talk page archives. If you doubt my willingness to delete them when necessary, look at my log. If you want to see that I never use automated anything, look at the messages to other people you can see in my contributions. I write every word here by hand, every time. If you want proof I'm a human being, send me an email & I'll give it. DGG (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Very sorry for my mistake, DGG -- I didn't check the edit history, and that was my fault. The message that came through here on this page seemed unlike your usual clarity, and I stupidly jumped to conclusions. Automated stuff here in Wiki is often beyond my ken. I'm not a high-tech person, just a mid-tech person trying to help out here. Many thanks for all you're doing :) and... this isn't allowed most places, but here's a bunch of hugs and kisses XXXXXXX OOOOOOOO :) --Busy Stubber (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and I apologize to you for my defensiveness. DGG (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

James Patrick Dunne

Hi. Thanks for the point about IMDB. I'm still a bit suspicious because the text on there matches what is on the agnet's website, suggesting it was written by them. I'm not sure whether they have control over the credits list though. I just think it's suspicious that no other websites seem to mention him. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've found one CD of his on Amazon. I think what I might do is take out all of the unverifiable information out of the article and leave it as a stub. What do you think? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This isnt my usual subject, but I looked on the web & I found much less definite information than I would have expected, & am therefore, just like you, a little skeptical. Yes, IMdB lets people say what they like, but corrects errors when reported to them, so it is acceptable for routine matters, but it can be challenged if it seems doubtful, & in this case I too would like to see something additional. Either just remove what you cant immediately verify, or find a suitable expert WikiProject to review it, or bring it to AfD, where many people will see it. DGG (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've listed it at AfD (this is what I had intended to do in the first place but got confused between deletion procedures). Let's see what people say. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

New MfD

I know you're not the type to do something like this but can we get someone to close this new MfD? See my comment there. I don't think this should even be allowed to get off the ground. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:16, 16 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention there. I obviously think that was a good call. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:34, 16 Jan 2008 (UTC)

not that we've likely heard the last of this--as if we didn't have enough actual problems to work on. DGG (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

not correct

My position is that the opposition shown on WT:EPISODE does not represent the WP:CONSENSUS on Wikipedia, only that of certain editors of TV-related articles. I believe I have said this in my statement. I see you disagree with me.

I'm replying here because I consider a discussion beneath my statement in WT:EPISODE to be disruptive. Do you think it helps to start a tangential discussion in exactly that spot? I appreciate it if you would move your comment elsewhere. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It is really not a good idea to start reinjecting previous discussion into the RFC. This is disruptive. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe you made a factually incorrect statement, and i thought appropriate to correct it. I will move it, though, to a statement of my own. You are right that it would be better as that. I apologize for not doing that at first DGG (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you much. This is very helpful! By the way, dial-up users will find it hard to load your Talk page repeatedly for a discussion like this one. It might be a good idea to archive more frequently. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Stereotypes of Hispanics

DDG, I left a message on the talk page, but it appears you're not watching it. I asked why you removed the "See also" section, and why that question someone asked as a reference, instead of in the talk page, should be restored, especially since I already answered it. You gave no reasons for either change, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. Thanks. SamEV (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

just a slip of the mouse. I fixed it. Sorry for not responding sooner, but I have about 900 articles on my watchlist. DGG (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Theistic rationalism

   ?

Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your work at Bert W. O'Malley!!!!!! CM (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Prod2 tags

RE: the prod2 you put on this article: while the {{prod}} tag is substituted, the {{prod2}} tag isn't. Yeah, doesn't make sense to me either. Anyways, I fixed it, just giving you a heads-up. --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Natasha Collins again

Hello DGG. The Natasha Collins article was recreated via DRV but is for deletion again. Since I noticed your incredibly strongpoints at the first AFD and at the DRV, may I suggest that you make a comment there? Besides John254 or whatever who doesn't seem to be commenting anymore on the page I am basically leading a one man opposition. Your help would be sincerely welcomed. Yours truly the Editorofthewiki (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

John seems to have showed up, as would be expected, as have others. And additional people will. I did too, though I consider this not one of the strongest possible keeps. But you have come very close to canvassing: you should have said merely "The article on NC is up for deletion, the previous deletion having been overturned at DRV. As you commented in the first AfD or the Del Rev, or both, you may be interested in having a look." and sent it to every person who made a substantial comment in either. Do the others now, if you havent already. Fair's fair. DGG (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

MfD Again (You voted before)

• The article formerly known as VP:Admin Abuse is back up for a MfD, in spite of its new title and greatly expanded sections highlighting great admins. (The MfD is believed to be a veiled personal attack.) The new page is WP:What Were They Thinking? (or simply WP:WWTT). The deletion question is here. Please visit and voice your support or, if your opinion has changed, opposition to this article. As you'll recall, it was a UNANIMOUS KEEP the first time around. Thank you for your time. VigilancePrime (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a keep when it was in user space. I do not think it can be defended in WP space. It contains personal opinions about specific actions. I strongly advise you to accept moving it, and then I will support keeping it. DGG (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:A7

Hmm... I changed it to a PROD.   jj137 ^♠ 02:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The PROD tag will probably expire in five days, but you're right, it's a better choice than A7.   jj137 ^♠ 02:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance

Thank you for your support regarding the AfDs related to the Franco-Mongol alliance. A few editors are actually putting a lot of efforts into deleting a lot of the referenced material from the Franco-Mongol alliance page (all from reputable and published sources) in favour of a highly restrictive and dismissive point of view. Your help is appreciated. Best regards. PHG (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a short main article and long specialized ones might be the way to go. But see my comments at the AfDs. DGG (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You were right...

You were right, DGG, I should not have sent those articles to AfD at the same time, but should have done it one at a time instead. We may each disagree on the individual notability on the subjects of the articles themselves - but you were kind enough to come to my talk page and politely give me this advice which I did not follow, and I apologize. I respect you and thank you for assuming good faith with me, and being so polite in the manner in which you gave me the head's up. I'm sorry and I will listen to your advice more closely next time. I also won't do this sort of mass nominating AfDs again. Thanks again, Cirt (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your coming here with this comment. Good start of the week. DGG (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello. You may have seen that some Wikipedia articles lack sources to given dates, timelines and chronologies.
If you feel that you could like to help in making all articles more reliable and well sourced in this regard, we would like to encourage you to use, as part of your daily editing and when {{fact}} is not enough for requesting clearly and specifically a citation or source for dates, timeline or chronology, the following inline tag:

{{Timefact}} displays ^{{chronology source needed}} for requesting timelines, dates and chronology sources. Click here for more information

At WP Timeline Tracer, we thank you for using these tools and for helping to make Wikipedia articles more accurate and reliable.

Daoken 10:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ukexpat

Hey there, DGG, long time no talk. I've added a note to this user's talkpage under what you wrote. This isn't the first time that this particular new page patroller has gotten it wrong, and not the first time that I've asked him/her to slow down with the CSD tags. If you don't mind watchlisting (if you haven't already) this user so that more eyes can be on his tags. I believe he/she recently got rollback as well. I'm not an inclusionist, nor a deletionist, but in fact a citationist. I've been greatly influenced by your approach to this wikipedia business and on that note, would love it if you had a chance (ha!) to look over my Deletion log to make sure that I haven't abused my admin privileges (I've been admin since 1/15/08). Thaks DGG, Keeper | 76 23:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dodsworth

As you can see, I did not commence this article which was a little sad before I made substantial attempts to tidy it up and to include a number of excellent references. I am extemely surprised at the comment about these references. I could take you to probably hundreds of Wikipedia articles with not one solitary reference. Given the many pop stars and drug addicts who appear on Wikipedia I feel that this article, is very interesting from a historical perspective, especially as the yeoman concerned was removed from his lands in order to take part in the Scottish wars. The Battle of Pinkie was important in Scottish history and as there are no lists of who took place in that respect this article was a major find for the English side. It is also a good example of an English yeoman of the period. In addition his sons/grandsons occupied positions of note so he is part of the jigsaw. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I recognized you hadn't started the article, but you were he guy who did the most work, so I sent you the notice. I am not giving you my own personal opinion of what ought to be in wikipedia. I think a great deal should be in wikipedia beyond the content presently considered notable. A good case can be made for extracting material from sources the way you did and using it to make articles--I personally might be prepared to accept it. But I'm an administrator here, and I need to follow the accepted consensus. So I do, as best I can figure it out. And the consensus is quite strong that such sources are not usable for notability, without much doubt about it. Let me try to explain, as I understand it.

Please see WP:RS. for a discussion of primary sources. I agree with you that it is possible with research to write something about almost any historical figure--at least in the UK & other places with good published archives. One could continue as you are doing above, to talk about the general implications of his life. A local history journal might well publish it. But that counts as WP:OR here, unless the people have been written about in secondary sources elsewhere. That an archive has been published doesn't make it less of a primary source, both in the sense used in historical studies and in Wikipedia. Remember, thousands of people took place in that battle. One can indeed use published archival sources to add noncontroversial content to an article (or at least I think so, though some disagree), but being listed in them does not give notability, unless what is said there really clearly shows it. Even then its a little tricky, but people are sometimes willing to stretch the rule against primary sources if it shows a person to be the first settler of an area in a colony, or the like. But in the UK, almost everyone notable in primary sources will have been written about in secondary sources also.

You can certainly remove the PROD, and contest the article at AfD. Anything can happen there. But I advise you against it, as the article will almost certainly be deleted. Anyone with a full article in Oxford DNB is considered notable beyond question; anyone with an add-on paragraph there could probably be justified also. The people who are just mentioned, not necessarily, unless there are secondary sources elsewhere also. I see from you talk page you dont like to use the DNB, and I agree its better to go to the material behind it, but it is accepted as a criterion of notability. And the various historical events could certainly use further work--that battle is based on a single non-academic source, and probably a good deal more can be said. Good wishes for your work here. DGG (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Mind answering a question?

I had a question about a warning you left for me here. Would you favor me with an answer? Thanks!--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Replied on your talk page.DGG (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Communes

No, That's all I will add. I'm creating the outline of the pages so that future editors can fill them in a lot easier without having to create them, as I did with the German Municipalities which are currently still being added upon and improved. A lot can be built on from a stub. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope

I won't be using email for any reason any time, and I will not be activating any email account. If a user needs confidential help, they can find one of the hundreds of admin with email activated. That isn't meant to sound harsh, but my firm opinion is simple: if it is about Wikipedia, it can be posted on Wikipedia. If it is confidential, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia anyway and I won't bother with it. Call me Mr. Transparency, but that's the way I see it. I have nothing to hide and won't be emailing anyone anything, nor would I expect anyone to email me for any reason that can't be seen by others. For the same reason I'll have no part in the IRC stuff. Unless you can provide a compelling reason or example, that's how I will work...Am I missing anything? Keeper | 76 23:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The classic case is that if you do a block and someone can't post otherwise. Others are: 1/ if you are doing something that affects a complicated situation and someone wants to warn you--it is good to keep minor potential drama out of AN/I if possible. 2/ one of the aspects of openness is that admins should be open to complaints from users via any medium the user prefers. We want to encourage informal questions and complaints. 3/ i often try to compromise disputes, and in my experience it is much easier to try to do so sometimes by private talks to one or both of the parties. 4/ A further advantage is that you can avoid embarrassing people. Now, you & I sensibly dont mind being embarrassed if we do something dubious or if someone erroneously thinks we did, but many other people do, and to always have to comment to them on wiki can in some cases be a little bitey in their eyes. 5/ There's another thing--I sometimes need to warn someone not yet old enough to have discretion, and I do it by asking them on wiki to email me. 6/ In summary, you limit yourself by cutting off communication channels. In an admin, it can come across as the opposite of transparency. DGG (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You and I are viewing "Transparency" in exactly the opposite fashion. If someone emails me, and I respond via email, how is that transparent? It isn't, it's secret. How does that build Wikipedia? If someone has something to say that is related to Wikipedia, whether it's a Hey, why did you delete my article or Why did you vote that way in my RfA?, I don't see how that being handled via email is less transparent than having it on my talkpage. You haven't convinced me. Also, please see this for a further explanation. Keeper | 76 00:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

transparent means many things, In some cases, I think the same as you, and if people ask me about an article via email, I tell them I will respond on the article talk page, and I generally say who it was who asked me. No one has ever asked me to expand on a vote at RfA,, I'm generally pretty clear in the first place. But:

"I think big-shot X is harassing me, but i'm afraid he'd step on me if I asked about it--could you perhaps give him a word or two?"

"Y, who seems to be a friend of yours , is becoming ridiculous. do you think you can give him some advice that he'll listen to?"

Those are the things I usually get email about. And that last case i mentioned. As you please, of course. But you make yourself appear inflexible. Normally I'd say that privately. DGG (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice and your examples (from CSD). I also greatly appreciate your examples on my talkpage for inappropriate A7's, and I will be much more careful in the future. It is not my intention to create drama where drama is unnecessary. Would you recommend that I undelete the examples that you've provided?

On the email situation, I certainly don't want to "appear inflexible", but that will just be how it has to appear because I won't be emailing anyone, or anticipate anyone needing to email me, regardless of the reason. Maybe I'm being naive, maybe not. I see you rpoint about wanting discretion when it comes to "big shot X". I'll ponder the email question a bit more. Meanwhile, did you look at my reasoning on the link I provided in my last post? Even if I had email enabled, I wouldn't be able to access it in a reasonable amount of time. Would you recommend an addition to my userpage stating exaclty that? Keeper | 76 00:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I admit I had not yet read that posting when i answered you last--if you can't, you can't, and yes, you should alert people. "I dont have email available for WP purposes--sorry" would do. I keep my WP email down a little by looking at it only once a day--and i do not use IRC myself, because I prefer to have a chance to think before i speak. I'm used to academic settings where one can do what one likes on email. (tho I do have some stories...) Just be glad they didnt block WP as well.

As for the speedies, just make sure there is no chance at all that they actually could have been notable--if there's any doubt, just undelete and prod. I realize once a week or so I've been too hasty and do that. But if you're certain they are hopeless, its not worth going back. DGG (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My sig

I'm sorry, how does my signature sound out? or do you just have something against Librarians? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Centre for Fortean Zoology article as spam

Hello David, I recently nominated the article Centre for Fortean Zoology for deletion as spam, but you removed the nomination, citing that you did not believe the article fit the category. I would like to note that the article was written by the directors of the organization, cites only organization and director publications as sources, contains links to the organization's website added by a director, and contains several self-aggrandizing passages such as, "...is the only professional, scientific and full-time organisation...", "...is now a truly global entity...", "...has carried out an unparalleled programme of research and investigation all over the world...", "...is the largest single publisher of books on cryptozoology in the world...", "...film includes a very funny guest appearance...", "The CFZ has an impressive range of publications to their credit...", etc. This reeks of advertisement. If you would not call this spam, I would still argue that the article was created by the organization for the sole purpose of drawing business to itself, and the manner in which the article is written has no place in Wikipedia articles. What is your basis for claiming that this article doesn't qualify for db-spam? Schlegel (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC) I think its fixable. Thanks for reminding me--I usually fix it immediately after removing a G11, so I went back and did it just now. I removed those adjectives, and the list of the leadership. If you still think its hopeless, try AfD, I am far from infallible. DGG (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

==

I'd assume you were referring to this article, since none was linked. At the time I nominated it, I believe the article had already been speedy deleted by another admin at least once. The recreated article did not appear to have more substantial content than the previous one and was very poorly organized, so I tagged it again. Sorry if I missed a comment in there. Gromlakh (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

not a problem. Keep up the good work! Gromlakh (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit confuse on the COI tag? --Mike oootside of edmonton (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess if being a fan of the hockey team is a conflict, then I am guilty... ;) --Mike oootside of edmonton (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am curious about reverting some of the text that has been removed. It is relevent to the story of the article? --Mike oootside of edmonton (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

its just that we should wait for Snowolf to reply. He's a reliable fellow admin, and it would be a good idea to wait and hear his reasons.DGG (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied on his talk page. Happy editing, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Roundabouts in Billings, Montana article

Hello, I see that you deleted the "hang-on" template. I was wondering what you mean by "does not fit speedy A7 categories"

Thanks

--Wolfdog1 (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Trauma in Film

I appreciated your comment on the AfD page. I posted a potential solution,and then tried to start implementing it. (List of mainstream films with violent trauma). it immediately got flagged and all sorts of criticism - I think people didn't realize I was trying to fix the original potential problems. Do you have any advice for me? I'd like to see this content made available in order to help provide categorical knowledge about film content - as in the previously existing wiki lists of films.

Thanks, Filmtrauma (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

what you did may have been a little too hurried and complicated. You probably should have asked, that it the original article were deleted, it be copied to user space, and then written two separate articles, not tried to sort them out now. But since you did, just defend the new article and see what happens. I commented at the new AfD. It would help to have a source for the items--just find a review that discusses it for each of them. Do at least a few. Go carefully. If it fails, wait a bit, build up the article, and do it again. DGG (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. I was a bit confused about on which ground I would tag it. Your advise certainly help me to tag any article in future. Regards. Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 18:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as to your stance

Pee-wee's Playhouse Christmas Special‎ was a redirect before arbitration started. Is it changing the redirect to a full article that you think was vandalism because of the arbitration? Or restoring the redirect to the state it was in prior to arbitration that was vandalism?Kww (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Changing it to a redirect in the first place without consensus, and insisting on the change after repeated reversion, when done along with 100s of other similar redirects, was vandalism. Doing it for an individual article, would just have been an use of BRD to be promptly Reverted. Continuing to do so after reversion without consensus on the page was vandalism, the deliberate destruction of content on the basis of a personal interpretation of policy that was then and now actively debated. That changes in either direction were made during a related arbitration just makes it a little worse all around. DGG (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So changing its status during arbitration so that there would be yet another article which consists entirely of plot summary and unsourced information was OK, putting it back to its original state was vandalism. OK ... we'll just have to disagree on that. Certainly, I don't feel like any action I took was a piece of vandalism, and I hope you recognize that.Kww (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Missed the point, the original mass deletions--and especially reverting to them-- were destructive to the encyclopedia, long before the arbitration got under way. But those doing them probably did not expect the extent to which the actions would be so regarded. They must have--at least initially-- hoped to get their way without difficulty, not exacerbate the conflict. That people disagree on the desired nature of these articles--there's nothing the least wrong with that--either position can be defended. But if you imply that the desired goal is so important that it over-rides the need for consensus, then I think you have--in perfectly good faith--misconceived the nature of a cooperative project. DGG (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for old deletion

Hi David, please could you retrieve or look into the article David Browning (deleted last year as "attack") in case it would help to resolve the discussion at Talk:Coronation Street#Theme music? Perhaps you might make a new subpage of my user account. The page history might also be useful. On the other hand, if it was rubbish & irrelevant then just let me know! - Fayenatic (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

total rubbish, unfortunately. DGG (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Toolbar

I started developing a Wikipedia Toolbar and wanted to let you know, perhaps get some feedback on the concept and see if you have any thoughts. Thanks :) Equazcion •✗/C • 21:36, 24 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Trevor Marshall

Hi, DGG: I just updated Trevor Marshall's piece to include mention of a recent article by the man in Bioessays. I thought this was as good a time as any to resolve the NPOV complaint. As you may remember I/we have made substantial changes to this piece to beef up the neutral tone and include a certain measure of negative criticism. Palbert (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

State of Fear

Hi again and thanks for your prompt answer on my previous request. Would you please take a look to the State of Fear Talk page. I think the leading section is an outrageous violation of NPOV. Needs cleaning. The controversy should be in the corresponding section. I explain in there my arguments with plenty of details.Mariordo (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Discussed on the talk page there. DGG (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I think your contribution was quite fair. Mariordo (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, can you drop by again at the State of Fear article. The same user who made the contested NPOV edits practically undid the edit you did yesterday to balance the leading paragraph, even restoring the qualifying articles we agree should be deleted. I do not want to do it myself to avoid an editing war, as I had with the same user in the Antarctica cooling controversy. I think time wasted on edit wars is better spent improving other articles or creating new ones. Thanks. Mariordo (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted back to NPOV. DGG (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That was fast, thanks. Do you think it would be appropiate to include (in the controversy section) at least Michael Crichton rebuttal to his critics?

And indeed there are some (few) favorable opinions from respected sources, I will just suggest them and provide the sources in the Talk page. I agree the section is very unbalance, and some participating editors cleary not even had read the book, but it is very time consuming to colaborate in hot articles, specially related to GW. Thanks again. Mariordo (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Akish

Can you further elaborate why you removed the delete tag from Akish? Please respond on my talk page. --Descartes1979 (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Generalized-open set dictionary definition

I tagged Generalized-open set as {{Dicdef}} so that it would be transwikied. Once it has been transwikied (which generally happens within 24 hours of the {{Dicdef}} tag being applied, I would support deleting the article. I left the article's creator a message, but I am not sure that he or she will read it. --Eastmain (talk) 06:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

my error for not getting it right, but the contrib record had me a little ...impatient. DGG (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Contradictory !votes

Hi David,

You !voted twice at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Tajmar: once as a weak delete and once as a weak keep.

ScienceApologist (talk) 12:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

changed to weak keep, once. as you see, i was fence-sitting.DGG (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Academic Journals

Hi there. Things have gone a bit quiet over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals (I didn't check in for a long time myself). I've started up two new subpages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Images and Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Scope (please see the talk pages as well), in the hope that this might generate some comment or activity. I've notified three other active contributors, but what about the others on the members list? A newsletter seems overkill at the moment, but is there a way to keep things more active? The weekly collaborations seemed to work well for a while, but maybe a monthly one is better? Carcharoth (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably a monthly newsletter and collaboration, done simultaneously,would be right. DGG (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

topic bans

I saw your comment on Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents about topic bans. I am expressing no opinion on that problem. I agree with everyone 10,000%, whatever they are proposing.

That said, think about the implications of a topic ban. It can be used to shut people up if they want to monopolize articles. Use the excuse that they can write on other articles. If this is the case, this is bad.

Think about another implication. It may chase people away. They may think that why should they work and help Wikipedia when someone in Wikipedia is thinking "you write what I agree with and I let you, you write what I don't agree and I'll topic ban you". Some people may just leave Wikipedia and then we have nothing.

In the long run, it may be better to fix the troublesome issues rather than use a bandage fix and say topic ban.

Of course, I have no opinion. I agree with you and all sides 10,000%. If I disagree, someone will say trolling and block me. I don't want to be blocked. So I agree with you 10,000%, whatever you say. You will notice that on that incident board, I am not expressing an opinion or vote. Whoaslow (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

When it gets to the point that a block is the only alternative, I think topic bans are the practical remedy for POV pushers--and I think the community should do them as well as arbcom. I think we should be very reluctant to block people for long periods of time from WP, especially if they can do useful contribution over a range of articles. (Of course, some people only do want to edit one or two particular topics and have no interest otherwise--and then the topic ban is effectively a block, but in such cases a block is the alternative anyway.) I think of it as a practical sort of probation, as a more stringent alternative to mentorship. No one admin should be able to do it--but then i'd say that no one admin should do a long possibly controversial block. AN/I is a good place for discussion. If there is general discussion, there won't be censorship. In practice, getting someone with a POV blocked altogether has the same effect, and is often the purpose of such a block. Doing it explicitly would be fairer. There are in my opinion quite a number of topics in WP which would be edited better if all of the principal contributors from both positions were banned from that topic for a good long while. DGG (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So you do agree in principle that all scientists and science oriented editors should not write any science related articles. Well that is interesting. It might work, and it might be viewed positively I suspect. I do not think anyone would notice. I just do not think that one should block anyone but those with a science background or science orientation from these articles however. Let the others have at them unfettered. It would be an interesting experiment and it might be successful.--Filll (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bircas Hatorah

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bircas Hatorah, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bircas Hatorah. Thank you. Jeepday (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC). Commented at the AfD. DGG (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Columbia Doctor Profiles

Thanks for your advice regarding the doctor profiles that were flagged and deleted. I will be working over the next week or so to improve the articles that are left. Any furture advice or help you would like to lend would be greatly appreciated! Oeawiki (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Jehovah's Witnesses discipline

Here is the Wikipedia definition of notable: "to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The page which deals with "Wikipedia Notability" is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

• "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.

Failed.

• "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.

Failed.

• "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability.

Failed.

• "Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.

Failed.

• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

Failed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor2020 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why argue with me here--if you are right, the consensus will support you. As I see it, N is a guideline, to be interpreted with common sense. Perhaps a useful direction might be to see if there is a suitable article for merging more specific than the general one on the JW. DGG (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Not arguing, just discussing why this article doesn't meet the criteria for notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor2020 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

See Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 22:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

just to clear this up, I removed a prod. It is obvious from the talk page that there is dispute over the article. If an deletion might be controversial, the only way to to it is at AFD. Anyone can remove a prod, right or wrong. If it goes to afd , I will discuss it there. Unfortunately, in WP, "discuss" and "argue" are near synonyms. Editor2020 is completely right that they should not be. Someone connected with the topic today suggested to me off-wiki that I "tread lightly in this subject". I assume, of course, that this was meant in the most friendly of spirits. But I work here as I always try to do, in promotion of NPOV, heavy or light as may be needed. DGG (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Company relevance

Hi, I posted my first article and it was deleted. I'd really like to learn from this experience and see if there is a way to address the concerns in the article about SVM and have it reposted. A couple of points of background: again, as a novice, I had trouble figuring out the title for the article (since the company is initials and there are other possible articles that come up under that search) and don't think I did that correctly and got all confused with some re-direction instructions. Also, I went through the process of uploading (and justifying) the use of the logo, but couldn't get it attached to the article (I could go back for more help on that and try to get it attached, but the article was deleted!). I have had an interest in the booming gift card industry, and in researching this topic found that this company is a large issuer of them, and then also saw that Wikipedia is working to increase the number and quality of the company profiles posted (I think an example in a Wiki overview is the restaurant chain Mighty Taco?). Believe me, I tried to do the research, document the relevance of the company, cite sources, and also tap into how this all relevant with the boom of gift cards. I guess I did something wrong... Also, the article was speedily deleted - not sure why it was and why it wasn't marked as an article that needed attention, which if not addressed would then be deleted. Thank you, I'd like to learn and see if I can address concerns. Llcavall (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You have to show why this particular company is notable in the industry. This can be done in basically two ways: articles about the company in reliable sources showing a public interest in it, nut they need to be about the specific company in a particular way. Alternatively, showing through reliable sources a major size or market share. Of the sources, the Washington Post article has only a brief mention of the company in a much more general article; the USA Today article has no mention; neither does the Archstone; About.com ditto; The only actual source is the paragraph in npn.web. The question there is whether it is reliable or is basically PR--the actualsource is the statement by a rep of the company, which is a little dubious for an encyclopedia.

However, perhaps it is not absolutely hopelessly spammy, but fixable if you get some real financial and market share data from a reliable source. So I'm undeleting it and putting a prod tag on, to give you 5 days to decrease the general industry background and add some more sourced information about the particular company. You might look at WP:BFAQ for a guide about doing it. A business librarian can probably help find the data. If you think you improve it enough, remove the tag. If I disagree, I'll send it for a consensus decision at Afd. Anyone else who disagrees can do the same of course. DGG (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Userspace content

Since you have the box on your page that says "...gotten editors penalized before..." I'm wondering if you can point me towards the case where an editor got penalized. Its vaguely relevant to this AN/I Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bad_faith_speedy_deletion_and_general_behavior_of_an_editor. MBisanz ^talk 08:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

at the least, it can get the stuff removed.DGG (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think your comment was meant a few sections down. In any event, I'm sure you'v seen I found the appropriate case once I realized the arbcom clerks keep a headnotes-like page of all cases. MBisanz ^talk 03:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted source references & deleted sub-page

Hey DGG! Since you self-identify as an admin who'll provide access to deleted material, would you mind providing access to the large source list Strichmann and I provided here (not quite sure where it might be now, whether in some deleted archive for the talkpage to Adult-older teen sex or to Adult-child sex, the link was working when I gave it here on 14:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC), thanks to the deletion that first link is broken now)? It was hard work even just getting that incredible amount of sources all down in a wikified version, so it would be great if you could help so we could move it to somewhere else. Another item I'd be interested in from those deleted talkpages would be my partial translation of the biographical German article on de:Gisela Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg.

Secondly, I'd be interested about getting back the intensive work I've put into this private userpage of mine that has now been speedy deleted after Squeak had threatened to make it happen on my talkpage. See my report about it at the ANI.[8] Note: This is the much further advanced draft to the official article you among many others have defended against deletion by a clearly bad faith AfD and then against an absolutely controversial closure against any consensus at all. Roughly 70 people wanted to keep the article for very good reasons using sophisticated reasonings and rationales, but the other side just gave colorful one-liners such as "KILL WITH FIRE!" which obviously had more weight. --TlatoSMD (talk) 08:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind about the deleted sources and the biography I've requested in that first paragraph above, another admin has now helped me to them. --TlatoSMD (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe Guy has already offered to email those to you. Ask me if you still dont have them. DGG (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, nevermind. User:@pple kindly helped me to it. I received no offers from Guy. --TlatoSMD (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Patriarch Alexius II

You weighed in on this Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Patriarch_Alexius_II then the talk continued here User_talk:Jeepday#Patriarch_Alexius_II_article and here Talk:Patriarch Alexius II. I attempted to moderate the argument and did make some initial headway. Feelings are strong, and viewpoints are harshly opposed, the two editors I am working with User:Biophys and User:Frjohnwhiteford are both willing to work towards solution. I think all the editors are feeling the frustration of not have harmony. The subject is a Russian church leader, the conflict is his about involvement in the KGB and actions in conflict with his religious requirements. Many of the references are in Russian and it is challenging to find additional references online. Both sides have good arguments, and are open to compromise but edit waring has broken out again. I beleive the correct next step is to protect the page and remove all questionable content. From there we would require consensus on the talk page before adding or making changes. I recognize that your position on this might be different then mine, so I bring it to you for review before I take action. If you agree with my recommendation please feel free to institute it, or if you have a more workable approach go with that. Jeepday (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, DGG. I saw your notice at the article talk page and left a reply. If I understand this correctly, the question was about a small segment of text. The segment was actually supported by two links/sources which tell about First Ecumenical Council (Canon 3[1]) and Sixth Ecumenical Council (Canon 5[2]). Unfortunately, those are Russian sources. May be a partial translation needed? Biophys (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeepday suggested that Frjohnwhiteford and me would step aside from editing the article for a few days, which I agreed. However Frjohnwhiteford started editing the article. Overall, I do not think that any action is needed. Please also review this WP:COI complaint [9] filed by User:Martintg, which is highly relevant here.Biophys (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

the article should be the same regardless of the religious beliefs of the editors. I'll comment on the actual issues there. DGG (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have made a suggestion at Patriarch Alexius II#Propose Protecting this Article that I think is workable. It changes the rules a little and should significantly reduce conflict. I would like to invite you to review the proposal and participate in the creation of a great article. It will stop edit warring by restricting work to the talk page in part because reverting another editors comments on the talk page is counter to WP:TALK. Jeepday (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I was hoping to please get some feedback on the deletion of the page I wrote about my company. I would greatly appreciate any feedback you can provide! 64.111.69.74 (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia and I was hoping to have an overview of my company input. We're very proud of what we've put together; the intent is not to drive traffic to our website. We would just like to put the name of our business on Wikipedia to show family and friends, etc. Please let me know an appropriate way to do so. I'm sorry to read that you have a family emergency. Take your time in getting back to me, as I'm sure you need it. Good luck with everything!

Things are better, thanks. But what was the name of the article?DGG (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes hello, would it be possible to have the entire text of the different versions of Milw0rm before they were deleted. Or just the last or the one of highest quality. I would like to understand why i was remove. The Milw0rm group are notable it seems. Perhaps this is no longer the case.... Dbmoodb (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

forthcoming later today, with specific suggestions. I think it would be a possible article. However, "We would just like to put the name of our business on Wikipedia to show family and friends, etc." is not a suitable reason. We put things of WP so people who want information about the subject can find it. If your subject is such that this is a reasonable expectation, and you can write an article giving the information, then there might well be one. But you first must activate your email from you user preferences, or I cannot email to you. If for some reason you do not want to do so, send me an email from my page so I can reply to it. DGG (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

speedy criteria

I'm trying to get better with my speedy noms. You declined my nom of Ether Switch saying that it clearly asserts importance. I'd like to learn where I went wrong so that I can do better in the future. Would you please point out the assertion of importance? Sbowers3 (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC) The point I picked up was that it says they are a founding member of what appears to be a notable collective label; also that they performed in important venues. I have not the least idea if this is sufficient for notability, but that is a question to be judged by the community. It's enough of an assertion though to escape speedy. For an example of a band article which is a clear speedy, look at And then There Were none before someone deletes it. it says" "And Then There Were None is a New Hampshire based band that formed years back. They came out with a self tilted EP and in 2006 came out with their 2nd EP titled The Hope We Forgot Exists. In 2007, they toured the U.S. with The Jonah Veil. It was after this tour that they came to the decision of changing the direction of the band. They became a techno/experimental band. The first song they released was titled "John Orr The Arsonist". Not long after, they released a cover of the popular techno song "Heaven" along with another new original."(when The Jonah Veil is a group that does not have a WP article.) This is not my subject, but I think the distinction is clear. I am not saying that the group is notable, just that enough is said that people who do know the subject ought to look at it. I may well be wrong, and then afd will quickly delete it. DGG (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Here's one that's even clearer, in full:"Grabass Charlestons is a punk rock band from Gainesville, Florida.".DGG (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Bica River

Dear Sir, On Jan 23 you have deleted the article Bica River. I would however like to recover the information which it contained and do not know how. It is part of a rivers project and I would like to know which rivers it was linked to. Can you help me?Afil (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. There is no need to undelete it. I asked the question because I corrected the name of the river, which is Bicu and not Bica. However I had forgotten to correct the name in the alphabetic list of rivers. I wanted to correct my omission but could not remember the old name I had to change in the list. I have now done it and now everything is correct. Sorry for the inconvenience. It was not a complaint. Thanks again.Afil (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fulham review

It was spam and a blatant plug for a non-notable piece of web content (both the publication and its associated blog), it failed WP:CSD A7 and G11. If I were to restore it, I would immediately redelete it under the latter criterion, so there is no point really. Recreate the article & prod or AfD it if you wish, but I won't waste any further time on it. Qwghlm (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amadou Cisse (student)

As far as murders go, Cisse was more notable than average. But the deleted article cited a full-length article in the New York Times—for a Chicago murder. I doubt this new source would convince any who favored deletition.

Moreover, I'm also a bit of a deletionist myself, and I primarily created the page because of apparent user demand for it. I would support a DRV though. Cool Hand Luke 23:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I shall do as I usually do, wait for someone else to open it and then support overturn & relist. I don't like feeling isolated more than the inevitable. Your comments in the AfD already made clear that you had a neutral attitude, just as I would have expected. DGG (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see the urgency in deleting non-BLP, non-promotional articles which are on the cusp of notability. The event is certainly noteworthy enough to get coverage somewhere on Wikipedia; deleting it and saying "no merge target exists" is a recipe for wasted efforts that clashes with my eventualist outlook. If I revive it, I'll let you know. Cool Hand Luke 23:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good people of all tendencies can usually agree on practical action and the merits of compromise positions. DGG (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Procedural Question

Hello DGG, and hopefully it is not too late to add Happy New Year to my salutation. I have a procedural question to ask. Recently I have been editing and translating articles from our German sister site and placing them here at Wikipedia. In doing the crossover, I have been using subpages of my user page to check the articles before posting. My question is how I delete the subpages once I have created the articles to the Main space? Do I place a {db-author] note on the sub-page or is there a way I can delete once I am done with the page? Thanks for you help. Shoessss |  Chat  01:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You use db-author. It will be removed within minutes. DGG (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that is a quick responce! Thanks for your help. Shoessss |  Chat  01:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your compliments on my posts at expert withdrawal! They are very much appreciated! LinaMishima (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Jim E. Sims

Thanks for the response, sorry to be causing extra work for you with my alterations to Jim E. Sims.

I am the guy who this page is about. I've been trying to delete it for a while whit little success. Most of the previous deletions have been me. I don't really think I'm an interesting enough subject, and would rather not be on here. The article was written by an ex girlfriend of mine and I'd rather not have the publicity. Any help would be greatly appreciated. As you can probably tell, I'm not too hot on how this site works.

Thanks in advance, and apologies for my confused contributions.

81.159.219.249 (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Jimmy Sims —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.219.249 (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

based on a google search you are not yet notable, and the article says nothing to indicate that you might be. It therefore qualifies for speedy deletion, and I have deleted it. Good luck on your career and your friends. If it gets added again, please notify me here, and i can prevent it from happening yet again. DGG (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response, and thank you for the speedy deletion. Apologies again for the strange way of doing things. I'll do my best to become more versed with Wikipedia if I need to do anything else. Thank you, thank you, thank you! 81.159.219.249 (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Jimmy Sims

first step is to register for a user name. You can even just have your real one, seems it seems you won't be doing an article about yourself :) DGG (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Got it! Yes, I don't think I'll be writing articles on me... Not for a while anyway! Thanks again Jimmysims (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Cooneyites

Hello DGG, hopefully you do not mind me asking your opinion on an article. Can you review the deletion Afd on the Cooneyites. I have always appreciated and respected your opinion, even though I do not always agree :-). Thanks for you help. Shoessss |  Chat  23:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I had seen that AfD, but my indecision had led me to not comment. But since you asked, I've said what I could,which may or may not be helpful. Merger or kept separate, the real difficulty will be writing the article or section--best wishes for that. DGG (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above, I have always respected you opinion! Good – Bad or Ugly :-). Thanks for your input. Shoessss |  Chat  01:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

PS - by the way it is Shoessss. LOL. Shoessss |  Chat  01:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Question on source

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tengshu you mentioned that the series is a NYT best seller. Do you happen to have an online source that shows NYT best sellers? It would be might useful in checking out articles about books. Thanks!--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I confess I was lazy, and relied on the WP article for the books. Let me look for a better source. They are reprinted various places, so it might be possible. DGG (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

BTDT. *grin* If you find a good ref, let me know. Book notability always has me scratching my head. (And I see that should have been "mighty useful" above.) --Fabrictramp (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I just tried going to www.nytimes.com and doing a search for the series' name. One of the books did pop up on their bestseller list. Sounds like that's a way to check for book notability. --Fabrictramp (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. I feel a little stupid for not trying something as easy as that.DGG (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Your family emergency

Dear DGG, in case if I haven't yet said it, I am happy to see at the top of this page that the emergency has been resolved and hope that all is well now. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)