User talk:DGG/Archive 28 May 2009

Oct08, Nov08, Dec08, Jan09, ... , Mar09, Apr09 ,.. , Jun09, Jul09, Aug09, Sep09,

AFD closures

Yes, thanks for the comment. I hadn't kept up on the policy and have duly noted it. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 17:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi DGG. Per the stipulations at WP:CANVASSING, I've pinged your talk page to "appropriately canvass" you wrt the deletion discussion currently taking place at "WP:Articles for deletion/Home and family blog." (Note that I've also pinged the talkpages of all of your fellow participants at last years deletion discussion at "WP:Articles for deletion/List of blogs," to ensure that my notifications are to are small number of wiki-contributors that have been neutrally selected.) I hope you'll consider taking part in our discussion. Thanks. ↜Just me, here, now … 07:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarence Edmonds Hemingway

Well, the article doesn't even assert notability at the moment, and therefore would probably have been tagged by someone else as A7. A cursory search revealed very little to establish independent botability, but I could be wrong with that. Might you want to put forward a few sources? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 07:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

did you check the printed bios on his son? DGG (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Disappointed

I'm honestly disappointed by your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broda Otto Barnes. For whatever reason, I thought you had more respect for me than that. In the past, I think we've disagreed about the bar for notability without stooping to accuse the other of nefarious motives or tactics. MastCell ^Talk 05:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize--I did not intend it to reflect personally, but on the general situation, which is not all that rare. I agree that some of the times that material is first removed, and then an article is nominated for afd, the first attempt to is try to see if a reduced article will stand--and that what you were doing is, as you said, an illustration of this. Unfortunately, the effect can be the same as when it is done maliciously. I think NPOV / SPOV (which I think identical) is best served by the inclusion of articles of people who pass, but just barely, the notability bar, even if based on somewhat unconventional source; I know you disagree, but you have never been less than straightforward about it. I reworded my comment at the afd accordingly. DGG (talk) 02:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I appreciate your comments. Maybe I'm being overly touchy; it's been depressing and frustrating to watch the devolution of that AfD. I don't really expect any better from the handful of accounts who have hijacked it and run it into the ground, but I was bothered that you might have thought I was being deceptive or underhanded, since I value your opinion. That's why I'm here badgering you instead of bothering with them - lucky you. :) Anyhow, sorry for jumping on you, and thank you for clarifying. Take care. MastCell ^Talk 05:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you about the nature of the afd, and there would be good reason to start it over. DGG (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ion resolve

Hi DGG, can you take a look at my reply to you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solid-state ionics? I suspect I have taken a wrong turning here but am not quite sure what to do. Do you think I should withdraw the AfD and deal with it myself? SpinningSpark 23:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You are basically correct, & I commented accordingly. Easier to let the discussion go to the end. DGG (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Spinningspark. For things like this, there are good reasons to simply be WP:BOLD and incorporate any useful materials and do the redirect without any prior discussion (if it's resisted, that's a different story). It is generally felt that AfD is not the appropriate place to suggest mergers or redirects. If other editors object and revert (see WP:BRD), then discuss on the article's talk page. Of course, one reasons that AfD's are often used for what ultimately turn into merger or redirect discussions is that (unlike the nearly-defunct WP:PM), many editors go to AfD, meaning that something closer to a real consensus can often be achieved. Bongomatic 06:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I thinbk it a poor idea to interrupt an AfD with a redirection or a merger--it tends to produce confusion. Assume for now that whoever closes will do it right. DGG (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree—didn't mean to be unclear. I meant that this sort of thing can be done instead of nominating an AfD. Bongomatic 02:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please just withdraw the AfD. If it's improper, and you know that, then don't call other editors to a discussion you no longer support. I completely disagree with you here, D. And, no, don't redirect articles when it's clear you don't know enough about the topic to do so. Why not just post a problematic physics article at Wikiproject Physics and ask editors there to help sort it out? It's a poor idea to have an AfD that is meaningless, and it's an even poorer idea to redirect or merge when you don't know the first thing about a topic. Both topics should have credible articles, the one about the field and the processes, the other about the various materials used, the current research, and the properties. --KP Botany (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh and propose mergers on article talk pages, not in AfDs. --KP Botany (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As I thought had become clear by now there is actually nothing to merge. If I were closing this, I would close as delete and redirect, not redirect. The unique content here are,as I now realise, not encyclopedic. I think that's a reasonable basis for keeping it as an AfD.

Well, spark,you've just has two similarly experienced editors with experience at afd (and who almost always agree about things here) giving you opposite advice. . I suppose the moral is there are often multiple ways to get a good result. DGG (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

And so it goes. Still, imo, a nicer way to get a good result with what the encyclopedia ultimately needs is to have folks with knowledge in the area edit the article. --KP Botany (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Pirate ships

Hi DGG. Here's an interesting case. Dai Hong Dan is clearly a candidate for deletion as WP:ONEVENT (see all-date Google news archive search—not perfect, but gives you an idea). But it seems that individual ships that were the objects of piracy are somewhat like episodes in a serial. Any thoughts on how to deal with them? Bongomatic 15:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

all large ships are notable. This one especially. Even if one doubts the first part of the corollary, being taken over by pirates is sufficiently important, whether in the 16th or the 21st century. The problem article is that yacht they took over. Yachts are not necessarily notable, otherwise. DGG (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. What guideline or logic gives rise to the intrinsic notability of every large ship, regardless of coverage? Bongomatic 22:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

95% consistent practice of AfD for the last 2.5 years, since i first came--and---very soon after--questioned some such articles. I questioned a number of such practices at first, but the longer I'm here, the more impatient I get with AfDs & the more I think that such blanket acceptances are the way to avoid conflict and return to article writing. If it seems reasonable that we should have an article, that's good enough. What we want to keep out is the tabloid fodder and the junk and the spam. Not merely things that people think not quite important enough. DGG (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Bot which informs creator of an AFD

Last December you wrote on WP:AFD:

...It is altogether absurd that creators of articles are not notified. Unlike speedy, many if not most articles that come here have long histories, and it's difficult to program a bot with the intelligence necessary to notice whom the main contributors are -- and this is really the only reason against having it totally automatic. I however do not see why a first step could not be made by having a bot that notifies at least the original creator. Even if it was 3 years ago and the person is no longer around, no harm would be done. I've never learned how to program these--any volunteers? This won't deal with the problem of notifying all significant contributors, but that can be discussed a little later on. DGG (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you know any tech savy editors who would be able to reinvent the wheel and create a bot which contacts the creator of an article when it is put up for Afd? I say "reinvent the wheel" because one editor already created this bot and had it approved already:

• Possible for bot to notify creator and contributors of AfD?

Ikip (talk) 07:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

looking. DGG (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion list

As a member of the Bilateral relations task force, you maybe interested in this new page: Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion Ikip (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

A7

That particular game said it was an online game, so it qualified or A7. I've seen products A7'd without question before. Bleah, you're right tho. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 19:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

online games are not web content. online games are computer programs I guess we shall have to clarify this at CSD. DGG (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

How are they not web content? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 19:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's save this for WT:CSD. DGG (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Confirm it's you please

it's me. DGG (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA

can non-admin users vote too? --Abce2|Howdy! 21:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, certainly, a great many of the people who vote are non-admins. DGG (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes! Thanks!Abce2|Howdy! 21:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday May 17th, Columbia University area Last: 03/29/2009

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD Home and family blog

I was asked to participate in the AfD of "Home and family blog". I looked up the relevant guidelines, and have posted them at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Home and family blog for your consideration. The Transhumanist 22:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

guidelines are called guidelines because they permit exceptions. Not just permit exceptions, but are expected to be interpreted with them. DGG (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Re: Onyx Pharmaceuticals

Hi DGG,

Thank you so much for the revisions and edits of the Onyx Pharmaceuticals page! I really appreciate you taking the time to help me out with article. I removed the dead links on analyst coverage and instead linked to Onyx's Yahoo!Finance Analyst Coverage page. In addition, I added Onyx's Hoover's profile page under notability.

When you have a chance to look over again, can you let me know if it looks like it is ready to be posted?

Thanks again for your help! - EG
EGagnon7224 (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

you still need to write the basic description of the company. and insert the references for it, and add the appropriate infobox. Please learn how to do it yourself. See our |guide to writing Wikipedia articles and, for further details, the appropriate chapters of [1] , How Wikipedia Works by Phoebe Ayers, Charles Matthews, and Ben Yates (also available in print). Factors that count towards notability for a company include gross revenue, number of employees, and date of establishment.--these are expected as part of an article. Get the info, and link to Hoovers etc as the source, I touched up the product part. For the scientific references, you need to find the p. numbers for Cancer Research, and the PMIDs for all three articles. The AP and DJ articles need web links. And do what I said for establishing stable links to changeable pages. Then, make the links to Wikipedia articles for the various enzymes and medical conditions. Yes, I could do all this for you. But it's your article. DGG (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Tuan Nguyen

Hello David:

It has been awhile since we talked. Moreover, of course, my first contact is to ask a favor. Can you copy a deleted AFD article, Tuan Nguyen to my subpage? I think I may be able to resurrect with a little TLC. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

moved it to User:Shoessss/Tuan Nguyen. DGG (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerard Wegemer

Dear DGG, I'm having a bit of a disagreement with an editor regarding WP:PROF. Do you care to weigh in? And please do tell me if I interpret those guidelines incorrectly--I do sometimes find it difficult to decide on notability; still, I think I'm within policy in this discussion. Thanks for your time! Drmies (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

you understand it very well. We run across individual stubborn people once in a while, who fight to the bitter end. DGG (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Thanks though! BTW, it appears that there are two kinds of Thomas More scholars, and my man is of the reactionary ilk, I think. Where would we be without battles of the faculties? Drmies (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

74,301st AfD question du jour

DGG, how's your Spanish (or Hungarian)? It can't be worse than mine! Somehow I find this an inviting nut to crack, and suspect that you may as well. -- Hoary (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Your intuition scores again. DGG (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Sir. You are indeed a Good Egg ((c) Mastcell). Perhaps your input will inspire a passing Hungarian or Colombian to take an interest and -- gasp of horror -- visit a library, with books 'n' stuff, in order to bring in other aspects of the relationship, complete with "RS". -- Hoary (talk) 06:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Mibbit

I've completely rewritten and expanded the Mibbit article. Could you have a look at it? Tothwolf (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

seems good enough. DGG (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Michaud Point

Michaud Point should be Point Michaud which should the proper title --Cherry1000 (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

we deal with this by making a WP:redirect, which I will now do. You might want to make such a redirect for likely alternate titles of places when you work on their articles. And when you see you've made an article on the wrong title, you can WP:MOVE it. DGG (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

list of Canadian Philosophers

.. I really don't think adding "Canadian philosophers, known as academics or authors" improves this list at all. It's like saying "here's a list, but it's not accurate" Many of the people on the list were put there as psychologists (when is was a list of Montreal psychologists & philosophers), several are authors with no connection at all to Philosophy. The entire list needs to be rewritten or thrown out. "Category: Canadian Philosophers" [2] is a longer and slightly more accurate list, although many of the same false positives are there.Hairhorn (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's not mush of a list--I checked a few myself. Feel free to edit it But every category of people should normally have a corresponding list. At the list has the advantage of giving some indication of whom the people are, and of including redlinks for those obviously qualified but needing articles. DGG (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Effectrode

I would be grateful if you would re-examine the Effectrode article again and see if it now satisfies Wikipedia's requirements.

Thanks in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moogolplex (talk • contribs) 09:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

commented on its talk p. DGG (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

SCFX speedy deletion too speedy

I received a message on my talk page about the SCFX speedy deletion notice at 1:18, and at 2:41 it was deleted. I request the article be restored so I can properly evaluate and respond to the notice. Robert K S (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

So why exactly was it restored? Plenty of articles are requested to be restored: what makes it so different? There is no assertion of notability at all.--TM 19:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

the article had been there since Oct 2008. I think it has no chance of survival, unless you can show references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. I couldn't find anything in a quick look, but this may be because of the nondistinctive name.: if there is a fuller name, use it. I have undeleted and will send to to afd tomorrow if you have not found anything by then. I restore articles I deleted on reasonable request if someone wants a hearing or another chance. DGG (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There is an assertion of notability (first group of its type) in the article. I agree that sourcing is a problem, but this really is a notable group. The members of this group are the ones who go on to create the special effects you see when you go to the cinema. It's a student group, yes, but it's the student group for special effects in the number one film school, it has a long history at the school, many notable alumni, it's in Los Angeles at the center of special effects production, it's active both in terms of student development and work production. Anyone in the field knows what "SCFX" means on a resume. Group alumni regularly return to give lectures for the group, or invite the group for tours at major special effects studios, such as Stan Winston Studios or Digital Domain or ILM. The creator of Photoshop was a member. I'll look for more sourcing, but there's no prima facie reason for speedy deletion. At the least, this deserves proper discussion. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I was reverting my own speedy --I am not required to delete anything by speedy except copyvio or vandalism or blp violation if I judge it better to do otherwise, and if I do anything at all, I can revert myself. In this case I restored it when it became clear that I would find nothing under the only name given, on the possibility that there might be a more effective search term. I point out the criterion to pass speedy is not asserting notability, but asserting or indicating anything of importance or significance -- which is a much lower bar. It could conceivably be thought that the group was notable because of the alumni. speedy is for unquestionable, & if I have second thoughts, it's not a speedy. DGG (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

One other thing to note about the group, although I'm not sure how to do it in a sourced way--the group's existence as an academic venue for the promotion of technical learning in the field of special effects predated (probably by a decade) any academic program in special effects anywhere. Nowadays, you will not find a self-respecting film school that lacks an academic focus (or major, or department) in visual effects, the field having evolved into a major commercial and artistic industry. Robert K S (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The way to do it is to write an article or better a book about them and get it published in a conventional place. DGG (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion. Feel free to comment on the AfD--TM 20:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you did not see that I had suggested he take a day or so to rewrite it first. Of course, even if you did see it, you have the right to ignore my suggestion, but it does not aid my efforts to help people improve articles. DGG (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

bad edit?

I assume this was a bad edit on your part? (I figure the best course is to bring it up to you rather than doing something about it). Cheers, tedder (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be an edit of this revision saved over several intervening edits over the period of approximately forty-two hours (see this diff for why I think that). I have added your comment as if you had edited the version immediately prior to your save. Feel free to revert. Bongomatic 12:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

yes, you fixed it just fine, thanks. This comes from trying to deal with too a large a batch of inappropriate nominations. DGG (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That's my fault, which (I assume) is what you are implying. I already talked to another admin about The Right Way to do these in the future. tedder (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:CSD#A7 and schools

RE: this. This is a new change to me. Do you know where the discussion for this took place? If not I'll poke around. I have to admit, since my job got busier and busier, I have less and less time to focus on Wikipeia, which is a shame, because I could totally do this all day for money and be ecstatic. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

[3]. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Colony Mennonite School and my comments there. The reason its not speedy is that we merge them , not delete them. Rule adopted on the basis that it saves a lot of trouble.DGG (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Effectrode

Thankyou for you comments. I've made further ammendments in line with your suggestions and would be grateful if you would take another look to see if they now satisfy Wikipedia requirements. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moogolplex (talk • contribs) 15:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

try to add a specific reference for those 3 artists using it. Otherwise, it's probably OK & you can remove the tags. DGG (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Chelsea F.C. vs FC Barcelona, 2009 UEFA Champions League semi-final, second leg‎

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from that article. It was added by the article's author and therefore should not be removed without his permission. – PeeJay 16:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:CSD. "Deletion is not required if a page meets these criteria." see the WP:AFD for why I thought it inappropriate to delete it, and I still do. One thing is absolutely certain.: Do not replace the tag when it has been removed. I have therefore reverted you. DGG (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

FYI. rootology (C)(T) 04:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

worth a try, and, yes, you & I probably have in mind the same additional possible areas.... But it might not work in areas where a great many people care, instead of just a few. DGG (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Amit Abraham is back

You deleted Dr. Amit Abraham per an AfD and the article is back. Given the history involved, I suspect that User:Dr lisy may be a sockpuppet. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, never mind. I misread the AfD. Someone else deleted it. Gotta get new contact lenses. :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

However, the deleting admin is on a Wikibreak. You might want to look into this after all. I think you originally moved this to a different title at one time. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I took a look t all the versions. A certain amount of potentially relevant material was added to the latest version beyond that deleted at afd. One could therefore argue it should have another AfD, but I do not see how it could possibly yield a different result. Graeme did the most recent deletion as G4, and I do not disagree--you might want to reconfirm with him. I do not think it's worth salting at this point. If it comes back a third time, then it might be.. DGG (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

ARS and analogies

I yanked a kind of touchy reply because it was only going to derail things, but could you please avoid comparing bit-twiddling on Wikipedia to murdering people? I realize your intent wasn't to inflame or offend, but it's not possible to respond to the argument made by that analogy without further handling a distasteful, emotionally-charged subject in an inappropriate venue. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As a "leading member" of the ARS, (since apprently I am not) [4] would you care to reply? Ikip (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

We can discuss it here. I continue to support my basic analogy, though it isn't exact in some respects. Read it again: i was referring not to participation of any person or any group, but characterising the overall process at AfD as being a lynch mob. My reference was to the method of !voting, whereby consensus is judged from the opinions of the people who choose to show up for the discussion. In other words, one picks what case one wants, and joins the jury. The first reason it isn't exact, is that it applies to both sides of the issue. those who wish to comment on a particular case do so and consensus is j. This is perfectly reasonable if it's a matter of comments The second reason it isn't exact is that it also applies to the judge, the closing administrator. So it's worse than a lynch mob,so bad that I know of no human process that works that way in the RW. The notoriously most fickle jury system was the Athenian jury, and it had advantages over ours: though it contained only volunteers, which case you sat on was a matter of chance, and it had much wider participation. It has not escaped my attention that we have similar processes elsewhere--I think RfA has frequently seen that comparison. I'd apply it with various degrees of closeness to RfC also, and to the admin boards, and arbitration enforcement, and Speedy delete.

I'm not here to juggle bits. If I wanted to play computer games, I prefer game worlds (or programming environments) with fixed rules within which to maneuver. DGG (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss your argument because I think it's interesting, but I really can't comfortably do so if it's going to have to address your analogy to dragging people out into the street and hanging them from a tree. The emphasis is not to embarrass you or ridicule your argument, but instead highlight how distasteful a subject this is to me. I'm just asking you to rephrase, that's all, or else what I feel might otherwise be a productive dialogue will be lost. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggest a better.DGG (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you phrase your argument without recourse to analogy? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a comparison with real world institutions clarifies things. But perhaps just classic mobbing in the schoolyard sense without the lynch part. DGG (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As one of the leader of the ARS, I just emailed you. thanks. Ikip (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware this project had leaders. I was the 8th person to join, 22 months ago, with the statement "The key is balance, and willingnesss to improve articles--if everyone participated in one Afd and fixed one article and found one hopeless article to delete, we could really improve WP." DGG (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ikip is referring to this in which you, me, and Benjiboi were called "leading members." Well, we could always be triumvirs, of course maybe a bad analogy as they all ended up fighting each other! Anyway, though, that's what I believe Ikip was referencing. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I know he was; that description was what I was disowning, at least for my part. I have seen here that that are no real patterns of this sort--people join only for individual issues. Anyone who wants to copy me should do so by thinking for himself. It has always distressed me when people say they've supported something because I did; they ought to support it because they understand and agree, or oppose because they understand and disagree. What I am vain enough to want, is to be understood. DGG (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you know, I usually don't like "per x" in discussions as I prefer when editors add new insights into the discussion, but anyway. I would like to see more "lead by example" members who help with the rescueing of articles. There are many times where I feel alone in adding the sources to the articles in question and frequently wish more participants in AfDs would help with the articles too, but I have no idea how to get them to do that. If nothing else, it is incredibly difficult simultaneously defending the articles and improving them, but what can you do? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

You deleted "Buzz Off Insect Shield" today with the code G11. Can you tell me what areas need to be edited to make the article ambiguous and acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ownzered (talk • contribs) 18:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

bibliographical nut

DGG, here's something that should appeal to the discerning librarian: ISBN 9994110101. Worldcat has two entries for it. A bit more digging around and I tentatively conclude that this book has an Armenian title -- of course in Armenian script, which is not supplied directly in any of the sources I've seen but clearly raises transliteration conundrums. It also has a Japanese title (perhaps largely decorative) and an English title (probably only decorative, or to help the harried, non-Armenian, non-Japanese, scriptly-challenged librarian. One of the two Worldcat entries starts to explain the relative amounts of Armenian and Japanese, but does so in cryptic German librarian-speak. Surely you'll find this irresistible.... Hoary (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

the pagination is given as "179, 144" indicating two separately paginated sections and the German word Wendebuch (turning-book) indicates separate sections from the back and the front (there is no English word for it that I know of). I see there are copies in DC, Munich, and LA. (There is slightly fuller info. in the full LC & Bayern cats, neither of which can be correctly reached from worldcat. ) The next step would be to write to LC for more information. DGG (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Good work Sir! I'd never heard of Wendebuch but the notion is very familiar to me; it's common for journals put out by Japanese institutions to have contributions in horizontal script (whether western or Japanese so written) starting at what the western reader would take to be the front, and contributions in vertical Japanese script starting from the "back". (This only half resembles the tête-bêche of old "Ace Doubles" paperbacks.) For several reasons, I hesitate to ask the LC for more info, and I wouldn't suggest that you did so either; if I did want to pursue this, I'd ask the Japan–Armenia Friendship Association, which I imagine would be happy to be of assistance here. ¶ I do like the idea of a book in Armenian and Japanese. "My" library has ISBN 80-85909-25-1 , a superb book in an improbable congeries of languages; and somewhere (I've mislaid it) in my own "library" is a little photo book in parallel Lithuanian and Italian. -- Hoary (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Fan Junk

Actually "fan junk" = unreferenced, poorly written material which is not verified with little relevance to the real world and is only understood by fans who know or care about the characters. PLease STOP making judgements about everybody and assuming I nominated the article because I didn't like it. If you can't see the glaringly obvious issues the "article" has aside from subject matter then I'm very sorry, Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 08:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

the article is in very poor shape. I agree completely. That is not reason to delete it, and even the usual skeptics of such articles agree that the thing to to is fix not delete. i even tried to rewrite some of the immature and confusing summaries,which isn't all that easy for something I've never seen. I consider that fanJunk does equal idontlikeit when used as a reason for deletion --it is totally nonspecific and unrelated to policy. I don't like that article at all, and I doubt very much if I would like the work it discusses. It's a perfectly reasonable sentiment. Anyone who thought it a good article would be very confused indeed. Still does not make up a reason for deletion. I have no idea why you nominated the article and I make no assumptions about it. I commented only on the relevance of the reasons you stated. DGG (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Human Sexuality Barnstar
		message Pluginaiden (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

For your relentless works in the homosexual community.

I have reason to think this was intended as a personal attack for deleting a (non-sexuality related) nonsense article; nonetheless i am pleased to receive it on its own intrinsic merits, though it considerably exaggerates my contribution to articles in this area. . DGG (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:DGGN

Hi DGG

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia Gray, you wrote that "for a short story writer, notability typically comes through inclusion in anthologies."

I have noticed that you have opined on several occasions about topic-specific notability indicia, often totally different from (not necessarily more or less inclusive than) the actual guidelines. Given that you have obviously put a lot of thought into the matter, I think many people would find it valuable if you kept a cheat-sheet of your shortcuts for everyone.

Regards, Bongomatic 03:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

in this case and usually I am trying to summarize the usual result at AfD or other discussions, similar to WP:OUTCOMES. I should probably add some of the generally accepted ones there. I do not intend what i say to have prescriptive status, or even necessarily to be my own view of things, and I try to have my wording make that clear. If someone asks my opinions, I'm not going to misguide them into doing an article that the community won't accept. In most cases I am giving it only as a rough first sort, and I usually try to say so. Yes, sometimes I will say what I think the consensus ought to be, but I hope that's normally clear also. Perhaps I should collect them into essays. But I always seem to not have time after the immediate article by article rescue work & opinions. DGG (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Not to create requests for ridiculous amounts of additional work from you, but my view is that (a) your summary of what you believe are the common outcomes (or your addition to that page) along with (b) a not TLDR nutshell guide of what you think consensus ought to you be would both be highly useful. Your views seem to be accepted as thoughtful by a very wide range of editors (including those who disagree with some of them). I'm not suggesting essay-length discourses on all of these with an attempt to convince, but rather a barometer against which editors—attempting to act rationally but who may not have considered issues from as many angles—may gauge their own initial reactions. Bongomatic 06:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Embassies and missions

Is there a WP policy which states as you say "permanent diplomatic missions in all major countries are notable". LibStar (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

There are no Wikipedia policies on notability. Not even the requirement for notability is a policy, and attempts to make it one have always failed decisively. There are guidelines, which by their inherent nature are just guidelines, intended to be flexible. There are also common practices. At AfD, such has been the practice. I was describing what we have usually been doing. It is also what I think we ought to do. Not everyone agrees with that, but it is none the less what usually happens. It makes sense: they are permanent institutions of importance. At Wikipedia, we of course are not required to follow precedent. DGG (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

that or I meant guideline, either way I think you invented a guideline regarding diplomatic missions. I would hardly think saying "permanent diplomatic missions in all major countries are notable" is a sufficient reason for AfDs. LibStar (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I gave you my honest opinion about what has usually be done at Afd: we indeed have always or almost always kept such articles in the past. Should I tell you we haven't when in fact we have? I'm describing what we have been doing, we do not necessarily follow precedent. Whether we ought to is a separate question. DGG (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

you should have then said I think permanent diplomatic missions in all major countries are notable. for a new person to Wikipedia they might interpret your statement as a guideline. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I do think it, but it is also what the practical result has in fact been at least up to now. I will however try to make the distinction plainer when I say such things. . DGG (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks. LibStar (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombia–Ireland relations

I saw this AfD, which caught my interest, then got side-tracked into mini-bios of Irish participants in the Colombian wars of independence: James Towers English, James Rooke, William Aylmer and Francisco Burdett O'Connor, then further side-tracked to Mariano Montilla and Pedro Antonio Olañeta. John Devereux (con artist) and Francisco Tomás Morales are obvious gaping holes, and I suppose others will appear. But to go back to the AfD, now in day 6, any comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

this would probably apply similarly to all Ireland-latin American relationships. DGG (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Harris Department Store

"not just retail; business articles in general. Our weakest area." Besides country music of course. Hint hint. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 00:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Elsevier

You might be interested in this -- surely as a librarian even if editing the wikipedia page itself doesn't seem necessary. regards, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

the actual problem is more complicated, more pervasive, and more dangerous--it's not just Elsevier--it was routine for many years for even the best journals to carry supplements sponsored by drug manufacturers. This is a particularly extreme example, not a unique occurrence. The problem of research sponsor control over what gets published affects even the best journals from the best publishers. It's not even just a matter of publishing. The research sponsor controls what research gets done.

There's a related problem: when a publisher publishers a journal on behalf of even a real society, the society, not the publisher, usually controls what gets published. Even if the publisher is careful whom it signs contracts with, the nature of a society can change with time. The reputation of a commercial publisher is thus no guarantee. (The reputation of a non-commercial publisher, of course, is immedately and directly that of the society which sponsors the publications.) DGG (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You asked about my origina user page

Hi, because of a discussion that I am now engaged in, I would appreciate it if you could attend to the old user page I moved out of sight, thanks. Mish (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I gather that this means you want it deleted? DGG (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes Please.Mish (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

done. if not as intended, let me know. DGG (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

BJOTW

Hi DGG

This is a request to you as a conscientious editor who thinks about not only whether content should be included, but where. I would appreciate your views of the issue discussed at Talk:Buddha Jumps Over the Wall#Due weight to shark finning. My views are stated there in (probably more than) full.

Thanks, Bongomatic 05:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, and apologies for asking you to get into the weeds on something you find unpleasant. Bongomatic 06:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I replied at my talk page. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC). Ditto. See my modified statement above & my comment on your talk p. You did not do this right, but it isn't worth the trouble to follow it up; there are more important things to be doing. DGG (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, DGG. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani#John_R._Talbott. Thank you.} Toddst1 (talk) 07:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This refers to the page being deleted whilst a consensus to keep was present. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Johnston

Some of the posts over at the AfD for Johnston are rather scary. It seems that people don't understand notability, or even read the one links that they provide. The one event says that if its a really big event, even minor figures can be notable from it. Then someone put forth an idea that the rest of his life isn't notable so it shouldn't be mentioned. Bah, do they not realize that encyclopedias don't have only "notable" information, or most pages would be empty? The fact that so many people have heard about him and there being over 8 months of coverage, scandal, interviews and the rest makes it all rather mind boggling. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I managed to get Nicolo Giraud up to GA, and I think the current state of the page validates quite a few of your arguments over the years. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

people will say anything if they don't like an article In this case, there's the added factor of the reasons why some people of various political persuasions don't want the article--as they cannot admit it, they are forced to use other reasons. DGG (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

as for Giraud, magnificent work you did there. People who don't know research sometimes do not realize that for any historical figure connected in any substantial way with a famous person or event, there's a web of connections, and there will always be sources. The art of a librarian is not to do research, but to know (by a skill that is not explicitly teachable) where there is, and is not, likely to be material. But at least people here should understand about knowledge networks. The reason Wikipedia is such a good place to work is that we can build our net on top of the pre-existing ones. DGG (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

man, I wish I could write half as good as you can. So many people are influenced by what you say, again and again and again. Ikip (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Its not what he says, its the authoritative air lent to his words by the BOLD sig. ;) Unomi (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Idea

Please see Wikipedia:Article_rescue_contest_2#Judges, if you are interested. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Note

I'd just like to say that I don't include you in this. Black Kite 23:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

appreciated, thanks. DGG (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed recently with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your support and I hope I can count on it in the future. Even though it didn't pass, it had a nearly 2 to 1 ratio of support and I am quite encouraged by those results. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns that were brought up and resubmit in a few months. If you would like to assist in my betterment and/or co-nominate me in the future, please let me know on my talk page. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk

Homestead Bicycles

None of these for DGG

Told you it was a G11. :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 02:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the news that another admin reverted me in effect. You put back a G11 that I had removed. Nobody is entitled to do that, admin or not. I'll be discussing it with him. He should have let the AfD proceed. But the article is too weak to be worthwhiel following it up properly DGG (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

My $0.02, TPH, is that abusing the speedy process—even on an obviously meritless article (not saying this was one, as I didn't see it before it was deleted)—provides evidence to those who oppose speedy deletion. Since I think speedy deletion is an important tool in encyclopedia hygiene, I wish even well-intentioned editors would strictly abide by the prescribed procedures (I was grateful when an editor pointed out the invalidity of a recent speedy nomination of mine). Bongomatic 02:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Others were saying G11 so I just re-tagged it. If there are three other people saying it's a G11, what makes it not a G11? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 02:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

the lede paragraph of WP:CSD says: "These criteria are worded narrowly, so that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does and does not meet a given criterion. Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead. " One good faith editor is enough to block speedy. The remedy is AfD, and that;'s where the article was. My guess, looking at it again, is that I would have made another try to improve it, given up, and !voted delete. DGG (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion suggests that renomination via the speedy process (as opposed to prod or AfD) is not appropriate. This is certainly the way the vast majority of editors and administrators interpret the policy. Bongomatic 03:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)'

As I said below, I'm not quixotic enough to make a fuss over this rather unlikely article, so perhaps we can close this thread here. Thanks. DGG (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A couple questions for you...

What are the benefits of a tree structure?

The article doesn't say.

I'm interested, because I need to explain the benefits in the guideline on outlines I'm writing. (Outlines are a type of tree structure).

I've also asked the question at various reference desks, and these threads may help to jump start your brain on this question.  :)

• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#What are the benefits of a tree structure?
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics#What are the benefits to humans of using a tree structure?
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#In the humanities, what are the applications and benefits of a tree structure?
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#What are the benefits of using tree structures in linguistic communications?
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#With respect to the fields covered by this refdesk, what are the applications and benefits of a tree structure?

What are the benefits of outlines, over and above regular articles?

What benefits have you noticed?

How are Wikipedia's outlines useful to you?

I look forward to your answers on my talk page.

The Transhumanist 04:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Lostpedia

One nom was a troll nom, and the other was speedy closed only a couple days after a previous one. Those two shouldn't count, in my opinion. And if it's so notable, where the heck are the sources? That's the big one for me. I see six secondary sources (hardly any of which seem to mention it in more than passing) and nearly twice as many primary ones. Everyone keeps saying it's notable, so why aren't they proving it?! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 02:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

give up. A case can be made that major fan sites are intrinsically notable. You may not agree, but see that picture of a windmill up above that somebody left me? DGG (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion request - Mechademia

Could you please undelete Mechademia so that I can use the original text and some reviews I've unearthed to make a better article? --Malkinann (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

sure, if necessary, but it's friendly to first ask the deleting admin, who is Maxim. He's around, and he's a reasonable person; its' also strategic-ask him to judge what you've done---it can turn him into a supporter of the article DGG (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC),

Wow, Extremepro's quick. I didn't even see your reply before he made the page! --Malkinann (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Errol Sawyer at WP:BLPN

Please see this notice at WP:BLPN; you may wish to comment there. -- Hoary (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Military history of the peoples of Britain

Britain is not the same area as British Isles. This article was moved some months ago to Military history of the peoples of the British Isles, and wrongly moved imo. And for the wrong reasons too by user Setanta747. purple (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Discuss where to move it on the talk page; I agree they are not the same. But unless we have articles on both, people who look up the wrong term can at least be directed to a somewhat relevant place that we do have. When there is a naming dispute, the name not chosen should always have a redirect. DGG (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lessie Wei

Yo, is there chance that the article you left on this AfD was supposed to be for another AfD? I may be totally off, just checking. OlYeller^Talktome 15:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

oops. As I have been saying, there are too many noms for episodes & its hard to keep track. I've put it where it goes. Thanks.DGG (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ya, it seems like there's a big toss up over episodes right now. I wish some conclusion could be reached at an inclusion guideline for notability. I feel like half the AfDs out there are for episodes. OlYeller^Talktome 15:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The other half of the AfDs are bilateral relations, and again there's various compromises that those placing the afds prefer not to even consider. There are several good compromise solutions for both, and in each case the large number of afds up there now seems designed to prevent any compromise. . Most mass nominations like this are in my opinion attempts at forcing one's own way, because of the difficulty of responding adequately. . DGG (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much. I've emailed you back.--Jklein212 (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

tyop on redirect

You said very, but probably meant "every". It changes the meaning of your statement, so I thought it was worth pointing out. Cheers, tedder (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

English Travellers

Please see Talk:English_Travellers#Source --PBS (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

[5]

Please don't be so credulous. Part of your job, too, as a Wikipedia editor, is to look for good refs. Had you done so, no doubt you would have concurred with the prodder that this is a hoax. Perhaps now you could do the appropriate thing, viz., look for sources, and then either add them if you find them, or, if you find none, nominate this and CMA Group for afd. Thanks. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

you seem to be right; I restored the prod. I must have been asleep at the time :). DGG (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Strength

• Lunarcrete (AfD discussion)

Are you feeling less weak, now? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

yes, since you did the work (smile). DGG (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Shameless thankspam

removed image because it broke the syntax here and made some other messages unreadable, but it's in respect to the successful RfA of 'Flying[[User talk:FlyingToaster|

CSD policy discussion

As it happens, this whole revision did begin as a discussion on WP:VPP. If you want to attract more attention, feel free to post a notice about the ongoing discussion there, or on other noticeboards where canvassing for this sort of thing would be appropriate. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

AfDs

I don't use email, please post in an appropriate manner messages on my talk page. LibStar (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In the matter that I want to discuss, I shall not be able to. Pity. You could have helped me decide on something. DGG (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Simplify policy RfC

I see that you have not yet been informed of this. Please throw in your hat there, if you'd like.   M  06:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I did. I'm off to the dentist now, which I expect to find a preferable activity to dealing with this. DGG (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I !voted, too, agreeing with you, but others as well. Best luck on the dentist. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The dentist went better than expected, so maybe its a good sign. DGG (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a bit of context loss on this one: [6] - what final version and draft are you referring to?   M  00:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I left more comments and some info in the arbcom section of that CSD RfC.   M  02:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

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

request for advice

Dear DGG, I would appreciate your advice regarding the handling of an edit war continued by an anonymous user in the article sipgate. The user continues to add/revert material that is unmistakenly against WP policy Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. Would you please review this? The article (about a company) itself has problems with notability in fact. Kbrose (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

yes, I'll deal with it. It could even have been called to admin attention earlier. DGG (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Would you also have time to look at PimpMyNumber. Primary author appears as insider (company IP infrastructure uses same DNS names as author), refuses to provide secondary sources to establish notability, and uses same IP network as our anonymous war editor, coincidence? Problems seems to be notability and COI. Thanks. Kbrose (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked, but it appears NPOV so far; I'll keep watching. DGG (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for speedy deletion of Chilean Resistance

There's no such a thing as Chilean resistance. That term was made up by a ramdom user. Please do a quick search on google to see that there's no connection whatsoever, between the term and the oppposition to Pinochet's government/dictatorship. Likeminas (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

you may take it to AfD, but I see [7] and [8] & [9] and [10] at least some of which are from the Pinochet period. DGG (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

17 is a flyer, not a source. 20 a video, thus, unreliable.

Only 18 and 19 seem to be reliable sources. And even then, the information could be well be merged into the article Chile under Pinochet.

Likeminas (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering I spent just 30 seconds on that search and found 2 good refs from the first p. of Google, it seemed apparent that there would be many good ones to expand the article. And there are: Look at Google News Archive and Google Scholar, I've added 3 book and 2 journals also, found in WorldCat -- You may go to AfD instead, of course, because WP:BEFORE is still only advised, not required as it ought to be. DGG (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No. I won't fight this. I just think it is unnecessary to have an article on the opposition to Pinochet, when, it could be merged into Chile under Pinochet, thus, giving it more visibility. Anyway, thanks for at least adding some sources.

Likeminas (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional narcissists (2nd nomination).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

my apologies, of course you knew better than to say that. I should have double-checked the sequence of indents. DGG (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Drug Coupon

Could you take another look at this one? It was redirected once to coupon by another editor before the user drugzoo added everything back to the article including its one and only reference drugzoo.com at which time I tagged it as promotional only. If nothing else it is a gigantic coatrack on which to hang the link to his or her website. Thank you. Wperdue (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue

I removed that inappropriate link first thing. It may have been planned as promotional but there is the makings of an article there. DGG (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking a look at it in a timely manner. Wperdue (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue

Unuseful advice

Telling editors that they should write an article on a subject other than the one that currently exists is not a particulary helpful opinion. If you want to write an article on Our Lady of Darkness that incorporates a mention of Megapolisomancy, go right ahead. I'm sure that you would do a fine job of it; but that's not really a valid defense of the article I nominated for deletion, and it doesn't address the reasons for deleting the specific article. Let's not allow differences of perspective to override the existing policies and guidelines, no matter how much you might disagree with them. If you want to dispute them, there are other forums, Deor (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The advice I gave is just what I would do myself if I knew the subject better. I suggested you, as you said you knew the book. I would not have made the suggestion if I did not respect your skills here. I have written articles on books I haven't read when needed, but that's hardly ideal. Repurposing an article is a possible outcome of AfD. I don't see how it has anything to do with more general differences. I was suggesting a practical solution to the immediate problem before us. Perhaps I could more conventionally have worded it: Move to Our Lady of Darkness and and add the necessary additional material. Is it clearer that way? DGG (talk) 04:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Our Lady of Darkness

I haven't read it. But the Amazon official review says: "For an accomplished pro like Leiber, a sorry performance." I like Pramoedya Ananta Toer's Quartet, and I think I saw Salman Rushdie and Tom Robbins have new books out. I don't read as many books as I used to since I started working on Wikipedia. Did you finish Atlas Shrugged already? I guess you just couldn't put it down. :) Have a great weekend David. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC) I guess I need to come up with something sci-fi and fantasy related though... Have you seen the latest Star Trek film? It's supposed to be good. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The Full Armor of God Broadcast

We have been deleted based on Lack of Notability. Please take a look at our situation and if you have any thoughts we welcome your input. NOTICE: Actions have also been made against some of the affilaites listed as references.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Full_Armor_of_God_Broadcast

TY! Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to reinstate it, you will need good 3rd party references, articles about it in magazines or the like. DGG (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Outlines: Has the shit hit the fan? - WPOOK update, 05/25/2009

Maybe...

We've started the next phase

I was experiencing mental block on the article draft for "outline" and on the outline guideline draft. And this was holding the whole project back. Without these (which are intended to explain the type of lists known as outlines in detail), the danger is higher that a controversy could go the wrong way.

I requested help on them, but there was none forthcoming.

So I went ahead and started us on the next phase of operations without those 2 pages...

Our AWB'ers and I have placed about 1600 notices all over Wikipedia. And the plan is to place several thousand more.

This generated only one complaint, but it was a very vocal one, and attracted a few other detractors who seemed unfamiliar with the concept of hierarchical outlines and their benefits. However, just as many or more editors came to the defense of the OOK, and there was no consensus formed. But, dab is still trying to rally opposition to outlines at the Village Pump. See below...

Administrator noticeboard incident and Village Pump policy discussion

It appears that the banner placed on the talk page of the Outline of Switzerland caught the attention of an editor named Dbachmann who posted a rather forceful message on my talk page, another on WT:WPOOK, another at WP:VPP, and still another at WP:AN!

He went well out of his way to use negative hype to cause a stir.

It appears that Mr. Bachmann doesn't understand the nature of hierarchical outlines and their applications. And though he implied that he has never seen an OOK outline before, he was involved with a discussion on these when they were called "lists of basic topics".

His primary argument is that outlines are content forks of articles, and violate WP:CFORK.

But "topic lists", of which outlines are a type, have been around for almost as long as Wikipedia, and fall under the WP:LISTS and WP:STAND guidelines. They aren't intended as forks, as they are lists, bringing the benefits of lists to the corresponding subjects, such as grouping and navigation.

Someone suggested an MfD, but lists are articles, and are within the jurisdiction of AfD. Only the portal page, which merely lists the outline articles, falls within the scope of the MfD department.

The administrator's noticeboard was considered the wrong venue for the discussion, and the discussion was closed.

But Dab's discussion at the Village Pump is still active. Hopefully level heads will prevail there too.

Now what?

Am I disheartened or deterred? Hell no. I say "full steam ahead!"

But we really need to finish the article draft and the guideline. Otherwise there will continue to be confusion.

Over the next week or two, we'll be posting another 1600 or so notices. It's a good thing we didn't send out 10,000 of them all at once.  :)

The Transhumanist 23:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Invitation from Fram

On the CSD RFC, you said "The only reason I do not challenge more is the need to keep good relations with my fellow admins. I trust most admins to use discretion most of the time. I trust nobody among us to use it right all the time.". I'm not the most frequent CSD closer, but I'ld like to invite you to challenge me on every CSD close you have doubts about. For AfD, I will often send you to DRV, but with CSD's, I'm more likely to undo my deletion and (if needed) send it to AfD instead. I don't always agree with you, but I don't think that your usually well-reasoned opinion will cause any friction. If it does anyway, I'll try to politely withdraw this invitation :-) Fram (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I have a similar arrangement with one or two other people. They know who they are. Even so, I haven't looked all that often, but that's really because of competing priorities. Just as I can't personally fix all the articles, I can't personally review all the deletions. But a pairwise arrangement might be workable, I'll accept if you will in turn audit mine. For the moment, I'd like to keep it to CSD. because, as we both know, you & I are more likely to disagree on AfD closures, and, as you say, that's often a bigger deal altogether--when it isn't a simple error, I agree with you that Deletion Review usually is the more appropriate method. (Also, I expect to get the advantage this way, as I do more speedies than you, though almost no afds. :) ) DGG (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't intend it to be an obligation, just that if you happen to come across one (or many) of my CSD's, you shouldn't be afraid to discuss them with me. I'll take a look at some of your CSD's as well, and let you know if there are any obvious problems. Fram (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A cursory check of your latest 50 CSD deletions only shows one dubious one, which you self-reverted half an hour later. Also one A3 which may have been better tagged as G11, but that's such a minor squibble that I'll not bother mentioning these in the future (incorrect G3s, G10s and G12s are bad, as they reflect badly on the creator: other tags IMO don't have such connotations, so whether something is e.g. A3 or A7 is not really important, as long as it isn't a systematic error). I'll give your deletions another check now and again, but I frankly don't expect too many problems. Fram (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

My first look also shows nothing problematic in yours' for May--I have not gone back further. DGG (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:email

I have replied to your e-mail with an explanation. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarify...

EC at the MfD? Send diff? I'll check. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Found it. Go ahead and switch our comments, since we were both responding to Dc. Keep yours indented and outdent mine. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC Invitation

Within the past month or so, you appear to have commented on at least one AN/I, RS/N, or BLP/N thread involving the use of the term "Saint Pancake" in the Rachel Corrie article. As of May 24th, 2009, an RfC has been open at Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Request_for_Comments_on_the_inclusion_of_Saint_Pancake for over a week. As editors who have previously commented on at least one aspect of the dispute, your further participation is welcome and encouraged. Jclemens (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Notices

Don't worry, the current notices, and the planned ones, concern the development of existing outlines. For example, notices of work that needs to be done to them, and notices to recruit editors to help out on them.

The Transhumanist 01:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: Another related thread has popped up at WP:VPR#OoK's expediency. --TT   04:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

seems under control. DGG (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep Hope alive!

Hey David. I was wondering if you would be willing to reconsider your delete vote in the case of Connie Bea Hope? At the worst I think a merge (which I have no inclination to support) to the tv station WKRG would seem a better route. I've been finding more sources and putting more pieces of the puzzle together as far as the show and its history go. For example I'm working on a source that includes the show as an early favorite in the channel's history. I think this biography is well worth including, even though it's notability is regional rather than national or international. Thanks for your kind consideration. Oh and I'm working on an article on the program itself now too Woman's World (tv) so we'll see what comes of that. Perhaps a merger may be in order down the road. But the show has had notable guests, so I'm going to see what comes of it. And I also found a source with an archival tape of the show. Thanks for your kind consideration. How was the new Star Trek movie? Have fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

my opinion is the same, but I am not the arbiter of what gets into WP. However, I think you'd really be stretching it to try two articles. If the CBH one is kept, merge the show in; if it isnt, merge her into the show. DGG (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Dope Stars Inc.

Sorry to bug you, hoping you're still at the wheel. I investigated the above since it was listed at WP:SCV, and found it a verbatim copy of wikibin - which is fine since it's GFDL-licensed. However, given the name of the site, I wonder whether the wikibin article isn't itself a copy of the wikipedia article deleted through this AfD, which would make the article a G4 case. Would you mind having a quick glance? Thanks. MLauba (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

it is an exact recreation of the article deleted on March 4. But I am not really satisfied with that afd. Only the nominator and one other person voted delete. Nobody argued for keep. It was relisted, but nobody further appeared. Yet there have been remarkably persistent attempts to re-create this article. The appropriate course would seem to be to delete and protect against re-creation, and let someone take it to deletion review if there's a case to be made, so I have done that. This is a field about which I am ignorant, but a g-search is pretty clear that they are not notable. DGG (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Yes, the AfD was a bit light in terms of votes. Goes to show that delsorting usually is helpful. That being said, it ran for 11 days when the standart was 5... Oh well. If it's unsourceable, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter (too much). MLauba (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

WPOOK update - 05/27/2009

Input on the OOK threads at the Village Pump has died down (at both WP:VPP and WP:VPR), and there is currently no consensus on either.

Negative feedback

For the number of notices we posted (over a thousand) the number of complaints we received (the two VP threads mentioned above) was quite low.

Silent majority

Considering most of the outlines are orphans, they get pretty good use.

Note that people who are happy with articles on Wikipedia generally don't say anything, so I simply interpret it as positive feedback.

Traffic, traffic comparison, and increasing traffic

Using Traffic, I compare the traffic of articles, their corresponding outlines, and their corresponding portals from time to time.

Outlines are starting to catch up to portals. Though the main portals, which are included in a navbar menu at the top of most portals are still way ahead of their outline counterparts.

Both outlines and portals are way behind the articles on the same subjects. Articles usually have 20 to 30 times the traffic.

Keep in mind that most outlines are orphans, with the primary link to them being Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge.

Traffic should improve once we include links on the corresponding subject pages, including the main subject as well as subjects that correspond to subheadings (e.g., History of x, and in the case of countries: Geography of x, Demographics of x, Culture of x, etc.)

I'm convinced the traffic of outlines will overtake portals once we've link-integrated them into the encyclopedia. And since outlines serve as tables of contents for each subject, it seems most fitting to place links to them in the form of hatnotes at the top of each subject's main articles (and the sub-subjects mentioned in the paragraph directly above).

By the way, there's another traffic counter called Wikirank, but I haven't tested it out much yet, but will do so in the coming weeks.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cozzen Publications - A7?

I'd personally take "published numerous books globally" as an assertion of importance. Just my 0.02$ though :) --MLauba (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

every publisher does. It means in their case that if you pay extra, they give it at ISBN. Most vanity publishers do it as part of the basic package. DGG (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Comment

Alright, thanks for the heads up, and I agree with your change.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Going for the Main Page

Once the traffic of outlines has overtaken portals, it will be time to replace portals on the Main Page, even if we need to spearhead a new main page redesign! This isn't a far-fetched idea. I was the one who jumpstarted and led the project responsible for the current main page design (until it hit critical mass and attracted other leaders), and I was also the most active editor on that project. I even created the WP:CBB on the Community Portal to promote the main page election. The second time around should be easier.

Back to the here and now

Targetting the Main Page is a few months off.

Right now, we need to continue posting notices and start link-integrating the OOK into the encyclopedia.

I have a whole slew of AWB tasks to assign. I hope you are ready.  :)

Spread the word

WP:WPOOK needs members. Tell all your friends about the OOK, and get them to join.

The Transhumanist 02:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

John Cotton Dana Award

Created a stub; but is this really the most prestigious award in that noble profession? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me check; the list of winners is not what I thought it was & I see the problem. There may even be more than one such award using his name. DGG (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I did check. I was wrong. Why not delete as user-request? Remind me where I said it was, so I can fix things. DGG (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz

Since you commented in the Great Clay Belt deletion review, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Maury Markowitz and redirect deletions. Feel free to ignore or remove this if you're not. --NE2 13:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

seems to have been taken care of adequately. Obviously further watching is in order, but I can trust you to do that. DGG (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Pwn

"The article has plenty of room for expansion." Expansion from what sources? Urban Dictionary? Encyclopedia Dramatica? Message boards? Seriously, you'd keep an article on my left big toenail, wouldn't you? :-P Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

only if you're left-handed. (making the assumption that,as usual, the dominant hand is the dominant foot also). And only the big toe. I do have standards. DGG (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I actually am left handed. Nice to see that you can come up with a humorous answer to a humorous question too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Re your note

Replied on my talk. EyeSerene^talk 16:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Law enforcement stubs

Hello I don't care to contradict you, but Law enforcement in The Gambia was deleted for exactly this reason, a {{db-empty}} and looking over your contributions, I don't think that you got all of the ones that I tagged; others may have been deleted as well. If you need to respond, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I do things the way I think correct. It has been known to happen that another admin thinks differently than I about something. In practice, Wikipedia admins get along by not attempting to correct each other every time they disagree. DGG (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Law enforcement in ..

(from my message to Kintetsubuffalo)" The series of articles that you have written Law enforcement in Benin (etc) are ll being nominated by another editor as speedy deletion for lack of content-- As reviewing admin, I think they do not quite meet the conditions for speedy deletion, but they really are not adequate as they are, so I have changed them to proposed deletion, giving you 7 days to improve them with some content and references. I suggest at the very least, date of founding and number of staff, for the various services. DGG (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)"

Sorry, I wrote those two years ago, I don't even know which ones he's nommed and you changed, and if nobody's added content to them in that long, maybe they're not notable. I am in Japan now, so English language source material is nonexistent except for the Internet, and I am pretty sure those orgs don't have websites. Ah well, the people have voted with their keystrokes. Thanks for the heads up. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking it might not be that hard, actually, & I'll give a try. DGG (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

and so it was. Easy actually, once the three multi-vol. encyclopedias on world law enforcement by country were found!! Now to check about the ones that may have gotten deleted, and recover them. DGG (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

ECRI

DGG Thanks for any help you can provide so we can get ECRI Institute on Wikipedia. As a proper reference, here is a report from the Agency for Healthcare and research Quality, listing us in the Bibliography, page 56, #9 https://www.ecri.org/Documents/EPC/Cardiac_Catheterization_in_Freestanding_Clinics.pdf CKKocherecri (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you need more than a passing mention, or a listing in a bibliography. You need to find an article or news report that discusses the organization in a substantial way. It does not have to be entirely about you, but it has to present sufficient material that a person can tell that you are important. I think you might be, but it needs to be shown by actual evidence that people in published work discuss the organization, not just mention it. If necessary, I may look myself, though not immediately, but if you keep track of what is written about you, it can facilitate things. I hope you have a library, but at least you must be affiliated with some organization that does: ask a librarian for help. I am one myself, but I can't personally do all the research for all the Wikipedia articles.DGG (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is another - we are part of the World Health Organization - I'll see if I can find a reference there. See below. CKKocherecri (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC) http://www.frsoft.com/pages/InfoPage.aspx?PageID=303

1. you are not part of the WHO, you are listed as an outside collaborating center in a particular project. If that is important, there will be published material discussing it. 2. The references to the Institute must be published' by a responsible source, not just the web page of a company using your product. Responsible sources for the purpose are published business or technical magazines or scientific or technical journals, or major newspapers. They can be online, but they must be independent and not derived from your own press releases. Please look for something usable. Unless it is really definitive, some people here will probably argue you need two of them, so I suggest you look for that. Once I see them, I will try to rewrite the article so it is not primarily promotional. Please do not send me scattered mentions of web pages. DGG (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Wisne (2nd nomination)

Since you are aware of this deletion discussion, asking you for advice about this AfD won't be perceived as canvassing. Do you think Andy Wisne can be saved? The subject passes WP:GNG, but the voters are all voting delete because of the COI and neutrality issues. I'm willing to rewrite this article, but will it be futile? Cunard (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I do not think he's notable. I do not think the college career is important enough; I think the unfortunate accident may make him a subject of temporary newspaper interest, but no more. The movie career hasn't started yet. What else is there? For those who think all division IA players notable, he's notable as that, & that could be emphasized. I think the point is not clear. He probably would not have had a major trophy had he played the season, nor was Notre Dame the champion that year. The question is really one's personal sympathy for him--he might have had it, but as you say, the excesses there backfired. This article shows the problem of the GNG: it does not really settle anything, because one then argues about significant coverage, and whether it was tabloid type human relations only. Try to argue for a non-consensus on the ground of the contamination of the discussion by pathos. DGG (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I agree that he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:ENTERTAINER, but I disagree that the sources are tabloid-like — they are neutrally-written and are from credible newspapers, including the LA Times. Anyway, the AfD looks like it's going to be closed as no consensus. Best, Cunard (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The longer I'm here, themore I look for significance over human interest. DGG (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Regional vocabularies of American English

As you probably know, following AfD discussion the consensus was to keep and clean up Regional vocabularies of American English. This will require adding references where possible, and removing large amounts of unreferenced material. I have begun this process; your help would be greatly appreciated. Cnilep (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Heads Up

You are mentioned as part of the discussion at WP:ANI#User:DreamGuy and User:174.0.39.30 68.146.162.11 (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy is bitting a newby with a huge assumption of bad faith

I am bring this to your attention as an administrator. DreamGuy's comments to User:Granite thump are, in my opinion, way out of line in his final comments here. For his past acts DreamGuy has been placed on Wikipedia:Editing restrictions and (it says) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked. I personally think he has made a huge assumption of bad faith against User:Granite thump, but I am not an administrator. I trust your judgment. Varbas (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I am far too much involved with DG to get involved in something like this as an administrator. Perhaps though I can offer you the advice, that some challenged articles are worth defending, and some are not. And of those worth defending, only some are worth getting really involved in. If you want to make a stand, pick a good place for it. DGG (talk) 04:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_DreamGuy_2 - See this request for clarification regarding DreamGuy   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

full-out phishing expedition

Please, I need you to be involved. DreamGuy and MuZemike have started a complaint about me, once again, claiming that I am a sockpuppet here. This is the 2nd taime is a week. It looks like a full-out phishing expedition this time. They have also thrown the relative newbie User:Granite thump into their complaint. This is a huge assumption of bad faith. MuZemike and DreamGuy's accusations, the approval of a CheckUser, and no notification to either myself or User:Granite thump, is completely against wikipolicy (as I understand it). You are an admin. It is part of your role to enforce the rules and policy. Is there anything you can do to help control the harassment we are now be subjected to? And also, can you explain to me why the WP:AE review of DreamGuy’s behaviour was so suddenly aborted by User:KillerChihuahua, with no sanctions against DG? That was just strange. If you are not able/willing to get involved, can you point me to someone who is not afraid of DG? Varbas (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Kindly send me an email from this page. I need to ask you some questions . Running checkuser is according to the discretion of the checkusers. I remind you again that I will never be able to do anything as an administrator here in anything involving Dream Guy. You must try one of the i admins who has not had run ins with him previously (there still are some). DGG (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not give out my e-mail address. If you have questions to ask of me, then please ask them. Varbas (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

then you can hardly expect help from me in something of this sort. You surely are aware of how to set up a throw-away email account. How can I ask you the obvious and necessary questions without possibly prejudicing the case against you? You want me to ask them in public, I'll do it at the AN/I. You chose to come here and ask for help, remember! DGG (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Hi DGG, I was wondering if you could clarify your comment at Anthony Tavera's DRV:

Overturn' Checking on iIMDB, I very strongly doubt that a young person playing these minor roles -- some as just a voice-- is actually notable; The CSI role is probably not enough to be significant--I gather he's the victim-- but it was enough to pass speedy. Dream Focus is wrong about speedy; it is done and needs to be done when there is no indication of any possible notability, which happens quite a lot--of the 5 or 10 speedies I do a day, about half are for that reason.

I was a little confused by this. You ¬voted Overturn, indicating that you do not agree with the A7 deletion. However, you argue that his roles are "not enough to be significant", as in "making a credible claim of significance", which looks like an argument in favour of speedy deletion. "pass speedy" could be interpreted two ways, at least by a {{User en-3}} like myself. "pass" as in "qualify" or "meet" the criterion, or "bypass". On the other hand, from your comments elsewhere, I would be very surprised if you would endorse this A7. Thanks, decltype (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"Pass speedy"" pass the lower criterion, but not necessarily the higher one. means good enough not to get thrown out by speedy deletion. As in one can pass the O levels, but not the A; pass the qualifying exam for a master's degree, but not a doctorate. I don't think he's notable, but it nonetheless wasn't a speedy. If it came up at AfD, I'd probably say !delete. DGG (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, then we are in full agreement on this one. decltype (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Help in Discussion Regarding Consensus

You were active on the talk page concerning consensus. Could you provide comments here please? Any opinion would be appreciated: [11].Faustian (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have outlines in addition to...?

Main page: Wikipedia:Why do we have outlines in addition to...?

Wikipedia:Outlines was growing so large that I split this section off as a separate page.

I look forward to your feedback and improvements.

The Transhumanist 22:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)