User talk:DGG

“ I am very gratified to have learned that so many people seem to like me, but even more gratified that they understand and like (or at least tolerate) the work I'm trying to do. ” —  at my RfA

AfD page for List of conferences

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

Attribution

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

Superpower cats

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

Scientific Activist

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

heads up

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

Re: Science

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

Justin Michael Jenkins

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

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

The resource exchange

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

Natural History of South Asia mailing list

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

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

Hi

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

Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smile!

LaMenta3 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

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

Cockroaches

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

Glyconutrients

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

Take a peek?

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

Laurence H. Scott

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

Blood libel

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

article titling

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

Hindutva pseudoscience

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

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

AfD: Laurence Scott

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

Enoch Moore

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

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

Factually incorrect information

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

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

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

Gutenberg Bible

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

local history fiend

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

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

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

Excercise physiology

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

MPADV & MP1mgs

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

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Regarding notability of Football (soccer) players

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

Thanks

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

Tap, tap

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Machemehl

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

John Machemehl

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

Vote!

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

Calthorpe Clinic

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

Article about chemistry book

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

Dates of birth and death in articles

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

Thanks,

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

Proof of vandalism by NavyChaps and USMC Padre

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

RE: Fetishes

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

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

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

Online general-interest book database

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

RE:German Soldier's House

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

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

Beware the Yellow Peril

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

re: Frederique_Constant

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

Restoring of Internet Troll Squads after AfD was endorsed

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

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

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

Tom Short

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

PNC Template

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

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

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

Your thoughts?

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

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

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

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

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

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

JG

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

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

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

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

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

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

PNC etc.

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

Master of the Playing Cards

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

Dufferin Mall

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

Direct Deletion

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

Richard Carrier

Huh??? [5] [6]

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

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

Good idea

Hi David,

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

History of Typography in the East

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

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

AfD and feelings

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

LoC Classification

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

Susan Alcorn

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

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

Edit

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

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

Journals & Academic journals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen P. Sheehi

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

Ma

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

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

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

breakfasts

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

Grand Street

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

LPS

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

With Reference to Karen K

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

Yet another installment in the never-ending Billy Hathorn saga

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connor Stevens

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

K-H Robert

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

Please close these Articles for Deletion

Hello ... would you please close these AfDs?

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

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

Template:pnc nominated for deletion

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

Country Club Plaza

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

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

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

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

Journals from Emerald Group Publishing Limited

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

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

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

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

Zlatko Krasni

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

Removal of PROD templates

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

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 14:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two column lists

Use

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

Or

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

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

ANDRE MEDICI

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

Benoît Gréan

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

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

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

here's your emerald

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

About my AFD comment

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

This AfD

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

Van Resistance/temp

Hi!

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

Hetoum 14:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Hetoum 22:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

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

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

Eugenics in Showa Japan

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

Deleting

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

Looking for input

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

Journals project

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

Vietnamese Californians

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

Articles for deletion/Wild Law (book)

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

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

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

"It needs cleanup"

"too promotional in nature"

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

Your changes to the Steve Vickers article

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

Sunder Nagar AFD

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

taxonomy stubs

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

Birdsall Viault

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

Earls of Stair

Please see WP:BAN. Banned users are not permitted to edit Wikipedia. The whole point of reverting their edits and deleting any pages they create is to enforce the ban, particularly in the case of prolific sockpuppeteers such as this one. He's at well over 200 sockpuppets now, and 3 today alone. If the pages stay up it encourages them to keep editing, when they are not permitted to do so. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Gayton, Staffordshire

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

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

"insufficient portal talk"

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

Mayors

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

Thanks

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

Jocelyne Couture-Nowak DRV

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

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

École acadienne de Truro

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

OrthodoxWiki articles

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

Response

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

Copyvio evidence?

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

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

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

Adminship

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

SPARC

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

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

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

Speedys and DRV

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

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

Neil rankin AfD

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

Steve Vickers Article

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

Cathy O'Brien nominated for deletion (again)

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

National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research

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

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

Quite human

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

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

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

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

Block evader

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

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

User:Referenced

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

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

Curly versus Straight Apostrophe and Quotation Marks in WORD

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

For future reference

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

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

Counts

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

User Hetoum

Hi, This is Hetoum,

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

149.68.164.13 05:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Auer

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

Miguel González-Gay

I do NOT have access to such a science literature database, as my college is quite small and my home computer is quite olde. Can you please get the cite #'s? Bearian 15:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Cross posted to Miguel González-Gay talk page. Bearian 15:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Conciliation Project

I don't follow what you have said here, probably just idiocy on my part. Would you mind going back and explaining it? J Milburn 16:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Gutenberg

Can I ask you about this? Gutenberg was a goldsmith and an inventor, but rather than thinking "let's put his occupation in the infobox", I think we should say "was his occupation central enough to his fame to be an entry in his infobox"? Is him being a goldsmith among the top 5 or 6 points key to understanding "at a glance" who he was and what he did? I suspect "inventor of a printing press" should be somewhere in the infobox instead. What do you think? Carcharoth 16:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My (Selket's) RfA

Thank you, DGG, for your support on my recent RfA, which recently passed 54/1/1. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations. I will certainly take the constructive criticism I recieved to heart. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. Thank you again· --Selket Talk 18:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Vilnija and Kazimieras Garšva returns in ArbCom

Few months ago you helped mediate a compromise on those pages. Now I am being accussed in an ArbCom case of "Violating WP:LIVING". Since you are a neutral editor already familiar with that case, your comments on whether I indeed violated BLP as User:M.K. is suggesting or not would be much appreciated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I was sure it would return; my experience so far in RfCs is that any compromise effected does not last very long. The article on Garsva has held up better than I would have expected; even the one on Vilnija is also doing better than a few I remember trying to help. I do not think what WP would usually regard as RSs exist for this topic--neither the Polish nor the Lithuanian ministries or newspapers take what most people would consider an objective view of things. Given all this, I think your role overall was constructive. I would rather add comments in a day or two, trying to evaluate what others have said. DGG 04:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Interestngly, the articles are rather stable (KG perfectly, Vilnija mostly). It's MK's portrayal of my behaviour as 100% disruptive during those discussions and edits which I'd appreciate if you could comment on. If you agree my input was negative, don't hesitate to write that - but I'd prefer to hear your opinion in addition to MK's. Of course, take your time. And if you have time to look into a RS dispute at Talk:Przyszowice massacre (I am trying to get as many neutral comments as possible before I am forced to try mediation), that would be great, too. Unfortunatly me and my primary opponent there (Irpen) have both pretty much exhausted our arguments and are now getting to close to level of 'you lied! no you lied' for my comfort :( -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, for writing in your talk but I see particular contributor forgot to add that he continues to removed parts of text which was stable [13] and which foundation was laid by you. If my name is mentioned, I indeed think that presenting not even doubtfully "references" but also preventing cite check, misleadingly suggesting that LIVING policy is not applied as well as mocking from person, violates principles of particular policy. M.K. 12:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)p.s. of course you can state your opinion regarding my presented evidence involving policy, as I remember to some my raised concerns made laugh only [14], and the issue acquired shameful shapes as even it as placed under the line of nations tragedy [15], as these are serious issues I hope that ArbCom committee will scrutinized them.

I'll keep a short response here too, I never said the issue or the edits were in any way laughable. I was responding to a post that called some argument laughable , and I said clearly that I was giving "my own response to that posting, and it is not laughing." I will make a short statement at Arbcom, based on the information presented there. There's no real need to discuss it here as well. DGG 17:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No, no, I did not said that you found it laughable quite contrary, I was pointing to another contributor (who started the same article). If not intervention made by you I would be stuck with article for sure. And I completely agree that no need to discuss evidences here. M.K. 18:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Papermaking

Did you see that the tag team User:Moerou toukon and User:Phillip Rosenthal (of the 1855 reference etc fame) are now exposed as making up between them Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Freedom skies? RfA going very well, as one would expect. All the best, Johnbod 02:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard Rawdon Stawell article

Hi David, I saw you tagged the Richard Rawdon Stawell article I created with a 'speedy deletion' tag, since removed by another Wikipedian. I realise the text came from a public domain Encyclopedia (which was acknowledged in the article with the {{Ausbio}} tag). The intent is to create an intial article based on the Dictionary of Australian Biography which can then be edited and enhanced by other Wikipedians. My belief is that it is better to have an initial article with public domain text (properly acknowledged and referenced) than no article at all. Your thoughts? — Diverman 12:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

(replied to on his page) I was the one that removed the tag, but in further discussion on the project page, it turns out that this source is possibly not PD in the US. DGG

Contextual information

I have noticed that essays, e.g. WP:LISTCRUFT, are often cited in deletion debates, such as the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialist Party of Great Britain debates. It might be worthwhile to jot down a concise essay on the value of contextual information, which one could cite so as not to repeat the contextual argument every time. One could argue that such an argument is a natural offspring of policies such as WP:NOT#PAPER and WP:SENSE. Then one could post it as WP:CONTEXT. I am interested in your opinion about this. Stammer 09:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh...

I suppose since your name is actually your initials, and mine is just a cheesy affectation, I should change my sig to avoid further confusion... ;_; --DDG 20:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to go back to my old sig. I doubt the addition of 12 or so characters is going to cripple the Wikipedia servers. Cheers, --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Actual usage of the European Library by librarians?

Hello DGG. Please see my my question for you over on WP:COI/N, regarding the European Library. EdJohnston 21:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

MfD for WP:CSN

Thanks for your recent comment at the MfD. I think you're one of the few people who commented on the actual outcome of a specific case (Robdurbar/Wonderfool), as part of the data for your decision! Most people seemed to reason in broad generalities. EdJohnston 21:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history

I have responded to your comment on the AfD. Thanks --Aminz 07:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas Beale

You were involved in this article's Deletion Review. User:NBeale complained that the AFD was closed too early, and so it was reopened. Please leave your opinion at the second nomination for AFD. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-05 18:34Z

RFA

I added some questions to your RFA page for you to answer. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

repeated Afd swinging to delete

fyi, Ronald Collé has appeared on afd within a week of the last Afd being closed, and is gathering delete votes. John Vandenberg 04:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/MZMcBride i think you are mistaken thats what you put on there is from my talkpage not his so do not hold it agaenst him it my falut i admit that i do need to read the guldlines better and i have. i have too if i want to be become a admin in the very far future so it my bad not his okOo7565 18:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay

Good luck with that --Closedmouth 04:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Albert Anderegg

Hi ... Are you an admin now? If so, would you please have a look at this article? I really don't care if it stays or goes, but the five days have expired. Thnx! —68.239.79.82 06:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Josh Warner

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Josh Warner. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Shaunco 22:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbuthnots

Just to clarify, I certainly have no plans to nominate the more notable ones, at the moment I'm simply trying to see what community opinion is on the lesser ones. There's no denying there are many notable members of the Arbuthnot family, but there's also no denying that we have articles on members of the family who do not meet notability guidelines. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Just thought it better to clarify, given your message on KB's talk page. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bhaskar Chakraborty

• Comment Shoessss , surely there are some reviews or discussions of his work, and you can add them. Even if not in English. (but it helps to give an english translation of a key phrase)DGG 00:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello User:DGG, I did actually research Bhaskar Chakraborty and found only self-published books that were being offered on Amazon. This in-its-self is not noteworthy. That was the reason that I nominated the article for deletion. However, as you are probably aware, I can only nominate. The rest is a consensus of editors, which I am more than happy to live with.Shoessss 01:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Chakraborty

That wasn't the point, what is needed is some quote from a book about literature, or from reviews of the poetry-- works 'about his own books. Thats what establishes notability for an author--that someone writes and published : "He is one of the great..." . I asked because you are obviously in a much better position to find them than I, and may perhaps immediately know of some if you know the author's work. Whoever is able should look. One good quote (or even better two) would settle the matter. DGG 01:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I’m sorryDGG I think you are confusing me with the author of the article. I was the one that nominated the article for deletion. The reason for the recommended deletion was just as you pointed out. I could not find any reviews or references other than a MySpace and Self-Published books on Amazon. Hope this clears up the miss understanding. Shoessss 01:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC) PS: Sorry about

Wikibreak

I am about to disappear on a work trip for several days, so please don't take any lack of input during that period as a sign that I've lost interest in WP:N.--Kubigula (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Westropp

and probably others. I stopped the speedy on him, but it will probably be deleted by someone else if not written more like a typical WP article. They are undoubtedly Notable, but it needs to be clearly shown with references to something objective about them. Even more important, you said you "uploaded" them. If you copied them from a web site or elsewhere, and it is not in the public domain, you cannot do that, and you will need to rewrite them entirely in your own words. Since the articles have been questioned, make sure about this. If it is your own original writing, make sure there are sources. DGG 05:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? What's this about. I have no idea what you're talking about. --Haemo 07:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I understand now - but I didn't write that article. I was merely commenting on the fact that the speedy was unwarranted. --Haemo 07:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

I'm pleased to inform you that you are now an administrator. Please read all the material on the administrators' reading list before testing out your new privileges. For instructions, please see the administrators' how-to guide. Best of luck — Dan | talk 02:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Congrats. Well done. Do well with the mop :) -- Samir 02:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. Your RfA reached WP:100 and is palindromic to boot. :) Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow congrats DGG! 111 supports, that's fantastic - if you ever need anything just give me a shout and I'll try my best to help. Good luck... Majorly (hot!) 09:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. I'm glad I was one of those 11 extra to push you over the top at Wikipedia:Times that 100 Wikipedians supported something. You'll do a great job. Smee 11:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Notability of scientists vs their science

Hey DGG (first off, congratulations on adminship). In this AfD you write "I cannot imagine that a paper written by a scientist could possibly be notable more than the scientist himself" which seems diametrically opposed to my thinking, so I thought I'd invite you to try entertaining it. If a scientist is notable (in the sense of passing WP:PROF) I would assume it is because their work is notable. Surely then they must be at least a degree more trivial than their work. For example, the Hershey-Chase experiment is a very important piece of science, which definitely belongs in an encyclopedia, but I'm not sure that Alfred Hershey or even more so Martha Chase are of the same level of notability. Similarly, Milikan's Oil-drop experiment important in a way that I just don't think the details of Robert Andrews Millikan's life are. Ditto Stanley Milgram's Obedience to Authority Study and Philip Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment. In all these cases, the experimenters are certainly notable, but I think they are all less encyclopedic than their work. I guess this is what bothers me about the majority of the stubby little wikipedia entries for assorted professors, that their inclusion makes WP look like a cheap Whos-who unless their work is also encyclopedic. The writers of these bios seem disinterested in writing encyclopedic articles about their research topic, the benefit to WP of these articles does not extend to dissemination of knowledge about science, just the vanity, or vanity by proxy, of a puff-biography. Anyway, best of luck with the mop pushing. I'm certain that you'll do fine. Regards, Pete.Hurd 05:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, & I went back & adjusted the AfD comment,because you are right that I overgeneralized. Fuller reply in the works. DGG 07:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Abhout copyvio NDMA

Hi,

Thanks for cleaning up the NDMA page. The original page is indeed inaccessible but Google has a copy available in its cache: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:y_TtJa_7-i4J:www.komex.com/solutions/NDMA.stm. The similarities were too obvious to overlook.

Greetings, bb 09:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)