User talk:DGG/Archive 29 Jun. 2009

Oct08, Nov08, Dec08, Jan09, Mar09, Apr09 , May09 , ... , Jul09, Aug09, Sep09, Oct09, Nov09, , Dec09,

handling an elementary school redirect

A redirect of an elementary school was reverted. How would you handle it? I'm tempted to take it to an AFD, but AFD is really meant for Delete, not Redirect. Almost like we need "articles for redirects". tedder (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Re-redirected, it's the obvious precedent. If it's reverted again, take it to AfD for consensus and ask closing admin to protect the re-direct. It's sadly what has to be done in some cases when someone is insistent on edit warring StarM 17:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, StarM. I saw your revert, I was curious about the general process. It's good to know that's something that can/should be done via AFD if it continunes. tedder (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My general theory is if I'm uninvolved I'll protect, since it' almost never contested by anyone but the edit warrior. If I've been involved, I let community decide. On one occaion, someone found sources that identified the school had attained some award, but in all others the re-direct has been upheld. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fruitland Primary School for the most recent one I can think of StarM 01:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There were also a number of articles on intermediate schools in the same district. I redirected them as well. The practice is so well established, that it can easily be explained to the editors involved--at the moment there seem to be a number of people editing from that district, sometimes constructively, sometimes not. It's way premature to think of protecting--not after a single revert. What we need is to follow up on the new editors , to help them become useful contributors--that's much more important than other things about the articles. I'll watch them. DGG (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

2nd AfD of Alcides Moreno

As you commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcides Moreno (which ended in no consensus) I thought you might like to know that it has been nominated again. The new discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcides Moreno (2nd nomination). Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

commented. A somewhat incorrect use of admin powers to prevent a full discussion, but the deletion review is noteworthy for the totally incorrect argument raised that Deletion Review is not applicable. DGG (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hope all is well. There was not much action this weekend. I've given up on commenting on AfDs for bilateral relations AfDs. Bearian (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

please see my diff for [1] for Moldavia-Spain. I too was about to give up on these , until I realized why almost all of them are in fact valid. DGG (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Moldava

Can you help find references for Moldova–Spain relations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

the sources are already fully sufficient, except to deal with those who think that our policy should read IS PAPER. I've expanded on that there a little. DGG (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Latvia–Luxembourg relations

There appear to be plenty of news articles for Latvia–Luxembourg relations, do you have time to help integrate them into the article? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

enough sources seem there now. The problem is to get recognition that these sort of relationships are sufficient. DGG (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Noindex

• I hope you don't mind me interrupting your conversation, but there is a technique for preventing draft material in your sandbox from being indexed in future (it won't eliminate any existing index/cache/link). Just add the next line to the top of each sandbox page. The second "caution" line aims to reduce liability if someone finds your draft anyway. - Pointillist (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

{{NOINDEX |visible = yes}}

{{caution|This is not a Wikipedia article. It may contain unverified draft material that is unsupported, incomplete, out of date, biased or simply false. Don't use anything on this page for any purpose. }}

yes, this works, but, Pointillist, this was on the main user page, not a subp. Can one use that? there also.?DGG (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is effective on a User: page. As I understand it, the template expands to __NOINDEX__[[category:Wikipedia noindex pages]]{{#ifeq:yes|yes|This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.}} There are already quite a few users who "__NOINDEX__" on their User page, e.g. Plrk added it to User:Plrk on 8 Sept 08 (this diff), and added "misunderstood genius" two edits later. If __NOINDEX__ had been effective on a User: page, Googling for Plrk "misunderstood genius" would fail. So you have to do your drafting in a "sandbox" sub-page.

There's another point I should have mentioned. My sandbox contains the phrase "Clive Labovitch (1932-1994) was an entrepreneuial British publisher" (note the typo). If you search for that string via google, my sandbox won't be found because I've it tagged with {{NOINDEX}}, but the entire page has been scraped by another site and using this very specific search, complete with typo, does return the copy of the page held on the other site. That's not generally a problem (e.g. in my example if you Google for Clive Labovitch there are many pages of results before you hit the screen-scraped sandbox page) but you should be aware of it. - Pointillist (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we can unfortunately do nothing practical about this. We do not control the way other sites work, nor do we control Google. This is one of the reasons for the immediate deletion of certain material. It doesn't prevent this,but it does minimize the effect. DGG (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas Beale

Hi DGG, I was surprised to see you remove the speedy tag from Nicholas Beale, as it's clearly a vanity article. I've left a note about the lack of independent sources here. Would you mind commenting? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have commented there. DGG (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

A professor at AfD

Heads up. (NB to talk page stalkers -- not a canvass, because I have no intention of contributing to that AfD and the only person I'm notifying is DGG.)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

right, and I check them all anyway, though now I'm 2 days behind. DGG (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Drug categorization: consensus sought

Should the 2nd, 3rd and 4th levels of the Category:Drugs by target organ system mirror the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System exactly, or be consolidated when possible?

Please read the more thorough description of this issue at WT:PHARM:CAT and post your comments there. Comments are much appreciated! Thanks ---kilbad (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

High schools

This is an interesting claim! Please point out to me all the articles on High Schools I have supposedly "repeatedly" nominated? I happen to think that many, if not most High Schools are notable. What I do not accept is arguments about how other schools are notable have any relevance about the notability of the schools under discussion at AfD, here and elsewhere. As a follow up question, if the concept of inherent notability of High Schools was developed through the outcomes of AfDs, how is it any more POINTy of me to use the same medium to point out its absurdity? Why is it now POINTy to consider that WP:N and the use of quality sources and encyclopedic material should apply across the entire encyclopedia?

I am not picking High Schools at random; articles on schools that I have nominated for deletion or commented in support of their deletion (and their have not been that many) have all failed to meet WP:N and the arguments to keep are generally circular reasoning —i.e. schools are kept because they are usualy kept—and only rarely on the merits of the actual article. If High School articles require an exemption from WP:N, then a draft guideline should be developed and consensus for this demonstrated. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have already modified my statement there. For this particular group of schools, the usual argument does not necessarily hold, & I supplemented it, & removed any comment about other nominations. My apologies for that; this was not the AfD to say it.

But it seems you do hold the position that the practice should in fact be changed. How many afds will it take to convince you that the consensus is otherwise? I've given the argument enough times with respect to schools, so I will say it more generally: for some classes of things it is in practice convenient to adopt conventions & fixed rules, instead of deciding individually. We have to balance the harm from including articles on a few subnotable things & omitting articles on a few barely notable ones on the one hand, with the advantages of having more time and energy for article writing and sourcing rather than debate on the other. This is a big encyclopedia with a lot of topics to cover. There are hundreds of thousands of high schools in the world--over 30,000 in the US alone. There are an even greater number of primary and intermediate schools. Many of each will be unclear about notability, but if argued fully and after a careful and painstaking search, about 80 or 90% of the high schools and about 10 or 20% of the other schools will be shown notable. Rather than debate tens of thousands of articles, it is better to have the simple rule that one class get articles, and the other merges into school districts or localities. There are hundreds of thousands of little towns and villages. We could probably meet the technical requirements for 95% in the developed countries, and elsewhere as sources become available. We could fight about just which 10,000 to omit, or we could just leave them all & work on writing better articles and covering the areas left uncovered. There are as I discussed above hundreds of thousands of state-level politicians. Frankly, I doubt that that more than 80% or so are notable& it might be less-but it isn't worth the effort to remove them. It's better to get whatever verifiable information we do have, and leave the articles for beginners to work on.

It bothers me too when there's an article on something not really worth it--but we have hugh gaps to fill. And, more important, we have tens of thousands of articles with gross puffery and spam and nonsense and error and prejudice, on notable and unnotable alike, and that sort of material is what really harms the encyclopedia. We have work to do. I like debating, and I'd gladly argue with you all night, but there's stuff to write and edit. So back I go to speedy patrol to get rid of the worst of it. DGG (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

American Engineering Group

Dear Sir,

One of my article about American Engineering Group company is deleted a little while ago. Can you please give me suggestions on how I can make the article more suitable for wikipedia. Please respond.

Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraham70 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

There are two problems, first the article gives nothing to indicate thatt he company is notable. The standards from this are at WP:CORP. Basically, you need to show that you have references providing substantial coverage about the company from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. You need to show that you are recognized as a leader in the field. Typically, independent substantial reviews of products in professional magazines will help; routine announcements of new products or financial results or executive appointments will not. Having army contracts by itself is not enough--if they are for major products that have been discussed, that might help. Some of your products for them seem the sort that might well have been discussed in news reports if you are a major supplier.

The second problem is the promotional nature of the article: it is mainly a list of products. That belongs on your website, not in an encyclopedia. the basic description of the company also is essentially pr material, with more adjectives than specifics. Figures for turnover and employee numbers help, if they are substantial--they need to be sourced, however & most financial results will not be easily available, since you re not a public company.

I notice also that you have put information about your fuel cells in the article on Proton exchange membrane fuel cell. Thjisneeds to be sourced as well, to third party sources, to show that its significant.

A good guide to what is needed is our FAQ about businesses, & other organisations. DGG (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

Please go through these links and see if they could serve as possible references. Our Company is also listed in design magazines for various products. http://www.governmentcontractswon.com/department/defense/american-engineering-group-ll-114164234.asp?yr=06 http://www.rubberdivision.org/expos/mini/techprogram.htm http://www.thecityofakron.com/engineering/ http://rubber.org/expos/exhibitors.pdf http://www.edmtodaymagazine.com/Job%20Shop%20Directory.html http://www.americantire.us/Sponsorship/ATC-Sponsors-ITEC-2008.pdf

Please suggest if there is any possibility of getting listed in Wiki. I really appreciate your help.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraham70 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

these are listings. They list that one of your people spoke at a conference, or that you have a contracts. They do not provide any indication that you are important. The one financial figure listed available to me was a very small contract for $40,000. What is needed is that other people publish substantial information about you. if the material in the design magazines is just a list of supplier's, its irrelevant also. If its a discussion of the company or one of its products, then it's relevant. I see from your web site "* 2007 SAE tech award for a unique fuel cell sealing concept featuring the Nanocomposite Double-lip seal.' * 2008 SAE tech award for the Carbon fiber Elastomer Composite Bipolar plate for PEM Fuel Cells."; such awards can be proof of notability, depending on the nature of the award; they might show that the prize committee of a major professional association thought you notable. That's the sort of stuff that belongs in the article (and, if I may give you the advice, more prominently on your web site; were I looking for a fabricator, that's the sort of thing I'd hope to see). There must have been something published in the trade press at the time. Find it. Some of your products are such that they might receive formal product reviews; some of your military products might have been written about in general news reports. That's the sort of material needed also. We also need some information about the business size: employees, gross sales, DGG (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi David,

Attached file contains some of the magazines over where American Engineering Group (AEG) LLC's products are published. Please see if this could meet what you are looking for. Please let me know your suggestions.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/AEG_Published_Articles.pdf

SAE tech Award 2008: http://www.engineering-group.com/AEGCurrentNews/News/download/download.php?id=11

Thank you very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraham70 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi David,

I am waiting for your suggestions and comments.

Thank you very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraham70 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

your comment about disruptive editing

Your comment here [2], are you then willing to block people on the basis of this, and do other admins? it's a slippery slope of saying well it's similar to an official rule so it can't be right. it's like saying manslaughter should be punished like murder. LibStar (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

there are many ways of being disruptive. My idea of how to deal with disruption, is informal advice, and then if necessary calling it to the attention of the community, in the hope that others will see it for what it is. I don't block for anything short of downright vandalism. that is either repeated after warning or so drastic as to require immediate action. Formal disciplinary action is a last resort, just like deletion.

as for slippery slopes, what I do not like are precipices: tolerating improper and risky behavior until someone actually falls of the cliff. The point of even blocking is not to punish according to one's sins, but to prevent people from continuing to do things wrong. Thus I restate from the place you referenced,

there are several allied improper behaviors: tag-teaming, where several editors combine to force through changes they would not be able to otherwise because of 3RR; piling on, adding identical votes because someone else has voted, whether or not you have specifically been requested to; meat-puppetry, acting essentially as a proxy for another editor whether by explicit or implicit agreement; and also of course canvassing, whether during an AfD or in preparation for one. All 4 are disruptive. The technicalities are not important, the effect is what we should pay attention to. DGG (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Help on rewriting/editing article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lockwood_(historian)

Hello there David. I remember you told me about looking into this article and trying to do some edits. It's never a problem that it hasn't been acted upon then or yet, as I know, you're exploring hundreds of articles here. Do you think you can still help me? It's been flagged for reasons more than I expected and I'm quite uncertain about where and how to start afresh or modify it in a way that will pass your criteria. I really need to get this article posted clean without the flags. =( I'd very much appreciate your inputs/help. Thank you. Jxc5 (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The flags will remain until people are satisfied. We use them to indicate problems or potential problems with articles, & the ones in place at the moment are justified. When you say "I really need to get this article posted clean without the flags", I wonder about the possible promotional purpose of the article, or whether you are writing for pay, with the consequent conflict of Interest. My colleague Orange Mike who has worked with this type of article at least as extensively as I has made some good suggestions, only one of which I disagree with--I commented there about what is needed. As you can see from the question immediately before this one, we often have problems with people in some professions about demonstrating notability.

Oh, no… I have no intention of promoting my own interest, or other’s, or any of that sort. No other purpose than to see an article I put up’s been successfully considered – which I realized is not really easy to achieve until (I believe) I seek help from notable wiki-editors like you who totally know the ins and outs of Wikipedia. Sorry if I gave you a reason to doubt that. Thank you so much for the prompt reply. You’ve been truly helpful. Jxc5 (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, David. As you advised, a reminder for you about adding library counts for the authorship of books? ... Many thanks. Jxc5 (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Mustafa Ulgen

I don't think I have entered the index for his Turkish publication in the Turkish journals correctly. Could you please help me with that? They were published in Turkish, but I translated the title to English, but this would not be the right thing to do if people were to search his Turkish articles. Should I have kept the Turkish Publication with the Turkish Titles and write the English translation in parenthesis stating that they were published in Turkish only) Now the internet is so developed with Google Language tools it doesn't matter what language things are published in, you could have a good sense of the article with Google translation.--Alpsays (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

exactly as you suggested, using both languages is the correct way to go. But beware of Google translations, but use a real Turkish-English dictionary, a Turkish -English medical dictionary if available. The Turkish Wiktionary does not seem to be very good on technical vocabulary. You will need to know the subject a little to produce properly idiomatic English translations.

But not all of this should be included. I just removed some long sections which should not. WP includes only books and peer-reviewed papers at the very most, and more often just the books and the most important of the papers, which you can judge by being the ones cited in the indexes. For the other work, just include a count: so many lectures, so many conference presentations. DGG (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

An article for which you declined the PROD is now listed at AFD

Hi there - just wanted to give you a heads up about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Brandon Snyder - declined the proposed deletion there, and another user PRODed it again, but since it is ineligible for a second PROD, I listed it at AFD. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Salvador Allende's page under constant vandalism

Hi DGG, I started this page Right-wing political support for the 1973 Chilean coup, seconds after I saved it, it was nominated for speedy deletion – is this justifiable. I need a second opinion? I am doing this mainly because this sort of material is constantly being inserted into the Salvador Allende page in attempt to prevent a proper and balanced biography on Allende. Moshe-paz (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC) The speedy was not proper, but I none the less do not see it as a separate article. It would belong in the main article on the coup, where it undoubtedly is already. I'll look a little later at the Allende articleDGG (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia

The sources show that this particular part of it is real enough to provide for a NPOV article? Hi DGG , the sources also say "alleged discrimination in Estonia", please see google books and google scholar [3]. I cite just one of the sources that comments on this highly political and controversial subject: Immigration and emigration in historical perspective By Ann Katherine Isaacs, p 188 ISBN 8884924987 :

The question of alleged discrimination of the Russian-speaking population in the newly independent Baltic countries has served as a pretext to try to lock the region within a Russian sphere of influence...Russian hopes of maintaining direct control over the Baltic states proved ineffective. At the same time Moscow's atemts to take political advantage of the issue of the Russophone minority were successful. Russia used virtually every international forum to present its claims of the violations of human rights in Estonia and Latvia etc.

So perhaps it's me and I'm missing something but once Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia is not a POV fork in your opinion, should we have another article based on the alternative sources and call it something like Alleged discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia? Thanks!--Termer (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

as far as i am aware, every ethnic group in Estonia, and a great many other countries besides, has been discriminated against at one time or another. DGG (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! So the way I'm getting this, the idea is to create articles pr group and pr country one by one? Aside of Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia, there's going to be Discrimination of Estonians in Estonia...Discrimination of ethnic minorities in the United States, Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Russia etc. as content forks for main articles Human rights in Estonia, Human rights in the United States, Human rights in Russia etc.? --Termer (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I would support such articles, as Discrimination against ethnic minorities in the United States. I would further support such articles as Discrimination agains [specific ethnic groups] in the United States, to the extent there is sufficient material--as there is for a great many of them. I do not consider them context forks, I think them the natural development of specialized topics. They are difficult topics, and require careful editing. The basic principle of NPOV at WP is that editing by multiple people of different POVs, but all committed to trying for fairness, will produce balanced articles. In fact, we have dozens of such specific articles: see Category:Human rights in the United States and especially Category:Racially motivated violence in the United States and Category:Religiously motivated violence in the United States--and also [[Template:Racism topics]]. There are also more specific articles, see those in Category:Anti-Catholicism by country. The problem of course is to get such articles written objectively, especially when --as frequently occurs-- each of two groups is claiming ongoing or recent oppression from the other. DGG (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there are people around who have been or feel discriminated on ethnic bases in any country including Estonia or the US etc. However this is not the only aspect what the case under the discussion is all about. Like the citation from the book and the rest of the sources above clearly say, it's also about the Kremlin using the Russian speaking minority in Baltic countries to support it's political agendas.
The center point of the discrimination issue is about the language, basically it's difficult to get a job if you can't speak any Estonian language in Estonia. Now if this is discrimination on ethnic bases is another question. It would be not that different if Latinos in the US backed up by Mexico would claim that Spanish speakers are discriminated against because they'd need to know English as a job requirement in the US. And first of all in the public sector. The bottom line, this is not a straight forward "discrimination of ethnic minorities" case here but also a political campaign conducted by Kremlin in order to maintain influence over it's former colonies: Estonia, Latvia. That's was the only reason I got back to you in response to your opinion ("real enough in respect of NPOV") at the Afd. because there clearly are conflicting verifiable perspectives on the subject in the form of alleged discrimination. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

PS. That should also speak for itself: The United Nations Human Rights Council Session 48th Documents on Estonia: Report on the situation of human rights in Estonia and Latvia: Although the members of the Mission found no evidence of discrimination along ethnic or religious grounds, it confirmed the impression of prior observers that there is, on the part of the Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian communities, considerable anxiety about the future...--Termer (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am quite aware of this also. It is not at all unique. For one momentous example, Nazi claims of the persecution of ethnic Germans by Poles was the excuse for the German invasion of Poland in WW II (we seem to be lacking a good treatment of this). At a more trivial level, there is Tawana Brawley. The most fascinating example of alleged atrocity claims will probably remain Katyn, where the alleged claims from a singularly untrustworthy source turned out to be true after all. , Whether these is best handled in separate articles, or discussed in context of the actual discrimination is a tricky matter. Since for a given state of affairs there is always a question of whether the reports are true or exaggerated, the general concept of editing based on NPOV is that false and true claims should be discussed in the same article except where the amount of material is too great to deal with in this manner. I am not the least happy with titles beginning with the word "Alleged" as intrinsically POV; I prefer the word "claims", but some consider claims has having a more pOV implication than alleged. It is very difficult to resolve disputed historical status in short title phrases. So in short, I think objections to this particular article are ill-conceived. DGG (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the objections go against this particular article per se, only to the current one sided "discrimination against..." approach coming from a series of attempts on Wikipedia to portray Estonia as an "anti Russian apartheid regime" and/or a "Fascist state". There are enough sources out there claiming it [4][5], does it meant that there should be an article on Wikipedia called Estonia's apartheid regime/Fascist Estonia? After all Estonians are a nation of 1 million people next to Russia with the population of 142 million. A little Estonian mouse is oppressing the Russian bear?
For example Ethnic minorities in Estonia would be a legitimate title/subject that would include any facts of discrimination against any minorities, discrimination allegations against Estonia and the facts like pointed out above: United Nations Human Rights Council: "the members of the Mission found no evidence of discrimination along ethnic or religious grounds". etc.--Termer (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which succeeded with 56 in support, 12 in opposition and 3 neutral votes. I am truly honored by the trust that the community has placed in me. Whether you supported me, opposed me, or if you only posted questions or commented om my RfA, I thank you for your input and I will be looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas :). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). All the Best, Mifter (talk)

Mifter (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC closing

I submitted an RfC for the Abortion Debate article, and several users have weighed in already. I feel the overwhelming consensus will be in favor of my nom (Use of fetus and embryo, rather than the unborn). Would it be too hasty to close the RfC at this time, in your opinion?

Also, I noted you're a librarian, and might be able to shed another light in the comments.

I'm just asking since you were the last admin I've interacted with on this site, and would like some input. We've also disagreed on the last topic, so I can't see it being considered as shopping. Thanks, and cheers :) Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be better to run for a few days at least--especially since most of those contributing to the discussion so far had already given their opinion on the page, and the point of an RfC is to attract a significant number of outside views. DGG (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Monos Rugby Club

• I'd be grateful if you could show me how this article shows even minimal importance and so is not appropriate for speedy deletion. Thank you. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 20:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• realizing that the league itself has no article, and seeing the total absence of articles on Rugby in that country including the apparent absence of a national team, I decided you were right and deleted the article DGG (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletes

Can you give me some examples of article I mis-tagged? So I can look to see what I did wrong. Thanks. Cheers :) Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC) [6], [7], [8]. I think these were some of yours. Not that they are necessarily supportable articles, just that they should not be summarily deleted without giving them a chance to improve. DGG (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If you like, we can take this over to my talk page. The two articles show little to no news or google hits. I struck the one (Lock More) that I didn't tag. Cheers :) Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Having no references to show notability is not the standard deletion. Even for afd, the standard is being unsourceable, having no references after a search, not merely lacking references at present. For speedy, all that is needed is indication that it might be notable. DGG (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, few Secondary Sources discussing it as the primary subject is a reason for deletion. (Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. - WP:NOTE). Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

First: it does not have to be the "primary" subject to pass WP:N, the wording is "directly". Nor does it take more than a "few" reliable sources--two or even one really good one are enough. Check WP:N but not via speedy. Second, please check WP:CSD and WP:Deletion policy . Speedy is for deletion under limited circumstances only,where it is clear to any reasonable person that further work would not be at all likely to show acceptability. Passing speedy requires much much less than what is sufficient to pass WP:N--just some indication of notability. The tag for claims to notability, but not being sourced adequately, are {{notability}} and {{improvereferences}} . The tag for some claims to notability, but not notable enough, are either prod or AfD; The procedure for looking like being notable, but not having sources to show it, is either a tag for {{unsourced}}, or a nomination for Prod or AfD after following the advice in WP:BEFORE. It has once in a while been suggested that unreferenced be subject to speedy deletion, but that proposal has always been soundly rejected by the community. The author has the primary responsibility for sourcing, nut if he fails, every editor who wants to improve the encyclopedia has a secondary responsibility DGG (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Very well. I couldn't see any of those pages being notable (ever), but it's moot. I've AfD'd them to get community input on them. Cheers :) Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

yes, that's the way to go. just for the record, I never said they were notable. I am not one of those admins who speedies everything I think un-notable. I'll check at the afd. DGG (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas Beale

Could you please look over my edits to Nicholas Beale to make sure I haven't harmed the subject's already very slim chances of passing the AFD? I realize it might be a bit late now. I obviously thought my edits were improving the article, and almost all delete arguments were stated before I made the most significant trimming. Still, I would really appreciate if someone could relieve me of the guilt and have a look at it. Maybe my edits should be reverted as I have removed quite a lot of stuff, some of it about his positions, maybe that was not at good idea? Vesal (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Do not revert your changes at this point; I do not think it will help. What will help is if you can find book book reviews or reviews of the program. What will unequivocally help is if the subject publishes a good book as a sole author that gets multiple reviews. That will certainly do it, even if it is deleted this time, but you will need to go through deletion review in that case.

one minor point: You need exact publication information for "R&D Short Termism DGG (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Continuous Repayment Mortgage

Hello Dave

As regards the above article, the only authoritative source my research has been able to find is Prof Hackman's online course notes which contain the core equations of the 'continuous repayment' model.

However the mathematical methods employed may be verified in any number of Maths/Science/Engineering textbooks.

Neil Parker (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

My personal advice is that we will consider it as original research, and not suitable for an article here. But you are of course welcome to try. DGG (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC).

Your call as editing team I guess. But personally I don't think I have done any more than what I have done with some contributions on the page on Ptolemy's Theorem and Diophantus II.VIII. Namely expand a little on already well established mathematical theory. I would be most flattered by - but altogether undeserving of - the 'original research' label!

Neil Parker (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

you are welcome to try. I am not making the decision, but just giving you my advice on what I think the decision will be, & I am not always right--things here can be unpredictable. . I agree that the material is not a sensational mathematical discovery, but if it has never been expressed this way before, it meets what we call OR. Another person to consult would be User:AdamSmithee DGG (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure exactly what has 'never been expressed this way before'. In respect of mortgages, there is a clearly defined linear differential equation which has a clearly defined solution. One sets up the equation and then solves it using the well established 'magic' of Pierre Simon Laplace. Of course there are different techniques for solving LDEs and my reference source uses a method which I am not personally familiar with. But the core LDE and the resultant solution are the same in both cases. I would not expect to see any other mode of expression arriving at anything different. So where precisely is the OR ??

Neil Parker (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

change of emphasis

See my comments at ANI , and on the underlying matter at Deletion Review. I shall clear up some things I promised people, and I intend otherwise to concentrate on urging Shoemaker's Holiday to return to us-- see my comment to him at [9], and then, with his help, dealing with the various issues that gave rise to this. I'd appreciate people not asking me for assistance on other matters meanwhile. I am not experienced with arb com, but if someone does the mechanics, I'll help with the arguments for removing Stifle--not that I anticipate that much of an argument will be needed. DGG (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC) (due to personal matters, I may be inactive altogether for the next 24 hours or so. And my experience at staying away from computers while on a short holiday was sufficient beneficial to my feeling of balance, that I shall be repeating it rather frequently. If I hadn't done that, I would have followed Shoemaker out the door today.)DGG (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Xming deletion attempts

As independent person and sysop, would you please intervene in the attempt of article deletion undertaken by a newly created user, clearly created only for the purpose of deleting the article. The article has had notability problems in past, which I tried to help correct today by providing independent sources, but apparently forces exist that wish to delete the article under any circumstances while the articles subject is clearly notable outside of WP and which has now been shown by references. See the talk page of the article. Thanks. Kbrose (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: another sysop has already intervened. Kbrose (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

good! For this sort of work Gwen is much more experienced than I & one of the people I rely on when I need help in figuring out these situations. DGG (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

ECRI Institute

DGG -- Were you able to get anywhere with ECRI Institute? You were hoping to have it written by June 4th. Please let me know. We're really excited about getting it up. CarolKocherecri (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

various other problems have arisen. Still working on it. DGG (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Estonia–Luxembourg relations

Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So you're older than me?

Wow, I thought only Bishonen could come close to my age -- & that now she's gone I felt a bit like I was the Last of the Mohicans. So, would you be interested in forming an "Old Farts Cabal" & maybe terrorizing newbies into supplying us with Geritol? :-) llywrch (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

the NYC user group covers the complete range, as far as I know. DGG (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Bilateral relations articles

I'm aware of your lack of confidence in my continuation as a sysop, and I don't think I can (or should attempt to) sway you on that. However, on a separate matter, the last couple of weeks have convinced me that the continuing poisonous atmosphere of AFDs, DRVs, and other discussions on the subject of bilateral relations articles should be considered harmful. Do you think there is a (good) way to freeze all new creations and deletion discussions of these articles in favour of calm discussion before the matter goes completely out of control? If not, I can see this ending up as a trainwreck in the style of the Macedonia dispute. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Stifle, sorry I didn't answer earlier, but I was out most of the day & am just catching up. I never give up, and i would be delighted to resume or begin cooperation. I apologize for sounding snarky, but at the time I got into it, things were indeed, as you say, descending into the lower levels. I didn't even at first notice you willingness to revert. Had this been spotted earlier and your good proposal accepted, things would not have gotten to where I saw them. For an admin when challenged to be willing to fix or reconsider or let someone else take over restores a good deal of confidence; the problem is when people are stubborn. Take it as a measure of my general frustration that i implied otherwise.

I altogether agree that if one wanted to keep all the articles, the current situation is absurd, and ditto if delete, and ditto if anything in between. The only reason for continuing as we have been doing is a preference for having a random group of articles than to possibly lose one's preferred position, and that is never a good idea no matter what one's preference is--this, or fiction, or schools, or roads, or anywhere. We should argue about where to draw the line; drawing one anywhere is better than chaos.

I too have been reading Macedonia, and we can do not need a repeat. Perhaps though their hint to appoint an outside mediator and follow what is said regardless of whether one likes it is the way to go on these if absolutely necessary/. But for this question, I think we do not need that--I think we can still find a compromise. It's a new issue and positions have not yet hardened as they have on some others.

Freezing AfD has been suggested before, Proposed text: Stifle and DGG want to jointly suggest that it would be a good idea to freeze all AfDs and related actions on these articles, and defer creating new ones. This does is not meant to inhibit adding new information to existing articles, working on deleted articles in userspace, discussing existing articles on their talk page, and discussing policy at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force We urge an uninvolved administrator to enforce this.
Post it anywhere. We can jointly spread the word. DGG (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I propose to post this on AN this evening (around 21:00 UTC, give or take). Feel free to edit. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I support your proposed post, DGG, and myself agree to neither create any new bilateral relations articles nor start any AfDs on them. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Posted; I see no reason for further delay. I plan to advertise the AN discussion at appropriate noticeboards, AFDs, and user talk pages, but will be away from my computer for a few hours. Stifle (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

subtopic

surely you need WP:SANCTIONS to do this. correct me if I'm wrong, but if what you're proposing is based on 2 admins getting an uninvolved admin to agree, is that standard procedure? LibStar (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

IAR, my friend. toxic situations need to be stopped. People who oppose stopping them will be thought of as they deserve. Stifle and I completely disagree on this and many topics, but have a common interest in preserving Wikipedia. Do you share it? . DGG (talk)

then bring it up for WP:SANCTIONS if you feel so strongly about it? Are you going to enforce this by using blocks because 3 admins agree?...I don't think such a path is wise. get wider community consensus first. LibStar (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I hear your advice, but will follow my own judgment about what will be most effective. Any uninvolved admin may act in an emergency, and any fair procedure is justified to protect WP. I am involved, & therefore have no intention whatsoever using admin powers on anything on this topic, and i am sure stifle realizes that also. If anyone blocks you, it won't be me. End of subtopic. DGG (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

hardly an emergency, why are you reluctant to take it to WP:SANCTIONS? Wikipedia works by established process and procedure and consensus. In effect, there is no current sanction or guideline regarding nomination of deletion of bilateral AfDs, so an admin would be pushing a fine line in using a block without any consensus or backing from arbitration committee. "If anyone blocks you" that almost sounds like a threat, such language is not appreciated especially from an admin. LibStar (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comments to Stifle [10], his proposal is much more mature and sensible than what you suggested earlier today, this is not an emergency, no one is injured, a child hasn't gone missing, the hot water hasn't stopped running. Wikipedia is not life and death. the only thing here is maybe some bruised pride. I am against say an administrator Z effectively acting unilaterally because admins X and Y want that. that would produce quite a backlash. Consensus is best. LibStar (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Roads

You have removed prod templates from a number of articles about roads in China, giving the edit summary "major national roads are considered notable in WP". Can you tell me what is your source for this statement? I have searched extensively, and cannot find any record of this in either policy or guideline. In fact the only places I have found which even mention the question are proposals and essays which have not gained consensus, as:

Wikipedia:Notability_(streets,_roads,_and_highways)

Wikipedia:Notability_(highways)

Wikipedia:Notability_(Transportation)_(failed_proposal)

Wikipedia:Notability_(streets_and_roads).

If, as you imply, there is somewhere on Wikipedia an acceptance of the principal you state, please let me have a link to it, so that I can read it and avoid mistakes on the subject in the future. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Permit me to butt in. I presume that DGG wasn't suggesting a policy or guideline, but that such is the common result at AfD. I would call your attention to WP:OUTCOMES generally and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Geography and astronomy. An editor removing {{prod}} where it can be expected that there will be a significant number of editors opining keep (if the article is nominated for deletion) seems wholly appropriate. Bongomatic 11:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Bongo understands my actions right. What I personally think should be done with such articles is irrelevant. I know they will be challenged, and, based on what usually happens there, qyuite possibly upheld, though of course AfD is notoriously unpredictable. Since every one of the articles can certainly be easily expanded by anyone who can work with Chinese sources, I would suggest a careful reading of WP:BEFORE prior to deciding to list them at AfD. I point out in particular, that even if not expanded, they would at the very least be useful redirects, and therefore deletion would be inappropriate.

Quite a number of routine practices at AfD do not have consensus as separate guidelines. The nature of decision-making here makes this inevitable: consensus for a formal guideline requires a supermajority (or uncertain extent), and consequently a few determined people can keep up a filibuster indefinitely. However, AfD is less susceptible to filibusters--there must be a decision in every case, even if it is non-consensus. The rules at WP are the rules that we follow, not only the rules that we write. And, like other organizations, we often find ourselves with a written rule that we do not follow, but still cannot get consensus to formally remove. DGG (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Notability, which is of course part of the U.S. roads project, but the same ideas apply to other countries. The equivalent of the China National Highways is the United States Numbered Highways, which all have articles. --NE2 23:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Shortgrass Library System

hi there! if you have time, can you have a look see about this? Google is not helping one iota but I think the library system is preferable to having an article on all the member libraries, but absent heritage listed buildings I have no idea what makes libraries notable. Any thoughts? If it's beyond hope, feel free to PROD, I declined a no-context speedy because it had plenty context. Have a good day StarM 04:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

precedent is that we do have articles on county systems. I'll check their organizational nature. Some town libraries have made it too, sometimes over my opposition. DGG (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

figured as much, and county systems seem more likely to have some notability than all their parts. Since I posted this, the creator added a little rom the system's own site, but I can't find much in google to use to expand it. Thanks again StarM 00:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)== Opinion requested ==

Hello,

I am coming here because I am a little baffled by an AfD and I have found your comments on previous AfDs to be helpful on a number of occasions. You are certainly near the top of my list of people I respect most on Wikipedia.

The AfD is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jacob_Appelbaum. I am just being dense or are the deletes completely ignoring the sources and arguing based on their opinion of what is/isn't important? (Not judging anyone, as I know I've been guilty of this myself in the past.) Your opinion would be appreciated by me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. By all means, don't comment on the actual AfD if such would be considered inappropriate since I drew your attention to it.

I commented on the basis of the entire previous discussion and a quick reading of some of the material. As always, I said that I had been asked to comment, so people can evaluate what I said as they see fit. DGG (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, how in the world do you find time to comment on so many AfDs while doing so much other work on Wikipedia? :)

Having accumulated some varied experience from RW careers, I have "retired" to apply it here, and found I am learning a lot more than i every thought I would know. DGG (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Citing public records

Ok, I hate to bug you again, but there are some articles I have worked on/am working on that have some supporting documents in public records. Not available on the internet, I have to go to the clerk's office to get them. How would I cite them here on Wiki? Thanks in advance :) Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There may be a problem. Unpublished archival sources cannot always be used as references. The closest relevant separate discussion is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archival materials, but there have also been multiple discussions at the RS noticeboard and elsewhere. When they are used for references, you cite them by including a full description of their title, authorship, and the designators used by the archive involved for organizing them. It is very highly advisable to include an exact quotation, either in the article or in the footnote. It is often possible to add them separately, under a subheading ===archival sources===. This is difficult to answer in the abstract, and you might want to ask the question for the specific source involved at the RS noticeboard. If this is a contentious matter, expect contention. DGG (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) It really shouldn't be contentious (Landmark information, etc). But I'll take it there. :) Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

St. John's University (New York)

A content dispute at St. John's University (New York) between an IP editor and a registered editor with a potential conflict of interest has gotten a bit out of hand and devolved into personal attacks, outing, and general nastiness. A 24-hour page protection has been imposed, but I'm requesting that other editors intervene to develop a consensus on the dispute while the protection is in place. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

doneDGG (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oddity

See [11]. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

not significant, but thanks for noticing. DGG (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of speedy tag

I'm sure you had a good reason, but why did you take the speedy tag off of Hyatt Regency Hotel, Lexington and what does'arai' (in the edit summary) mean? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

oops, my abbreviation expander software didn't work that time: it should have read "As reviewing admin, I think this shows at least some minimal importance, so not appropriate for speedy deletion." I consider being a major hotel at least a weak implication of importance as a business, and we have many such articles. In addition, viewed as a building rather than a business, buildings are not eligible for speedy A7. But I am not sure what I would say for this one at AFD. Articles do not have to be notable to pass speedy. They just have to indicate some possible importance, a deliberately much lower bar. If you nominate it, the community will decide. I never quite thought of it this way, but it is interesting that as an admin I have the power to delete articles, but not to prevent their deletion. I can undelete, but that is taken more seriously and not usually done without checking with the deleting admin, so I like most admins am reluctant to do that. Another asymmetry in process that favors deletion. DGG (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. I'm not sure how one would judge a major hotel, and I didn't know about buildings. In this case I know the article wasn't created for publicity purposes, just an editor trying to create a lot of articles I think, which is fine. Thanks for the explanation. Dougweller (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

George Estrada

Do you think this subject passes WP:PROF? I am trying to save this one. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

only 1 real book, with only a few library holdings. (The new one is just a collection of his newspaper columns) Not notable under WP:PROF; Maybe you can find something substantial in the googles. Journalists are a problem for our notability criteria. DGG (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the (technical) advice. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Second opnion on sourced vs unsourced.

Dgg-- I would like a second opinion please on William Snyder (politician) and Juan C. Zapata. For these Florida House of Representative articles I have used their House pages and Project Votesmart. It is my understanding that such can be used for clearly notable individuals in which 1) it is unlikely that the subject would provide inaccurate information and 2) the information has likely been vetted by the State of Florida. User:Bali ultimate has recently tagged them as unsourced. Thanks for your time and consideration. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 01:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

such sources can be used for uncontroversial routine material, like all official bios. It wouldn't hurt to find a newspaper article or two as well, & it shouldn't be difficult, so I have changed the tag to {{improvereferences}}.. If there are further problems with this, consider WP:RSN, the Reliable sources noticeboard. DGG (talk) 02:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll on displaying time since last edit

Hi, you weighed in on the "display time since last edit on article" discussion at the Village pump. I have now started a straw poll on the subject at WP:Village pump (proposals)#Straw poll. Your opinion would be appreciated. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Lockwood edits

I saw the changes/edits you've made on my article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charles_Lockwood_(historian). Quite a big help! Thank you for dedicating some time to it, though I know it still needs some citations. I'm still working on it. As regards to omitting the subject descriptor along with his name, I'm afraid I had to keep it that way as Lockwood doesn't use a middle initial. I actually would like to request if it can be renamed to Charles Lockwood (Sustainability Authority)as it better matches his current field? Jxc5 (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "historian" is not ideal, but we use the most generic brief form possible. Since others are an admiral and a surgeon, try "author." or "writer". You can move the page yourself. DGG (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

{{Expand}} and {{Stub}}

FYI, articles with stub templates on them typically aren't supposed to have expand templates as well.--Rockfang (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Academic views on Falun Gong deletion

Thanks for your recommendation to use the AfD function, I was not aware that that was the most appropriate thing to do, so I have learnt something there. I also learnt how to list a page for AfD, which was a worthwhile experience. I understand the importance of correct procedure and compliance with expected norms. Let's hope it is not all that contentious in the end, though. Page here, FYI: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Academic_views_on_Falun_Gong --Asdfg12345 02:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

yes, on topics like this, it's always good to let the community decide & then nobody can complain that there was an incorrect arbitrary decision .DGG (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

RantMedia to stay in Wikipedia

As you were previously involved in AfD discussions regarding RantMedia and Sean Kennedy (Author), I respectfully request your attendance to the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RantMedia. I believe there have been MANY productive responses to concerns on past AfD's, but some still don't seem to agree. If there is any way you can think of improving the article, or contributing to the current AfD, I would appreciate it. Thank you very much for your time. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 18:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC) "

not really my subject. DGG (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

X-Y DRV

This is frustrating. Why didn't you talk to me about this first?

The DRV wasn't going to overturn that AFD, pretty obviously, and the proposal you're referring to is already at AN here. I don't know what opinion you think I hold on bilateral relations articles, but the close has more to do with repeatedly using DRV as a second bite at the AFD apple, something a number of people mentioned even in that specific DRV. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

you are right, and I have struck. If you'd like to have the clerk remove the paragraph altogether, that's OK by me, you can link to here. as support for that. Whether you want to ask that your reply be removed too is up to you--it might not be clear as it stands without my comment, or you may think the current status shows you in better light. Your choice on it all. I should indeed have asked you to reopen; I am not going to do so now--no sense in complicating matters yet further. What to do about the presently open AfDs and deletion reviews is confusing--one can argue equally that it is less disruptive to let them close normally, or to halt them. I think you did indeed choose what you did in good faith. All I can say in my defense is that I was away from my computer a good deal the last two days, & responding piecemeal to a very rapid discussion. (I also commented at the Talk p for Deletion Review, and I will check what I said there to see if it needs revision.) . DGG (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the whole thing reflects on me well, at least I hope. (If it doesn't, then it should remain anyway!)

As for closing the open ones, I'm inclined to leave most of them open, but I've been trying to curb the excesses around the edges, and in this case RAN was really obviously negligent in arguing the case at hand rather than the larger issue. He's not the only one doing it, but there was an obvious case of it in plain sight. The ongoing mess plus the bad nom plus the near unanimity added up to a speedy close. As for how I feel about the larger issue, Ikip, of all people, had my favorite solution for dealing with all of them: merges with an eye to graphing the super-common stuff, spinning off the noteworthy relationships, then summarizing the rest.

As for going to arbcom first, I guess I'm not mad, and the apology is felt. I dunno, it seems like it's infected all of us. Talking won't accomplish anything, action is necessary! Except that talking helps form a consensus for action, and helps keep disagreements from hardening into arguments and then fights and then rivalries and then factions, etc. I see it in myself, and I see it in everyone, and I don't really know the solution. I can't make everyone introspect more, especially when I'm not introspective at times. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

question on an actual practical matter to restore a sense of cooperation: I formerly also thought merging would be good, but realised that it would need to deal with the problem that there will always be two places to merge, If X-Y is relatively minor, the specifics would need to be merged to both X and Y. It might be clearer to keep the many small articles. I think it shows that ultimately transclusion of small segments into larger articles might be the way to go, (and in fiction also--the problem is similar to minor characters included in several different works) but this would in practice mean a rewrite of the encyclopedia. I can just see the complaints about attributing edits--though in any complicated article, my personal feeling is that attributing material is a delusion. DGG (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think he made a huge list of all of them for each nation off-wiki, then started boiling that down. I'm not 100% sure; you'd have to ask him what he was doing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

One thing we all agree; the original construction of the articles in this crude way was not done well. I can very well see the temptation to throw them out and start over, but on the other hand, there's also the opportunity to cover an under-covered area. But I asked if you had a solution to this point about the difficulty of merging? DGG (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't. Ikip had one that I liked, for what I saw. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD hell

I'm normally on the side of Delete, but of late I'm seeing AfDs brought up ridiculously early and on an earlier AfD for Ellis Watson, I saw that you had backed up my comment on that. Can you take a look at the AfDs for FACT Software International Pte Ltd, Replay Solutions and Global Adjustments. The first was created within a minute of the article, the second within five minutes, the third is a non-reason nomination, and all three were created within ten minutes by the same user. It could very well be good faith errors, but I'd like to see what you think. These AfDs have made me move from searching for articles to delete to trying to save articles on AfD! -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

this is an individual inexperienced person, and several people are joining in to teach him. The opinion of colleagues can be very persuasive. Actually, it's relative rare to see this at AfD, but much more common to do this at Speedy Deletion.--extensive discussions in the archives of its talk page, WT:CSD. It's of course much more dangerous there, since articles tagged for speedy are usually deleted within a few minutes. Some administrators,even, will delete articles that are rather obviously still in the first stages of being written. There have been various proposals for a built-in delay, but there are so many that must really be speedily deleted that its hard to balance that with catching them all. But as for AfD, the obvious solution, and one that has often been proposed on its talk page, is to require the use of WP:BEFORE when the question is notability. so far, these proposals have been always blocked by a few regular users who are accustomed to the present ways, or perhaps, are reluctant to put any impediments in the way of deletion. You might want to keep track of discussions there. Improvements are not totally impossible--we did get a switch form 5 to 7 days -- after at least 2 years of asking.

as for your conversion, experience with a few really bad nominations does do that. I started off rather deletionist, until I encountered an almost successful deletion request for a member of the National Academy of Sciences. I was rather deletionist about fiction, also, until I saw the successful deletion of the article on the main female chanracter of War and Peace. DGG (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Laurent Lantieri

Laurent Lantieri performed the world's first full transplant?

What does this mean? 龗 (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Does your computer have access to www.google.com? It's quite a useful internet site. You might with to familiarize yourself with its functionality. Even the most cursory web search would have show the complete topic and demonstrated beyond any possible doubt the notability of the subject. Bongomatic 22:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What is full transplant? I cannot find it on Google 龗 (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you search for "Laurent Lantieri"? That's how I found out who he was. Since this is ostensibly an article about him, that would be a logical place to start. Bongomatic 00:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

the wording first full face transplant. We have to check if it's actually correct, and precisely what it does means, but it is unambiguously a claim to notability. "Unclear" is not a reason for speedy deletion. it's a reason for doing some research. DGG (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, "Contributors are welcome to use usernames that are not spelled using the Latin alphabet, but should bear in mind that scripts of non-Latin languages (such as Arabic, Cyrillic, Chinese, Greek or Japanese) are illegible to most contributors to the English Wikipedia. To avoid confusion and aid navigation, users with such usernames are encouraged to use Latin characters in their signature." from WP:USERNAME DGG (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi DGG. I have a question. First, I note that the user in question is a just-blocked sock relative to the tumultuous ongoing RfA. It strikes me that users who wish to cover their tracks will be more apt to use non-Latin-character names, as that makes review of their activities more difficult. I see you made this suggestion months ago, and it was ignored. Do you think that this rule should be shored up, so that only all-latin-character names are used?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

in this case it may have made it more, not less, conspicuous. But as for confusion, a week or so ago I mixed up two people in an arb com comment through misreading a non-latin name--at my request the arb clerk fixed my stupid error. My stupid error for not double-checking, but still.... DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Understood. My point is this -- some of these non-Latin character names are unsearchable by normal PCs. That is a problem if one wants to, for example, see prior AN/Is that the editor in question has been named in.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

And another question--it now appears that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled 12th Studio Album (Megadeth) may have been closed a non-consensus due to delete votes by 2 socks (龗 and The Real Libs-speak politely) -- which accounted for 2 of the three delete votes. Should that be looked at again and closed as a keep, and if so what is the process for doing so? The closer is no longer editing I understand.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

there is usually in a case like this a check to see whether any afds or other !votes were critically affected by the socking & they are corrected systematically; imagine this will be done here by one of the people who usually does this work. In this case, since it had little effect, I wouldn't press it. Had this moved the AfD to delete, it would be relisted. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

ODAT AfD

I'd opened an AfD for ODAT. Apparently the company has taken it to heart that they created an article that was not per Wikipedia standards and have posted a couple of apologetic and agreeable messages on the AfD. I'm not sure how to handle this, can you take a look and maybe respond to what they've asked? I initially suggested that they userfy the page since there's no significant coverage of this particular topic anywhere and to bring to main space when they have sufficient references. They're all pretty new editors, so some sort of mentoring might also be good, and they've asked a question about an editor's page being deleted, as a non-admin, I have no clue about that. As the nominator, I guess I'm the only editor looking at the page, so can you take a look? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ODAT. Thanks -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

commented there. a good deal of work to do to straighten this one out. You were right to bring it to attention at AfD. DGG (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD on Right-wing political support for the 1973 Chilean coup

I have opened an AfD here[[12]] and other three admin. have voiced their opinion, and since I know you were involved in the denial of speedy deletion of that article, I thought you might be interested in voicing yours.

Regads, Likeminas (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

responded at the afd. No point keeping this one. DGG (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted after PROD removed

Hi David, Portugalicia was deleted today as a recreation, following a deletion decision in 2007. I hadn't known about that AFD until now, but I thought I had left it in a supportable condition after I de-PRODded it recently. Would you mind checking whether you agree with its deletion? - Fayenatic (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have mailed you the originally deleted article. Do you need a copy of the later one also? I would not have deleted your version of the article as G4, but I do not think it would hold at AfD, so it might be better to try to find some additional sources, and then do it in user space, and ask the deleting admin to have a look. Myself, I do not see real evidence for general use or historic use. Who, for example, authorized the flag? The tourist agency you found may or may not be relevant. The Spanish article has now been deleted. The Portuguese one was nominated for deletion but kept, at [13]. The discussion there seems interesting, though i cannot read it fluently. DGG (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'd already done a search for sources before leaving it. I'll let it go. I don't think it's appropriate to merge it into AGAL or any of the articles linked there. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Toon Zone (3rd nomination)

Do you really think that less-than-one-sentence mentions are "significant third party coverage", or are you just being a rabid inclusionist again? :-P Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

discuss it at the AfD. The community will decide. As for rabid, i've done a count, and my keeps/deletes=3:1; Rabid by my book is 50:1. (And my ratio would by 2:1 except for bilateral relations). DGG (talk)

Sorry for the accusatory tone, but it seems like almost every day I'm running into an AFD where you're the only person !voting "keep". At least you're not saying "Speedy keep, it clearly exists, nothing else matters". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What I am basically saying, is do not delete this without careful thought, without answering possible objections, and without a chance to see if anyone else comes to speak for it.If you encounter me doing it once a day, that is less than 1:100, which is in my view a pretty moderate effort to prevent pile-on deletion. My experience here is that after several people have spoken for deletion, it sometimes takes an unusually self-confident person to say otherwise. It's not surprising that I am sometimes not supported; in articles where I know I will be supported by the community, I don't usually bother any more, but concentrate on the most difficult ones. To some extent I work as an advocate: I will say what can be said for an article. (I sometimes wonder whether we should not have someone assigned to say that for every nominated article --sometimes the author does, but xe often does that very poorly.) As such, I cannot know whether I am right or wrong until others have spoken. Considering the high proportion of articles that are nominated for deletion without thought or searching, someone is needed to check whether there might be any possible defense for them. DGG (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Rabies#Symptoms article confirms DGG's ratio test. The good news, TPH, is that if he really is a rabid inclusionist, you can expect him to become inactive in "two to ten days". Bongomatic 17:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Remarkable, that you and I came up with that 50:1 independently. Glad we agree on something DGG (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

GHits in an article?

I hate asking a 2nd question like this, but I would have reverted that Wiseman edit on principle. Are you sure about its inclusion? Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

it's a hack in place of a proper expansion to show the ones that are pertinent, which are about half. It is however enough to overcome the argument there nobody refers to him, which is a proper use.

I see, but surely all of those authors might have been calling his works rubbish, or supporting him and saying that he proves that aliens built the pyramids. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, it needs to be expanded with the actual citations. Anyhow, something which many scholars go to the trouble of citing the work as rubbish is notable. (a much more difficult problem is the fringe theory so weird that scholars simply ignore, and we can find no 3rd party references for). And the sources there show that the citing people cannot be all cranks. DGG (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Standstill

The bilateral relations standstill is in effect. Unfortunately I am busy in real life (and away for the weekend). If you want to kick off something as discussed in our emails (whether at Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Notability criteria or elsewhere), please do. If not, I'll look at it on Sunday evening. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC) I will do a draft, under a sub page Stifle-DGG Questions. Three parallel lines: A/. What sort of relationships does it cover. B/. Whether special considerations of geography and history matter, and the main issue, approached from both ends, C/. How much in the way of relationships counts/does not count. with the side issue of what sort of sources count. DGG (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate being informed if & when these discussions begin. Thanks. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Everyone will be informed. DGG (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Justin Ryan DiCosola-- notability?

Hello, I would appreciate a second opinion of this. In my opinion, subject is not notable, with his only claim to significance being through his family. I do not feel sufficient third party coverage exists, see here and here. However, due to the woefully inclusionist turn which AFD has taken, I though I would check first with someone whose opinion I trust. Thanks. Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Myself, I'd say AfD has taken a turn for the erratic, not for any particular direction. Unless the prize is notable, which seems unlikely, it would be hopeless, and I can not verify the prize. [14] I have therefore speedy deleted it, just as you did to an earlier version. If he tries a third time, let's salt and block. DGG (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hah. He tuned it up in the latest version. Thanks. Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Double hah. Zoomed right over my head without me noticing. Gotta become more active again.Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User 208.238.204.90 block request

Dear DGG, please block this anonymous user as (s)he is vandalizing pages, e.g. Internet of Things, repeatedly undoes reverts, ignores warnings, and makes negative statements on the article's talk page and on my talk page. Thanks Kbrose (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

the first step is to protect the article for a short while against anonymous editing, and I have done that. I have also given the user a warning which I hope will be sufficient. I will try to keep track, but let me know if any problems return, or ask at WP:AIV. DGG (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that should help. Say, has it been discussed to provide the power to semi-protect articles for a certain period of time (perhaps 24h would often be sufficient) as an individually assignable privilege to certain qualifying editors? Kbrose (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

olor="#0000FF">e Transhumanist   ]] 21:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

AFSC Bookstore Thank You

Thank you for your suggestions. As soon as I saw the article was recommend for speedy deletion I began to revise it. Your comments help to direct my approach. You indicated a link http://afscstore.org]in your response about the bookstore. Can I cite a page Bookstore from the AFSC website about the AFSC Bookstore? Of course I understand that even if acceptable that would only be one source. Also I understand I would need to show there is something special about the Bookstore. I would suggest that in an age of on-line bookstores the specialness is less evident. The AFSC Bookstore has a history of being a reservoir of resources that were not easily found, if found at all because the subject matter was outside of dominate cultural norms. This was my main goal in submitting an article on the organization. The holes in the documentation of the work done by the AFSC, I would assert, come partially from the position of the organization to not put a light on the work they do. With that in mind can the special events and activites that have taken place over many years meet those criteria. I would include speakers/authors/artist, social political gatherings? Thank you for your help the process here has changed so much it is easily to get lost in the rules and the navigation of the site.Grmcur (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've known a number of such stores, and they have to be well enough known to be referred to by print sources not connected with the organization at all, and that give more than an incidental mention. See, for example Cody's Books. Events there count, but the problem with them is that almost all such references mention the venue just incidentally. It's been very hard to get articles on venues accepted here unless you can cite such a reference talking about the venue as such. That it has had notable speakers has not in the past been accepted by the community. Personally, I think perhaps it should sometimes be accepted, but the decision is almost always otherwise. And, as you realize, it is hard to find sources for groups or places which don't run in a way that gets lots of press. BTW, major alternative newspapers do count as good d sources here. Unfortunately, we can't really compensate for that. I think you'll do better merging. [[User:DGG|D

Psikxas @ ANI

Greetings, DGG. If this isn't the first report I've made at ANI, it's the first in recent memory; what now? I ask because Miszabot auto-archived all threads more than 24 hours old, which left several pending issues unresolved — including this one. Thanks, —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

speedies

I have responded at my talk page. I42 (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

BIASED VIEW

DGG - Your intervention into the artile PimpMyNumber is biased. Yourself and Kbrose appear to "work in coroboration" since a number of edits that Kbrose has done you have also edited coincidence? Maybe but compelling to say you are Kbrose's puppet or vice versa. It is stated on your talk page that all companies/organisations should be removed, is that not biased when dealing with issues like this, is your role not a conflict of interest? //Melonite (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I say nothing of the sort; I say that for companies and all other subjects, that promotional material should be removed, and I agree with the universally held policy that removing both favorable and unfavorable relevant well-sourced information should be reverted. DGG (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

DGG, I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Melonite, and also to the somewhat laughable Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kbrose. Uncle G (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Designer baby

Hi there, hope you are well, I was puzzled by your comment in this AfD, and have replied to it there. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

typo. see there.,DGG (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so it happens to the best of us! I recently found an edit comment of mine saying that I'd "revered the edit", instead of just having reverted it. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A Treasure Trove

First, thanks for your assistence at Catherine Hakim. The author is a friend and he is on his Honeymoon. The threatened speedy delete would have been a dissapointment I'm sure. (While Im a member of the Article Rescue Squad, I do my best to stay out of the fray that surrounds deleting/improving) Second, I plan on "ingesting" your talk pages. What little I have read are lessons on sane wikiediting. Thank you for sharing yourself with us.--Buster7 (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

you might then in particular want to see my topical archives listed at the start of the page, where I have pulled out some discussions of some recurring subjects. I support your approach , that it is more important to improve what is improvable (while deleting the junk) than to argue about them. DGG (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

7528 Huskvarna

The same guy nominated this for speedy after you declined. I declined and cleaned it up, removing blank links (like he could have done rather than tag it, argh). Any way, you may want to keep an eye on it to see if he goes for a third-time's-a-charm approach. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Recreating an article

I'd like to recreate the Devendra Prabhudesai article. It was a close AfD discussion, to the best of my recollection, and I think the wrong decision was made. But regardless, this June 7 story in the Hindu [15] and this one from April [16] certainly go a long way to establish notability. I already have the article in my userspace, but I don't want to violate GFDL by recreating without the edit history. I hope all is well with you. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I replaced your userspace article with the one carrying the history and incorporating your modifications. Next time, please ask to have it done this way in the first place, rather than copy and paste. DGG (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Will do. Roger roger. Thank you very much. As always. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Right-wing political support for the 1973 Chilean coup

G'day DGG: Regarding this AfD, I have done some work on this article - but it has a long way to go. The edits done alter the basis of the initial nomination for deletion - given that the material that was said to have been "pasted and copied" is now in quote form and the source of the article's content...Regards...Moshe-paz (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

much improved, as I commented there. DGG (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I finally got to whack somebody with a trout!

That was fun.  :)

The Transhumanist 23:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Independent sources

• Frozen plasticity (AfD discussion)

The issues with this one seem to be in your field. Uncle G (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

yes, interesting. The subject is in my field also. DGG (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Help on ref. to Time Magazine

Dear David, my friend found a ref. to Time in the article on N C Yeh, but did not know how to do it in the modern online way. Nor do I. Can you help? Much obliged.--EJohn59 (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)EJohn

that particular column is not in the online edition on their site; it might be elsewhere, but the print references is sufficient. I did some reformatting to our usual format.DGG (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, you're always helpful and expeditious.--EJohn59 (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)EJohn

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leander A.S.C

Thanks for letting me know; I put in my two cents. I do agree with your decision. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 3 Former Olympics swimmers are currently senior coaches and 1 is the head coach

Re: Three's Company (1989)

You deprodded the Three's Company (1989) article. I just want to give you a heads up that I took it to AfD. If you want to speak your case, it's at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three's Company (1989). Thanks. Tavix |  Talk  02:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

you nominated it on the basis of "no English language sources." That is not a reason to delete. I have no opinion otherwise about the article. DGG (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Call for opinion on a neutrality accusation in a human genetics related article

As a fellow member of the WikiProject HGH may I ask for opinions on this accusation?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Outline update - Good news and bad news - 06/08/2009

The big push continues.

And it seems to be working!

The good news is that there's growing support for outlines, and there are more editors than ever editing them!

The bad news is that the complainers are disproportionately represented on the project's various talk pages. While many editors work diligently on the front end, a handful of complainers are trying to tear down the project behind the scenes. Fortunately, barely enough supporters have been watching those pages that no consensus for moving or merging the outlines has succeeded. So far...

Big problem: ignorance of what outlines are for and their benefits

Most of the opposition seems to be unaware of the complete range of what outlines are used for. They just don't get it.

This is why it is important to complete the outline article draft. An article with a comprehensive treatment of outlines would be the perfect place to refer anybody unfamiliar with outlines to.

Opposers also don't seem to understand how outlines differ from some other page type that they prefer. Some think articles are good enough as an overview, others think portals are more in-depth, still others think categories or navigation boxes are the most efficient and useful way to organize and present topical information. Some have simply never seen an "Outline of" page before and think they are a new type of page (they've been around under other names since 2001).

If you run across anyone who doesn't understand the role of outlines on Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Why do we have outlines in addition to...? might help reduce their misconceptions or uncertainties about outlines.

On the bright side, you've got to see this...

To add the outlines and related support pages to your watchlist (takes less than 30 seconds), cut and paste them from Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Watchlist into your raw watchlist. For a way to improve the display of your watchlist - by namespace (very useful) - see Watchlist sorter, or use the "super fast upgrade" at WP:OTS.

Or go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Watchlist using Related changes (currently without the talk pages) and click on "Related changes" in the toolbox menu on the sidebar on the left side of your screen.

The big push

The big push started with about a thousand banners and notices being placed on article talk pages all over Wikipedia.

But it didn't stop there...

Welcome our new members...

The following Wikipedians have joined the OOK team.

Be sure to stop by their talk pages and introduce yourselves.

• Tarheel95 - going after the Main Page.
• Vivio Testarossa / Feinoha - here to help.
• Burningview - made a splash at MfD with Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Drafts/Outline of British Columbia (see the talk page for the MfD link - lots of support there).

Enter the mentors!

I asked a bunch of mentors at WP:ADOPT for advice. Several of them answered on my talk page. Most of those who replied were happy to help, and posted some very good ideas. A couple even joined the project.

Here are their ideas, and what is being done about them. A few of the tasks still need volunteers:

• Strdst grl: Create and place project banners - already  Done
• Strdst grl & The Earwig: put an animated ad for the project in WP:BANNER - Our graphics specialist Penubag is looking into it.
• Strdst grl: Create a userbox for the project - assigned to Penubag.
• Garden: Ask to have outlines added to next year's WikiCup competition -  Done (proposal posted)
• Tarheel95: Add a link to Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge to the Main Page - Tarheel95 is taking on the creation of the proposal
• SriMesh: Create an outreach subpage to WPOOK -  Done (invitation coming soon, see below)
• SriMesh: (Create a newsletter archive subpage) -  Done
• SriMesh: Add a feed to AlexNewArtBot to gather links to new outlines and post them on a page. Then personally invite new creators to the project. - who wants to tackle the feed?
• SriMesh: Assign someone to monitor the outlines via watchlist, and invite new outline editors to the project - any volunteers?
• Related: Create an invitation - Penubag is working on it.
• SriMesh: Create Template:Expand outline similar to Template:Expand list, which adds each outline it is posted on to Category:Incomplete outlines, where editors (who are browsing the categories) can find them and work on them - to be assigned
• SriMesh: Add the above template to incomplete outlines - upcoming AWB task
• The Earwig: "Tell your wikifriends about it" - I've told mine, have you told yours?
• The Earwig: "Collaborate with other WikiProjects" - we've been doing this from the start (each outline is associated with at least one other WikiProject).
• : move the projected outline to a subpage of WP:WPOOK -  Done

Linking to outlines has begun

To the tops of about 30 subject articles, I placed a test batch of hatnotes leading to the corresponding outlines. The hatnotes look like this:

For a topical guide to this subject, see Outline of X.(Hidden: <!- PLEASE LEAVE THIS LINE IN PLACE because it leads to the page that serves as the table of contents for Wikipedia's overall coverage of this subject. Thank you.-->

The rationale for the hatnotes is that each outline is a topical guide for its subject, and since tables of contents go at the front of a book, a link to each outline should be placed at the front of its subject.

Unfortunately, not all editors agree. Some of the hatnotes have already disappeared.  :(

Some past discussions pertaining to the existence or location of outlines

Note that the "Lists of topics" are of two types, including outlines and indexes, so discussions to remove, move, or merge those are usually relevant to the OOK. Also, outlines are a type of list, so discussions that affect lists in general also pertain to outlines. We've got to be on our toes!

• Wikipedia:Move navigational lists to portal namespace
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of Islamic and Muslim related topics
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of South Africa
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of basic visual arts and design topics
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of basic mining topics
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of basic management topics
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of basic industrial topics
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of basic computer science topics
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of basic Canada topics
• User talk:The Transhumanist/Archive 21#Question copied from Juliancolton's page
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Drafts/Outline of British Columbia
• Talk:Switzerland#Orphaned article: Outline of Switzerland
• Outline of science converted to redirect by Dbachmann
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 64#"Outlines"
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive193#Shadow Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 47#OoK's expediency

I've excluded links to live discussions, out of respect for WP:CANVASS.

Table of contents to OOK-related stuff

Here's a directory of outline support pages:

• Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge
• Wikipedia:Lists
  • WP:CLN
  • Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists
    • Wikipedia:Outlines
      • Why do we have outlines in addition to...?
      • Comparison of Wikipedia's and Britannica's outlines of knowledge
• WP:WPOOK
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Projected outline

Outline collaboration! Chocolate.

As you know, Penubag is working on a banner to advertise the Outline WikiProject. And he's almost done.

The banner prominently presents the "Outline of chocolate", which of course will become the most widely advertised outline as soon as the banner goes live. The first thing many editors will do after seeing the banner is look for that outline.

The problem is, we don't have one.

So that's our first outline collaboration!

I started a draft this morning.

It needs to be finished and moved to the article namespace before we can start using Penubag's banner ad!

Come join in on the fun. It's chocolate!

The Transhumanist 21:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the great work!

The Transhumanist 03:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Outline update - Full Steam Ahead! - 06/18/2009

Several members of the WikiProject have been hard at work.

Buaidh has been building and refining the outlines on the U.S. States, the states' historical outlines, and the Historical outline of the United States. Lately, his edits have dominated the project's watchlist readout. (I think he's overdue for a barnstar or two. hint hint)

Penubag has been working on medals for all the main branches of the OOK, and has completed the OOK WikiProject's animated advert banner (see below).

Highfields has been filling in the currencies for each country on their respective outlines.

NuclearWarfare and Thehelpfulone have been busy with WP:AWB, posting banners and notices, and helping our sister project, the Index WikiProject, get established. Indexes work hand-in-hand with the outlines and are prominently linked to from the top of most of them. And the outlines, which serve as tables of contents, are only as good as the pages they link to.

Since we started integrating (linking) the OOK and its support pages into the encyclopedia and into the Wikipedia community, activity on outlines has been increasing. Though there's still much left to do.

But I digress. There are a couple more...

Welcome our new members! Stefan and MacMed

Stefan is building the Outline of sharks.

MacMed has joined our advanced wiki-tools team, and is currently adding links to outlines in the corresponding subject articles' see also sections.

Be sure to stop by their talk pages and say "hi".

WPOOK's advert banner has gone live!

Penubag has finished this WikiProject's animated advert banner, and it is now being displayed on the Wikipedia ads template which in turn is displayed on about 2000 user pages. Each time someone access one of those pages, there is a 1 in 184 chance of them viewing this:

Wikipedia ads	file info – #184

If you'd like to display the banner on your userpage locked-on to the ad as above, use the following code:

{{Wikipedia ads|ad=184}}

(By the way, it's been awhile since we've barnstarred Penubag).

Watchers needed!

If you haven't already, please add the entire project's watchlist to your watchlist. Here's how:

From the edit window, copy and paste Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Watchlist into your raw watchlist.

Or go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Watchlist using Related changes and click on "Related changes" in the toolbox menu in Wikipedia's sidebar on the left hand side of the screen.

The OOK is in 5 other Wikipedias? I can't make heads or tails of 'em, but these links were on Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge:

• ar:ويكيبيديا:مواضيع أساسية
• fa:پورتال:فهرست موضوعات پایه
• pl:Przegląd dziedzin wiedzy
• pt:Portal:Conteúdo/Esboço do conhecimento
• zh-yue:基礎課題表清單

Resurrected from the grave yard...

I discovered an AfD discussion on possibly the first article named "Outline of", which was called Outline of Islamic and Muslim related topics, and which was created 4 years ago. Of course they deleted it. But now it has many friends, and so it has risen from the dead.  :)

See the DRV discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 7#Outline of Islamic and Muslim related topics.

A diamond buried in project space

• When G716 found the page "Learn" tucked away as a subpage of the Probability WikiProject, he thought "This deserves to be in the article space", and moved it to the encyclopedia. See Outline of probability.

.

Advice from the mentors

• Astatine-210, Strdst grl, and Willscrlt - link to the outlines from the corresponding subject articles' see also sections - this is underway by MacMed (non-country outlines) and User talk:NuclearWarfare (counry outlines).
• Astatine-210 - add a link to the outlines to the disambiguation pages of the corresponding subjects - good idea. Since "Outline" is just the type of page, not the subject, I think these might qualify for inclusion on disambiguation pages. We need someone to look into the relevant guidelines on this.
• SimonTrew - provide a badge (userbox) for WPOOK members to add to their user pages - Penubag will have one for us soon.
• Zachary crimsonwolf - create a card explaining outlines, and send it to everyone you know, and make it viral (by including a request for the recipients to send the card to everyone they know) - this task has been split in three:

1. Creation of a "thank you for your interest" card which introduces (explains) outlines, to send to queriers, new participants to discussions, those who seem to be confused about outlines, etc.
2. Creation of a thank you card / invitation to the WPOOK, to send to users we see working on outlines, including a request for them to invite others whom they think might be interested

• weebiloobil - contact Wikignomes - OK...

3. Creation of an invitation to Wikignomes, with a brief rundown on the types of tasks there are for them to do on the outlines. The invitation will include a request for them to invite anyone they think would enjoy working on outlines.

• weebiloobil - add examples to Wikipedia:Outlines - more examples will be added as suitable outlines are completed
• weebiloobil - add a picture to Wikipedia:Outlines (it doesn't have to be relevant), to provide atmosphere and to break it up visually and add a splash of color - will do, and we'll add a caption to make it relevant, with a link to the outline on that subject. Thank you for the idea.
• Zachary crimsonwolf - ask Jimbo Wales to bestow the award(s) for the country outlines contest, once you get it going first - we'll give that a try
• Zachary crimsonwolf - ask everyone in the project to inform their acquaintances around Wikipedia about the OOK - will do, as soon as the cards
• UzEE - collaborate with all the WikiProjects you share scope with - we've placed a banner on their talk pages, and have placed task notices on some. We'll be posting more tasks, and plan to create a section on contents system development and maintenance for each WikiProject page itself.
• SriMesh - if you can't get outlines added to next year's WikiCup, then create your own WikiCup-like contest - there's 6 months left to this year to address reservations and work out the details at WikiCup. In the meantime, there's the 200-WikiProject contest, which needs input.

More outline tasks

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Drafts/Outline of chocolate draft - our current outline collaboration!
• Outline of psychology - someone moved a big chunk of this article to the talk page, leaving a big gap in the outline. Editors are needed to add subheadings and links.
• See also links - add {{main|Outline of x}} (where "x" is the subject) to the see also section of the corresponding subject article of each outline

New outlines in article space

• Outline of sharks - under construction in article space
• Outline of Hinduism (converted from "List of Hinduism-related topics")

New outline drafts

• Outline of chocolate
• Outline of Christianity

Main discussion pages

• Wikipedia talk:Outlines
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outline of knowledge
• Portal talk:Contents/Outline of knowledge

Keep up the great work

I'm impressed with the level of enthusiasm and work going into the outlines. I'm proud to be working with each of you.

[[User talk:The Transhumanist|Th<font c

Outline collaboration #2: Outline of Gibraltar

This outline is approaching completion.

I added a bunch more links, finding them with the following Google site-specific searches of Wikipedia:

• "of" and "Gibraltar"

• "in" and "Gibraltar"

• "for" and "Gibraltar"

• with "Gibraltar" not at the end

(You can use the wikicode for the links above as the basis for new searches - just replace "Gibraltar" with any other country or region name).

Request: please redirect the redlinks! (bluelinking...)

The redlinks need to be bluelinked where possible. The most useful way is to create redirects leading to the material (which is usually included in a section of an article - see Wikipedia:Redirect#Redirects to page sections. That way, when the redirect pages are replaced by the actual articles, the links will already point to the right places.

Please take a crack at it, and bluelink a few.

Thank you.

Good luck.

Have fun.

The Transhumanist 00:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

GG]] (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Outline update - Push push push - 06/25/2009

Work is proceeding apace...

• Julian is working on getting a bot account (and he delivered this update as his trial run).
• Penubag is working on the Project page and upcoming contest.
• Buaidh is developing all of the U.S. state historical outlines.
• Tarheel95 is writing a proposal to add a link to the Main Page leading to the the OOK.
• Highfields is integrating the OOK into the encyclopedia by deorphanizing outlines by placing a {{main}} link in the see also section of the subject articles that have a corresponding outline.
• I've been trying to keep up with them.  :)

New members

• Minnecologies - developing Outline of forestry and is watching the big picture.
• Mnation2 - improving Outline of Lebanon

Hatnotes

The current consensus is that we can't place a hatnote leading to an outline at the top of a subject articles unless the outline being presented is of at least the same quality-level as the article.

What's next...

Improve outline quality by completing them.

Place hatnotes for the outlines of high enough quality.

Guidelines pertaining to outlines need to be updated. Outlines emerged as a class of pages only a few months ago, and most of the relevant guidelines don't cover them specifically. For example, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists is incredibly out of date.

Invite wikignomes, wikielves, and wikifairies (all 2500+ of them) to help on the outlines .

Identify 600 more subjects with coverage extensive enough to justify outlines, create rudimentary drafts for them, and post notices to the corresponding WikiProjects and subject talk pages to help build them.

Convert outlines titled "List of" to outline articles, and add them to the OOK. There are a few hundred of these. Conversion instructions are needed.

Add a description of outlines to About Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Basic navigation, and add tips about outlines to the WP:TOTD and Tips library.

Keep up the great work!

The Transhumanist 20:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

outline notice

I'd like to receive a link, not the full notices. Manageable? DGG (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup.  Done The Transhumanist 21:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The socionics mess

I want to clarify a couple of things based on your comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionics (esoterism) and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Information_metabolism. Both of the articles on socionics are talking about the same thing; the difference is in the claims about what it is. The socionics (typology) article is being written from the perspective of it being a legitimate Jungian typology a la the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator; the socionics (esoterism) article claims that it's actually a woo-woo munge-up of astrology and eastern religion pretending to be legitimate psychology. There seems to be some WP:OR issues with the latter thesis; I'm trying to get through to the guy who is largely responsible it to understand that he needs to find a third party to cite for the claim, rather than assembling the expose on his own. On top of all this, however, I'm developing a strong suspicion that none of this is actually notable. But in any case it appears to me that there should at most one article on socionics.

Googling for information metabolism was a problem, but I got several hits from reliable scientific publishers (e.g. Wiley) that indicate there is some sort of concept by that name in currency among the biochemists. I didn't understand what I found well enough to do an article rewrite, but in any case I don't see the material in the present article being anything but a pointer back at socionics. It's not even clear that the concept functions in socionics. Mangoe (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

my interpretation of that yesterday was that there are two genuine traditions., for such is not unusual. What you are saying is that one point of view is that there is nobody who seriously espouses the mystical side of it, that it is only described as such by the opponents of the relatively mainstream version? Such also is not unusual. What I would then suspect a priori is that there is a small serious group of actual mystics, and the opponents of the whole general socionics tendency (whether they come from the point of view of other schools of Jungian thought or from those opposed to the entire Jungian tradition) claim that this is the inevitable tendency of the whole. Unfortunately, I have little actual sympathy for Jungian views, and I do not really want to study it. But I think it is very clear that socionics is in fact notable, at least in continental Europe. The French & German versions of the article seem to have been written independently, and I might try reading them. As far as "information metabolism" , I cannot yet tell whether it is a distinct trend within or allied to socionics. The socionics people on their web site count it as part of their movement.

As for biology, what hits in G or GS do you claim represent information metabolism among the biochemists? That at least is a subject I do know about, including the historical development of the information theory approach to biology--for it was part of the early development of molecular biology, and that's my original academic field. . As I see it the term itself is used only accidentally. But those papers i can look at easily enough and evaluate. DGG (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are the biochem hits on "information metabolism" that I found: [17][18][19][20]. There seems to be some maybe-legit psychology reference connected to one Andrzej Kokoszka, e.g [21][22][23]. I see no evidence that either of these usages has anything to do with socionics.

Sorting out the socionics mess is made more difficult by the lack of signatures on a lot of the talk page statements, and User:Rmcnew is not helping in that he doesn't seem to be able to get to the point. I'm going to his talk page and see if I can get him to spell out his thesis in brief. Mangoe (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

of the biochem, yes, the first 4 seem to indicate it is used in textbooks--I must now look further in the literature. DGG (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The Man Who Would Be Queen

Regarding the talk page material, I'd say at this point, removing the material might make things worse. Letting it die down is probably the best option, if there's a reasonable chance of that happening, and I hope there is. John Carter (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

right.DGG (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for saving the article about Christopher Martenson from deletion! --Лъчезар (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Phi Beta Kappa

Dear DGG -- My friend EJohn speaks well of you as a caring admin. Can you take a look at this page. The leading ref. 1, most prominent, leads to a 404 error message. I was tempted to replace it by the main PBK site listed in External Links, but the ref. 1 appears convuloted, so I dare not touch it. So, please advise what step can be taken to correct this error, or out-dated link. Thanks. --Kgwu24 (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)KG

For what it's worth you're probably in a very good position to help, here. There are some press releases (example) that give mission statements and some "about us" WWW pages (example example). However, most of the press releases, mission statements, and suchlike seem to be playing a game of chinese whispers, with the mission statement being repeatedly paraphrased, re-stated, and altered. Several disagree with each other. A better source by far for what the mission is seems to be this publication:

• Clyde S. Atchison (March 1924). "The Mission of Phi Beta Kappa". In Oscar McMurtie Voorhees (ed.). Phi Beta Kappa Key. Vol. V. pp. 445–448.

Do you have it in your library? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, by George, I've got it. The statement is prominently displayed on their home page, under "About ΦΒΚ". So I went ahead and updated it. --Kgwu24 (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)KG

Most of the web links simply need to be updated. The first, for example is now http://www.pbk.org/infoview/PBK_InfoView.aspx?t=&id=8. (found main site with Google, looked at it to find the "about page", checked that it supports the material). Just replace it, it's reliable as a source for describing the basics. add the access date. Make a permanent link to it, so it doesn't get lost again. The 1924 article will say what the mission was in 1924 or earlier, not presently, and is not necessarily more exact than their present web page. I can get it but it will take a while, because I'm not planning to go down there physically for a few weeks. For their history use the link to [24] and see the 1990 book they cite there. It's in essentially every college library. [25]. In my experience, many organizations have a variety of quasi-official mission statements just like this does. The official one is on whatever is their current charter as amended, but it may still not be what they use in practice. It is not on their site, try email to : [email protected]. DGG (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Mass Rape AfD

I don't think that you realized that the main concern at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass rape in the Bosnian War is the BLP issue. "Mass rape" is not an official term. The actual rulings against the individuals do not use the term, but a the article lists a group of people as participants in mass rape. The sources are horribly manipulated, with the first source being published 4 years before the trials were even begun. Many of the sources are from feminists journals or publications that are looking at the issues in a women's rights perspective or nationalistic works that are just blatantly trying to say that all Serbians are rapists. Please reread the article and look at the sources and how they deal with many, many living people with many having their own article. We are creating a neologism and applying it to living people in a way the courts did not do. BLP makes it clear that we have to be very neutral and have the highest standards for sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, two people on that AfD were definitely found as socks of the original creator, who has a history of making very skewed pages that violate BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You can see my argument and reasoning here. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You were quite mistaken about the case. Please see my response on my talk page. This is about the use of a term that did not appear in the court system and does not reflect what the courts decided. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not opposed to removing all the individual names. DGG (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

BLP is beyond just individual names. It makes it clear that applies to all living individuals affected. Since no one was convicted of mass rape, as it was not an official judicial crime, the word is a neologism that only blanketly makes a claim of impropriety without ever having the possibility of coming true. There is no crime of "mass rape", and rape, in any form, suggests that it has to be a crime. Therefore, the page cannot exist as Wikipedia BLP's says that we are not supposed to have such content. To be honest, it is eligible for deletion under CSD for this violation. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

commented at the AfD. DGG (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator Election

Hello. The Coordiantor Election has begun. All members are encouraged to vote by the deadline, July 28. To vote simply add support to the comments and questions for.. section of the member of your choice.

3 users are standing:

• Alan16 (talk · contribs)
• Kevinalewis (talk · contribs)
• Pmlinediter (talk · contribs)

Regards, Alan16 (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC).

Request for feedback

Minnecologies has done an incredible amount of work on Outline of forestry and posted a note to me on my talk page requesting feedback.

I've posted my observations at Talk:Outline of forestry#Finished outline review.

Please take a look at the outline and let Minnecologies know what you think of it on the outline's talk page.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 19:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 20:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC).

My opinion on why the Socionics article deletion would potentially be a good thing taking the circumstances

First off I should probably state who I am. I am officially recognized in Russia and the United States as a practicing socionists. I studied Religion, Theology, Metaphysics, Biblical Languages, at a University in Texas for 4 years, and the German language at a University in Northern California for 3 years, where I had the opportunity to exchange to Tuebingen University in Tuebingen, Germany to study Theology, and improve my Greek. I have studied socionics since 2003 and was the owner of the largest english speaking socionics forum the16types.info since 2005 (bought from Jimmy Caretti) until I sold it in late 2008. Since that time I formed the forum metasocion.com in order to present socionics in its natural form, as I found the "the the16types.info" crowd to be both extremely ignorant and prejudiced against presenting socionics the way that the founders had originally presented it. You can see some of my socionic credentials below:

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Reuben_McNew http://www.typelab.ru/en/1.begin/index.html http://www.socioniki.info/index.php/2008-11-05-20-39-51

It is my personal opinion that all socionics articles should be deleted until it is agreed by everyone that it is a good idea to give a neutral presentation of the origin of socionics that discusses its esoteric development and gives mention to the fact that esoteric interpretations of chakras, tattwas, and psychic energy and mysticism in general were the main basis that the founders of socionics based their theory upon, and that from this socionics was formulated and later "framed to appear to be something like Jung or MBTI" and that "mystical interpretations of socionics type theory have descended directly from the founders and exist to this day" and that "there is a split between those of the opinion that socionics is something empirical and that socionics is something mystical." The multitude of sources that have been presented have already shown this. However, taking that there are people who would rather take unneutral views of socionics and present socionics in a way contrary to its origin [meaning in a frame which presents it as a form similar to MBTI or Jung with no mention of its esoteric background] I would be in favor of deleteing all socionics articles. I think that those who are opposed to an esoteric presentation of socionics should either come to terms that it would be correct to allow some information in some form to neutrally portray socionics esoteric background or to be content with the deletion of the whole of all of the information. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Here, as in similar cases, I am not going to make a judgment about who has the authentic tradition. I apologize for my unwillingness to get further involved in the subject --it is certainly not meant personally, but I cannot take it seriously as science and it fails to interest me as fantasy. But a desire to have an article eliminated because it does not express one's own views is antithetical to the entire idea of the encyclopedia, DGG

Death of Elvis Presley

Actually, it was a bad copy (using the rendered page rather than the wikitext) of Elvis Presley#Final year and death. Uncle G (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Should there perhaps be a redirect, in that case? it seems a reasonable search term. DGG (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

w, it would cause me --and I hope it would cause others--to oppose whatever you want to do with the articles. DGG (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Porn Awards

Hi DGG, if you have any spare time I would appreciate your seasoned assessment of a bold change to WP:PORN, which I sincerely think should be reverted. My basic point is that it must take more than a discussion between 7 people and a 4:3 vote, the slightest possible majority, to claim "community consensus" and change a guideline. This is an issue of principal interest; it is really not about the PORN guideline itself. I painfully realize that I probably should pay much more attention to such bureaucratic issues, than to content creation, which is what made me come to Wikipedia in the first place. thanks. Power.corrupts (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

commented there. RfC is probably the way to go. Nobody can pay attention to everything here. We rely on informal communications like yours to bring the important issues to attention, just as in all communities. DGG (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)