User talk:DGG

If you enter a message on this page, I'll reply on this page to avoid fragmenting the discussion, so be sure the page is added to your watchlist. If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will be watching it, so you can just as well reply there rather than here. It doesn't matter where, but centralized is better.

/Archive 1 Sept-Dec. 2006

Benoît Gréan

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

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Colon classification; Research library; Journal of Theoretical Biology; Russian State Library; PLoS Medicine; Evolution (journal); PLoS Biology; Private library; Scopus; On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection; Distributed library; Relief print; Journal of the American Chemical Society; List of journals available free online; Cell theory; Social Science Research Network; Spermatozoon

Cleanup: John Louis DiGaetani; Neuroscience; Sydney Brenner
Merge: ProQuest; Religiopoiesis; Statistical thermodynamics
Add Sources: American Memory; Telavi; Nucleic acid
Wikify: Processed Book Project; The Journal of Vaishnava Studies; Enterprise content management
Expand: The Journal of Negro History; List of British entomological publishers; History of copyright law

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 05:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOMJ

Hi, in regards to your interest in creating articles for journals, we are already working towards that goal over at Wikipedia:List of missing journals and WP:LOMJ/Queue. In light of your su

The category sggestion on Template talk:Infobox_Journal to "reward" the true OA journals, I would like to create a WP:LOMJ/OA that lists everything in DOAJ, in order that we can create articles for those first. It looks easy to screen scrape the DOAJ listings, but if there is another way to access their db, that would be better. John Vandenberg 20:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

initial decisions

There are basically 2 ways of doing this. big, and small.

You (and the other editors doing it) have obviously chosen big. Between your list and DOAJ, I estimate there will be 13,000 titles.--that is currently published titles--if you add the changed and ceased titles, it will more than double. Harvard gets about 100,000 current journals.

I like to start small.

In my view, it would be a much more useful thing to make good articles with accurate information for important journals, OA or not, than doing all the journals major and minor. Among the significant ones I would start with OA ones, which is what I suggested.

In addition to your lists, we have Category:Open_access_journals at the moment a pitiful and incomplete list, and so is a previously started page List_of_journals_available_free_online. We also have the various subject lists in WP, some lists mostly black links, many mostly red.

There are now several information sources t hat were not there six months ago. One is CrossRef [1] I just updated that article yesterday. Another is ISI, which has an openly available master journal list. [2] There is also the journal list in PubMed [3] which gives the following

Title: Comptes rendus biologies

$ISSN: 1631-0691 (Print)

Title Abbreviation: C R Biol
ISO Abbreviation: C. R. Biol.
Publication Start Year: 2002
Publisher: Elsevier
Continuation Notes: Continues: Comptes rendus de l'Académie des sciences. Série III, Sciences de la vie.
Language: English, French
Country: France
Subject Term(s): Biology
NLM ID: 101140040

We obvious have slightly different things in mind, but it would make sense to merge the project ideas. With a project, it could, like most large projects, have several tracks.
- Do you have a project name? I could not find one in the project list yesterday. but maybe I missed. it. It would make more sense to use an existing setup.

- What I would propose starting with on one track, is to take that OA category, and make sure that all of other OA journals that have articles in WP are listed in it. and see that they are also in the list of OA journals. We need the list and the category because most of the titles will be in the list for a very long times. .as of Dec 15 there are 3200 journals in DOAJ. I frankly do not see a point of making a list of all of them, however minor--DOAJ does it fine (or more exactly, reasonable well). WP is not a list of links or a web directory, or so Im told. Google does very well in finding scientific journal titles.

What I most want to avoid is duplicate work.
- Before writing any more journal pages, I suggest we continue the discussion of the journal infobox -- where was that beng discussed--I already lost track. :)

(see my user page for some idea of my background. I think some of the people doing this have similar? I know it doesn't matter in terms of whose word goes, but I will do what I can to help with what I know. I've already started in on Comptes rendus. DGG 22:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:LOMJ was intended to be a list where each entry is crossed off, however DOAJ, WorldCat and other lists will always far exceed what we can achieve here at Wikipedia, at least in my lifetime, so I started the WP:LOMJ/Queue to bring some order and discussion to the process of prioritising which articles should be created. As you may have seen I have created a new list WP:LOMJ/DOAJ so we can see which open access journals already have articles created, so that we can add or augment an infobox on the article. This list currently contains false positives, because the journal name may already be used as a general topic name, but I intend to improve my scripts to fix that. I'll also take on board your suggestion of finding these articles and making sure they are in the OA category. I'll continue to automate this script with any suggestions people have.

btw, thanks for pointing me towards [4]; I've been looking for such a raw data dump for about a month now! John Vandenberg 23:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging journals list

I left a message here which may be of interest to you. EPM 18:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic-expand

Thank you for the feedback on the Catholic Encyclopedia template. It was a good point on putting the tag on the talk page rather the main page, which I will do in future. If you would like to go on the talk page on Catholic Encyclopedia project page if you have any other thoughts:

Wikipedia_talk:Catholic_Encyclopedia_topics#A_proposal_for_clearing_up_blue_links

JASpencer 21:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main Psalter

Hi, i googled these commons:Category:Mainz psalter -- Cherubino 03:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeos.com AFD

Hi DGG!

I wanted to comment on your message here where you claim "I also take issue with the concept that the article has to assert notability. it has to demonstrate notability. I've seen articles listed for deletion because the editor didn't think of using the exact words. Aside from an obscure listing in Speedy, I do not see the words the article has to assert notability in any policy or guideline."

I assure you, A7 is not obscure. Hundreds of articles are deleted every day because they do not assert the notability of the subject. I thought your statement was odd; but after looking at your contributions, I see you've only been editing for a few months, which explains it.

If you have time, please take a moment to review the official policies at WP:SPEEDY, which should be an important factor to consider for anyone regularly contributing to Wikipedia, and certainly for any editor participating in WP:AFD. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 09:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply, criteria for deletion

(re-posted here for convenience--answered at Forsfrom talk.) I did recheck the criterion on speedy, and I of course find it as you say, and, in my view, incompatible with every statement about notability everywhere else in WP. And I do check speedies, and for things I recognize as notable and think can be clearly demonstrated as notable I go to the trouble of putting in a appropriate statement in what seems to be the expected language, and often do some editing to the article as well (I make no attempt to do this systematically unless I recognize something & think it can be defended, which is about 1 per day.)

I do not always get all of the procedure right yet, but I try. I notice some of the others in the debate were also unfamiliar with the provision. Perhaps those who have been editing a very long while learn to accept the odd parts and even the incompatibilities as part of WP life. I hope you're glad that new people are becoming active. If you will look at my edits you will see that they tend to compromise. I dislike the intensity of many quarrels here & have no intention of getting involved in them unless I can help reach a solution.

I recognize the usefulness of speedy in obvious cases, but I see it also being applied to non-obvious cases, and I will perhaps make some comments on that. I also plan to collect & analyze some data about the consistency of deletion practice, but not for a month or two when I'll have the time. I know some others are also looking at how well the various procedures work from a variety of angles. I have some background at that sort of analysis. That will of course be OR, and treated as such.

I intend this as a start of a friendly discussion, and if you have any suggestions I will be interested,and I even hope perhaps that you'd feel like joining the analysis. Two judgments are better than one, especially from people of different backgrounds. I like doing this sort of thing as a group.. which is one reason I'm here. Which talk page should we continue at?DGG 16:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, btw Master of the Playing Cards was speedily deleted, after about 5 mins, by the over-enthusiatic User:Firefoxman, who in the same session had also managed to S-delete Rede Lecture by User:Charles Matthews which was already in a quite advanced form. Oddly enough, CM got an apology; I did not! Quite a few of his SD's around then were thwarted one way or another Johnbod 17:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG!

Thanks for your note. I agree there are many Wikipedia policies and guidelines which seem to completely conflict with other policies and guidelines. Regarding your question, of course I am glad that new people become active. Even with 6,000,000 user accounts, most of the work is done by a few thousand people. As users go on Wikibreak or suffer from burnout, if these users weren't quickly replaced, Wikipedia would soon become a mess.

I agree SPEEDY has often been applied to articles which don't really apply. At the same time, I've speedy deleted hundreds of articles I felt didn't meet the assert notability criteria; most of these were just trash. We get a lot of people that add "articles" about themselves like "Trisha Smith is a girl at Jones High School and she is soooo sexayyy!" or "MySpace.com/ThatOneDude is a great web site. You should go there." Articles like this aren't only about non-notable subjects, they don't even assert notability, and thus meet the requirement for (A7). I'm not sure there's much consistency when it comes to deletion, because WikiPhilosophy varies from editor to editor. I'm not sure I have time to work on an analysis of the data, but would be interested in the results. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complaints to Google Scholar

Regarding your comments about deletion of BSTJ_papers, I did once send a suggestion to the folks at Google Scholar. Within a day or two I got a response saying that my suggestion was a good one which they would implement. YMMV of course! I would guess that the Scholar folks are planning eventually to have complete on-line coverage of technical journals ("index all the world's information") and that they just have gotten that far yet. Alison Chaiken 15:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy

Speedy deletion means just that - it can be deleted at any time. Articles are always retrievable if there has been a mistake, or the creator can redraft to address the problem, if that is possible (notability issues might be insoluble for obvious reasons) jimfbleak 18:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most speedies are obvious junk/copyright violations/nonsense, and genuine objections tend to come from the creators, who obviously know the content. I don't know if the list of deleted edits is accessible to non-admins. Any article in mind? jimfbleak 18:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the point you are making - the flip side is that even with the present situation the list of articles tagged for speedy deletion is typically 200 items. Put a time limit on, even if it's restricted to sensible articles (and remember many junk articles are deleted before being tagged}, and I fear that admins will be overwhelmed. jimfbleak 20:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:overspeeding

I very much agree, DGG. Speedy delete should be within 24 hours, not a matter of minutes or an hour (since AFD is a week or two weeks, I think). Wikipedia policies are becoming way too serious and nuts and its literally ruining the place. — Wackymacs 18:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth mentioning to Jimbo Wales. — Wackymacs 19:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I have the time to gather lots of stuff together - I think I might be spending too much time on WP to be honest... — Wackymacs 19:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re Palaeos

You're quoting the wrong section. The section you quoted is what types of media are covered under the WP:WEB policy, not what constitutes reliable references. Scan down further to the Criteria section, which does not include blogs. Hatch68 18:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Non-scholarly_sources under the Editorial Oversight section. While an argument can be made that the blog we're talking about probably does have some Editorial Oversight, it would probably just be an assumption.

I'm honestly ready to just let the Palaeos AfD go away. I nominated it in good faith due to no notability being stated or referenced, and it was proven otherwise. That's that. I have no inherent bias against the site or the references provided. I simply sought to initiate a discussion and actually I agree with the consensus that was formed. Hatch68 19:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open source

You placed a POV tag on this, but it and the related article Open access have not been improved since in this respect. There are RW reasons why I can't do the cleanup myself & why some other people may have felt the same--see item 2 in the lede. One could make a case that these are the most blatently nonPOV pages in WP. DGG 22:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phrases in open access like "[open access is] most feasible for peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly journal articles" and "Open access to scholarly research is important to the public," and "Even those who do not care to read scholarly articles, however, benefit indirectly from open access" are pretty blantantly pro-open-access opinions that read as if they are being expressed by the encyclopedia authors. There seem to be several overlapping "open access" articles; I will see what I can do about getting content to the right pages and dealing with the POV issues. I haven't read through open source yet, but what do you mean by "item 2 in the lede"? The intro to "open source" is not numbered. -- Beland 23:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mistake

And I do not know how to fix it. There were two pages: Open access (Publishing) which is the general article on open access as a movement and publishing strategy, and a separate article, Open access publishing, which was an article about the publishers of open access material, a much narrow sense, but one included in open access. You seem to have conflated them, and I made it worse by fixing what I thought was an incorrect redirect. If you think the 2 names are in conflict, it would be better to change Open access publishing to Open access publisher, which has many few links and easier to adjust everything.

I suppose the best think to do is to revert both articles to the earlier state (i.e., this morning), and then do the name change more carefully. IU dont know how to do the revert without messing up the talk pages, since the original open access talk page has gotten overwritten.

The item I referred to was in the ledge of the original open access article "A prominent....is Stevan H and the reason I asked for assistance in the first place is that everyone in the movement is somewhat afraid of him, and thinks he will revert any attempt at major change of his extremely idosyncratic page. Sorry for inadvertantly causing all the confusion. If it will be easier, I can brave the wrath of SH, and do a combination merged page. I frequently argue with him in real life on the lists; altho not eager to do so here as well, I can do it. If you'd rather email me, please do.DGG 23:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was "open access publishing" moved to "open access (publishing)"? The former seems much easier to type and link to. I intended this to be the main article on all things for this sense of "open access". I was intending on merging the list of publishers into List of open access projects, since there is already another list started there. -- Beland 00:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open access

I would recommend moving "open access (publishing)" back to "open access publishing" and have "open access" redirect there (which it does now). I have finished fixing Open access (publishing) except for the "by the numbers" section which I have tagged for cleanup.

I have already finished moving lists of publishers and journals to List of open access projects from many different articles. I will leave it up to others to clean up the categorization scheme. If this article gets too long, it can certainly be split into multiple subarticles, but for right now it is an acceptible length.

For classifying articles, it is generally more maintainable to use the category mechanism. Instead of seeing a list of 8000 open access journals, readers could instead be directed to Category:Open access journals. -- Beland 02:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonner refs

Not sure what you mean.--Filll 04:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 19:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N.H. Horowitz

I am thinking about writing about Norman H. Horowitz, Caltech biology professor, previous department head etc. One can find some material about him:

And a huge number of publications. I do not want to have a deletion fight again, however. Suggestions?--Filll 21:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open access (again)

I was finished making substantive edits to open access articles. If you wanted "open access publishing" (in the most general sense) to appear under "open access", I don't know why the article that yestersay was under "open access (publishing)" couldn't just have been moved there. I do not know what you are doing now; I will have to wait until your dust settles to see if any POV problems have been re-introduced.

the main problem is that one ofthe few things there is general agreement about is that hybrid oa journals are not oa journals

That doesn't make much sense, given that "open access" is right there in the name. Perhaps people who think they shouldn't "count" have a different name for them? It sounds to me like the status is actually disputed, in which case Wikipedia should not take a position on the matter. -- Beland 22:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Cusack

I added a bit more to it at User:Filll/Peter Cusack as you can see. Will it get challenged again, or is it ok?--Filll 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Cusack

User:Filll/Peter Cusack is the current version. Is it ready to be put on WP main yet or is it still not good enough?--Filll 01:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviews for 6 projects (one project I got 2 reviews on it, so that is a total of 7). I could get many many more but it becomes very tiresome. I just want a stub!--Filll 03:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get your name in the history. Thanks Peter Cusack is up. I hope I wasnt bad by moving the rugby player. Now THAT article is a stub. Why does that get to stay? Just captain of some team? Huh? I guess...--Filll 03:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits. It is still pretty rough, but looking around at the other musicians he collaborated with, the Peter Cusack site really puts them to shame, I think. At least it is a good solid start anyway.--Filll 06:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map

We have a map at Lactose intolerance that is pretty out of date now that we have new data. I am not quite sure how to order a new map or how to draw a map myself. Do you have any suggestions?--Filll 06:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

on Isaacs

Thank you for stating your opinion. As the articles creator I am pleased that you feel Isaacs warrants an article as do I. Artsojourner 06:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments. Funny how a first sentense seems to set the tone on here. Artsojourner 15:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with similar themes and release dates AfD

Hi, you've expressed an opinion in the deletion discussion of this article. I've recently suggested a compromise in hopes of improving the article while keeping both sides happy, and would appreciate if you could revisit the issue. Thanks. --Wafulz 18:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creationism

I'm not interested in creationist blather. It's mythology, lies, and frankly, a requirement of the psychologically weak. Please keep it off my page, if you don't mind. Thanks. Orangemarlin 19:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think it would be funny to have Diderot's picture there. I would find that very amusing. I realize that there are a large contingent of people who believe it is a fact (an ABC poll recently said 60% of Americans believe the Flood story is literally true). I also think there is a lot more to the story, but this has to be done carefully to not just preach to people in any particular biased way.--Filll 19:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Anti-creationist facts are fun to have on my user page. I must have misunderstood!!!! You're one of the good guys so post away. Orangemarlin 19:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... I don't consider myself to be "psychologically weak" (few people probably actually would) yet I look and can see a large amount of evidence that points to a relatively young earth. I would argue that someone who is "not interested" in listening is more of a weak person... anyway, is this the place for this discussion?--Paul McDonald 21:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metasearch edits

I would add, given your addition of those two links, you should be concerned with linking to another WikiPedia article about each one, and create articles first. I think this is a misuse of the external links policy, you know? I am not sure anyways. I am just pointing out how wierd it is for you to say that those links belong and are OK according to some policy, and then you ignore the other policy. I would also add that this is, from my limited experience, a different policy than I have seen for other pages. Ultimately, I don't think you should link to those unless they are under the external links area, and since that is an invite for spammers, you should not link to them at all. Instead, link to articles (within WikiPedia) about them. Perhaps that is the best avenue. And if you don't, oh well, I am fine with whatever decision you make. Josh Froelich 22:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who exactly did I ask?

I am not sure how much to put on my page. I had more and I felt stupid about it so I have slowly nibbled away at it.--Filll 03:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. Well I am curious about how YEC can think. In his case, he gave a bunch of alleged reasons for why the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Off the top of my head I know several of those are definitely incorrect. And then I asked him if he believed the earth was created to look old already, and he said yes. Well in that case, there isnt too much to ask. It is all over. But I can ask why then would you want to claim physical evidence for a young earth? It is all pointless in that case because it is all "fake". I put some bio info on my page but I dont know. Do I want to give a big religious lecture there? I am not so sure.--Filll 04:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

journal names=

Re: usage of full journal names

Wondering if you had gotten a chance to look at some of the responses from science editors to your suggestion on the the FAC nomination for proteasome. In particular, it would be helpful to know how and where you are searching for articles or journals that the use of abbreviations is an impediment to successfully locating a reference. If you really think this is something that's worth pursuing as a proposed style standard for scientific articles, I believe a larger venue than an obscure FAC nomination is needed, as this would affect a large number of editors and articles; I'd suggest starting a thread on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources or Wikipedia talk:Scientific citation guidelines for wider visibility. Since the suggestion of using full journal names does not currently have the consensus of editors in the sciences, I'm going to leave it alone for now, and will make the changes later if it's agreed that this is a useful proposal. Opabinia regalis 01:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Speaking only about journals in the sciences), I think that full journal names are essential for WP users, particularly for older material. The abbreviations are enough for experts. WP articles are not written for experts. WP is written for a range of users, ranging from the beginner to the near expert; judging from user pages and user comments, this may correspond from junior high school students to graduate students in allied fields. Journal references serve several roles: even without looking them up, they give some idea of the nature of the evidence--and this is probably as far as many users get. To serve this function for new or for old, the title must be understood, and all users not graduate students in the field are more likely to make sense of the full title.

Or they serve as a route to further information. For material that is open access, the link (which should always be given in a WP article if there is an OA version) gives the access directly. For online material that is not, the link (which should be given even though not OA) will normally lead to at least the abstract of the article, which can be sufficient information in many cases.

For material that is not available online, all users must go through a library. Experts will recognize the journal, will usually have access to a research library, and will get the aticle if owned or ask for it if not, and any university library ILL department can deal with standard abbreviations. For all other users, they must look for the material in an online catalog. It is unfortunately not the practice in standard cataloging to make added entries for abbreviations as a routine practice, although they are sometimes made if they appear on the cover of a journal. It is not possible in many cases to guess the right title, especially if one is unfamiliar with the sort of titles that exist. The less experienced user will be much more likely to find the material by full title. If the user must go through an ILL service in a school or public library, the librarian there will probably be much more comfortable with the full title as well.

I say this on the basis of my experience. First, as a biology librarian at a major university. I know the mistakes that get made. They depend on subject; in biology--there are many standards, especially with older material, especially ewith UK and other European material. After 20 years of doing this, I know how to figure out anything in a latin or cyrillic alphabet, from 1800 on, and I know the places to check for anything older; as a beginner, with only a MLS and a molecular biology doctorate, I relied on persistence and study of journal lists, especially for anything out of the way to a molecular biologist. Second, as a teacher of librarianship. The ability of present-day incoming librarians, even science specialists, to find printed material is deplorable. For newer material, they can acquire the patience to keep trying things on Google until they find something. For print material, it will soon be a specialty, like manuscrip[t librarianship is now. Third, I have been responsible for organizing lists of print and then online journals; the peak was a computer-assisted but manually input list of 10,000 print titles. I and others always did these lists by full title. Although it startled some of the catalog librarians, we did add some abbreviations to help those who did know them.

There are 3 ways of doing this. One is to always use the full title. WP is not paper, but it does make for longer reference lists. The other is to have an abbreviation matching database and do a link. The third is to use ISSN's, the 8 digit serial code. This isn't as simple as it was last year, because there are now two codes for each journal, one for print and one for online--all the vendors are still rewriting their systems--I've advised some of them about it. The ISSN works in all online catalogs, but only if the user knows enough to enter it, which they don't until you teach them.

The simplest way to start is with full titles. The matching database is also underway, as something call the Missing Journals Wikiproject, aiming at entering all 12 or so titles into a WP article, complete with all codes. I'm in touch with the people doing it . They estimate 10 years, but if everyone listened to my instructions I think it could be done in a shorter time (smile). Using the entrez database would help in biomedicine, but not elsewhere.

EdJohnston's experience with entrez is useful, but it doesn't work outside biomedicine. In biomed, a mass conversion could be done, but getting it entered from some of the nonstandard references people have used will require some work. If I had to sustitute full titles throughout the WP database by myself, I'd do them one at a time with a bot, and then look for non-matches. But it could be done more ambitiously, and if we ever want to undertake such a transformation I would help as well. There are some interface problems in the conversion--the length of articles and tables especially would be affected. I think we would want to try a number of careful trials and we would want help from some of the WP programmers.

For a particular article with say 100 or so refs, i would do them by hand. Since in any one article the journal titles will repeat, I'd copy and paste. I suppose if I had to do more than one article I'd copy the lists into BBEdit and use a grep search and replace, and then paste them back, for all the common titles. I am a great believer in patient manual entry.

Other comments

I notice that O.r. has said she recognizes the abbreviations better, and so do I. But we are not the average users.
&There's another problem, which is the use of full article titles. This really helps the beginner. In biomed, they could be linked through PubMed IDs, and some WP editors already use them. DGG 06:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opabinia, where do you stand on that Object? If you need help converting them in order to address the Object, I can help. Am I missing something, or would we actually have to do every one by hand? I can't find a database that can be used to automate it - if you feel it has to be done, we can divide up the work. I still resist the idea, since it would take a lot of manual work, and the PMID should suffice, but if you need help, I'll dig in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In the short term, my plan is to do nothing, since Circeus hasn't responded to the subsequent comments on his suggestion. I left him a note about opening this for wider discussion; a substantial change in style recommendations affecting as many articles as this one would deserves a wider discussion than a thread in an obscure FAC nomination. IMO it would be a bad precedent for future science-related FACs to make that change in response to one user's opinion without collecting some wider input. I don't know of an intelligent automated way to get this information, other than clicking through PubMed's journals link and screen-scraping the equivalents of pages like http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=Journals&term=%22Dev+Cell%22[Title+Abbreviation] sorry, can't get the link with brackets to parse right. If there's a larger discussion I'll certainly oppose this on practicality and text-clutter grounds, unless someone finds a common way of searching for references that requires the full names. FAC doesn't need more shrubberies. Opabinia regalis 01:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Without raising the long-term policy question, I don't think it would be that hard to convert the journal names in Proteasome. Assuming the reference uses a journal in the NLM list, you should be able to look up its journal name at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=Journals. This screen has a search box, where you can type in the standard journal abbreviation, and hit 'Search'. You then get back the full name of the journal. I also managed to download (by ftp) a plain text file called J_Entrez.txt (4 megabytes in size) that has both the abbreviation and the full name for every journal I checked. You could do a 'Find' on the abbreviation, and get the answer. So if you need help converting those references, I'd be available. EdJohnston 02:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Don't you think our readers would put up with the 'clutter' that would be caused by spelling out these not totally self-explanatory abbreviations? EMBO J, Cell Death Differ (my favorite), Mol Cell, FEBS Lett, PLoS Biol. I know that 'J Biol Chem' looks easy but not all of them are. EdJohnston 02:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the offer. I doubt it would take long to convert this article - anybody who's done biology work probably knows 80% of them anyway - but I'm strongly inclined not to set that as a standard for future articles, not least because there are screen-scraper scripts for importing PubMed references that would need to be extensively modified. I realize they're not all intuitive (my personal favorite official "abbreviation" is J Phys Chem B Condens Matter Mater Surf Interfaces Biophys) but as far as I've ever known, it's actually better for searching to have the abbreviation than the full name, because almost every database uses the abbreviations. Do you know of any common databases or search methods where that's not the case? I asked Circeus on the FAC page to elaborate why/where he had had trouble, but he hasn't responded yet. Opabinia regalis 03:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Right - the problem is not *this* article (which I'll help do, if that what it takes to get rid of the object) rather the sheer volume of manual work that would be required across all Wiki articles, with little benefit. I would also strenuously object to the change in policy, since it requires manual intervention for every journal, to replace the info PubMed provides. Just wanted you to know I could help if needed, but agree it should not be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Also: how about making the standard ISBN link produce a latent OpenURL like this: <a name='isbn=0-120345678-9' rel='alternate' title='OpenURL'>? Users with suitable browser plugins could then bypass the Wikipedia ISBN page and be directed to their home library's link resolver. --Helperzoom 17:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Book sources already has a latent OpenURL in the form of an ISBN COinS tag, right under the Notes heading. I've just added them to {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help), as well, so you can use OpenURL tools on the references section of articles. I'll expand it to other citation templates if it goes over well, and add it to the "Cite this article" page, too, as soon as they figure out which format would be appropriate for Wikipedia articles... — Omegatron 01:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: speedy of Firestone

Thanks for your hard work, and keeping the redirect. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comments

My comments were overly simplistic. Primarily I was just trying to suggest he stop commenting on Talk pages for db'ed articles that we give them 48 hours. One of them, that was deleted quickly, was the usual two-liner on a dj/producer with no assertion of notability, and for whom Google showed nothing but a myspace page. I shudder to think of what Category:Candidates for speedy deletion would look like if we left articles like that for 48 hours. Fan-1967 20:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even a day is not doable. The list right now is actually lower than usual, and there are still dozens. A day's worth would be a few thousand, and nobody would (or could) review them. The other problem, realistically, is how many of them come from schoolkids, creating articles on themselves, their friends and their teachers. Every day a brand new batch. They need to get the message that the articles will be deleted, and to stop creating them. If the articles are left out there, they'll keep making more. Fan-1967 20:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the nature of the junk, but I had not realized that there were so many. I find it disheartening, because I hoped I was rescuing some of the ones most unreasonably placed there, and I see I have been missing most of them. I've been checking 2x a day to try to spot the ones that sound like serious organizations or something else I might recognize. I look at 20 or so, & I've been getting about 1 a day. If I also tried to help ones not in my field, I have once or twice checked all the 100 or so non-image & non-rock-group-sounding & non-nickname-sounding & non-transmission-tower ones there at a time, and I found 3 or 4 where the deletion had been tagged with blatent carelesssness, sometimes clearly from seeing only the title.

and the students etc keep coming. Frankly, I was suprised when I started that one could edit without registering, and changing that tradition would help. & would help cut the commercial spam too.

It's beyond humans. We need a filter. Not a filter that would stop it all, which we will never manage, but at least some--such as a filter for those of 25 words or less. I'm trying to think of ways of doing this , and I'm developing some more subtle ideas. May I try a few out on you? I'm intending to serious gather some stats, but that's for next summer. I'm glad you realise I'm not a unthinking inclusionist. I go by topic and by article. DGG 05:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Thanks and a Question Re: Suz Andreasen

Thanks for your keep for my article on Suz Andreasen. It's nice to know from a librarian since I spend most of my time in libraries. I was wondering if you know how long the article gets retained on deleteion notice before it gets decided upon. It appears there is finally a consensus. I would like to write about a dozen other articles and get more involved but I figure I don't want to knock myself out before I get one under my belt. Can you enlighten me about the process? It has been about 5 days now but no clue how this all goes. Thanks, ArchiemartinArchiemartin 12:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure, Thanks, YOU DO ROCK!=

DGG - thanks for the heads up and for SUPPORT!!!! I am hoping that this gets kept tonight. I really want to focus my energies on writing more articles in this category. My next subject, Dorie Nossiter is dead, so I am hoping that will not be as much of a headache as this one has been. I want this kept. I will keep with it, but it would really be nice to get this finalized. Since I kisy looked at it is after midnight, does this mean, I have to just keep on waiting and checking? Also - since I counted more keeps, (albeit a few were "weak keeps" that I rebutted, I do see consensus. Thanks, ArchiemartinArchiemartin 05:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

List of scientific journals

Did you mean to get rid of Economics? --Bduke 10:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have no idea what to add to it being a chemist. The artcle List of academic journals worries me. One journal per discipline! I know of no criteria that would allow one to select just one. The JACS article for chemistry is just USA POV. It is not the journal with the highest impact factor, but that is not usefull either since the highest is a very specialist review journal in surface science. I think all the journals should be removed and there should just be general stuff about each area. What do you think as a librarian and a wikipedian who seems to have spent a while on these lists of journals articles? --Bduke 21:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A clear miscarriage of Wikijustice

This is the third time in a short period this software description of a freeware package has come up for deletion: User_talk:Filll#Renomination_of_Group-Office. Since this is competition for some big players like Microsoft, I am wondering if there is not some ulterior motive to repeatedly attacking this. And now the author of this article has decided to quit. He was very productive and helpful and it disgusts me that we let what appears to be commercially motivated interests drive him away. Can anything be done here?--Filll 18:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bees and inebriation

Please take a look at my rough draft at User talk:Filll/beedrunk and give me your opinion.--Filll 21:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WEGO

Hi, you de-prodded this station. Fair enough; it may be stations are notable. I've AfD-ed to hopefully get some consensus; your input there is welcome. Akihabara 05:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This month's MCB Collaboration of the Month article is Peripheral membrane protein!

Peripheral membrane protein

The Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject's current Collaboration of the Month article is Peripheral membrane protein.

Please help to improve this article to featured article status. Last month's collaboration was RNA interference.

– Clockwork Soul 18:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intoxicant use in Tantric Buddhism

Um, the sources don't support the assertions of the article. That's why I nominated it as OR. A Ramachandran 22:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. You might also look at Vajrayana. The same editor tried to merge the material there. I didn't want to get into a conflict over being the same person who nominated the stand-alone article and simply tagged the material with citation requests. . It was shortly removed by another regular editor as "nonsense". I pretty much agree with that assessment. Interestingly enough, alcohol may be used as an intoxicant in Tantric Buddhism, which is well-known and documented in the article Ganachakra. But this wasn't mentioned.... I think someone is trying to imply that psychedelic drugs might be used. But I have never encountered any such use myself, nor any reputable source which documents such use... A Ramachandran 22:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a voice of sanity at Fruitarianism

noticed you pop in at Talk:Fruitarianism. This article has been in serious trouble for some time as it has become something of a battlefield between two very strong povs. although the vast majority of conflicts have been resolved and some well-sourced material is there, the article, quite frankly, sucks and i am desperately looking for someone with a level head and no vested interest in a particular pov to help with some cleanup or even conflict resolution. if you're interested, you know where it is... -- frymaster 00:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moderator

Thanks for the correction, I should have looked it up first! Labrt2004 07:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EVP

"An objective presentation with minimal comment is the way to show it's nonsense"

It is up to the reader to look the NPOV evidence provided, and the sources that it is based on, and then to decide whether something is nonsense or not.

perfectblue 07:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, what I am concerned about are three things

scientific and paranormal views are being mixed in the same paragraphs, leading to round and around sentences that can be misinterpreted (or designed to be misinterpreted). For example, sections that imply that EVP has been "proven to be false" by science, when in fact it has "not been proven to be true". We have only inconclusive data that can't prove that it is true, not conclusive data that proves that it is false.
The fact that no pure definition is included as to what EVP is as a paranormal phenomena. Leaving readers unclear as to exactly what is being argued over. Nobody describes a Bigfoot as "A big hairy monkey thing, or something that looks quite like one".
The fact that spurious claims are being disputed as if they were scientific claims, and excluded because of that. Spurious or not, claims have been made.

perfectblue 08:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motto

"I do not try to convert my opponents. I try to convert their audience."

Generally speaking, I don't try to convert anybody, I try to write a dispassionate account of what people believe, claim or prove, without thought as to whether one is right or wrong. So that people can get to grips with the history of a topic and its place in the scheme of things, not just whether it has solid foundations.

I guess that you could say that my motto is "notable lunacy is just as valid as notable science"

perfectblue 11:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Hi, looking at the AFD for Worthington-Kirsh, I've been really curious how you went about finding if a particular journal is peer-reviewed or not -- both in the scientific/medical fields and in the humanities. Is there a particular resource you go to? I've been having so much trouble auditing that. TIA--Hollerbackgril 12:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS!!!!!!!!!! DR PIOTR BLASS

Robert Mullen

Could you please explain why you think Wikipedia is better off with an article about this person, who appears to be totally undistinguished? By removing my prod notice I suspect you have left Wikipedia with an article that will stay at one line? Why is that beneficia to the writing of this encyclopedia? I want to help, but the main deletion process is too much hassle. Did you have any specific reason for impeding my efforts? Hanbrook 18:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bees and inebriation

I have constructed a somewhat whimsical draft about this subject at User talk:Filll/beedrunk. Do you think it has a chance to survive? I did get the bee expert User:Dyanega to help write it and edit my stupidities and give me feedback. Do you think it can survive as an article on its own? Or should it be part of other articles?--Filll 18:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Wight

Re: Versions printed already I gather from my reading that these are still important in the book world because of their bindings and typeface and also because often the earlier printings have disappeared, so Wight editions are the only ones that still exist. I did not research this extensively, however. Also, some of the titles he published he arranged to have translated, or were bundled with other works in a package or maybe in a binding. He is probably most remembered for publishing law books, and for publishing that Bourne manuscript with his father, which basically helped the English turn the tide against the Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese etc on the high seas. Otherwise, we might be speaking Spanish, I imagine. I will see what else I can turn up. The one person who wanted a picture is asking a bit much. I tried and tried to find out more about his personal life; it might be published, but not in a place I have easy access to. That will have to wait for someone who has more library priveleges than I do, and has more subscriptions to online collections of publications.--Filll 00:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just said a picture helps stave off deletion, which it does. A book title-page/illustration would be fine. Johnbod 16:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sephardic Pizmonim Project

Hello. As far as the pizmonim project organization is concerned, it is already big in the Sephardic community in Brooklyn. As far as an article about it, what type of information could we include that will make it "notable"? I personally won't take offense if the page must be taken down, but I would like to give it a shot in having it staying up if possible. Also, as far as being mentioned in other sources, most of the sources are hard copies such as books and magazines. How can I prove to Wikipedia the sources if they are mentioned in books, should I tell you which book?David Betesh

stecchini

What makes him notable? --ScienceApologist 15:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jyrki Niskanen

Further to your comment at the AFD debate, I have re-written the Jyrki Niskanen article from scratch, and would appreciate your opinions. Thank you. Eludium-q36 18:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Shapiro

He is not mentioned in a general discussion of legal ethics, and that is the problem. Only the Wikiepdia editor mentioned him in that context, and misrpresented the sources he cited.Jance 20:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both AfD and the disputed tag apply. Thanks.Jance 23:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote

I love the quote on your user page "I do not attempt to convert my opponents -- I aim at converting their audience." I did a google search and couldn't find it other than here. Who originally said that? Was it you? I'm a quote fanatic and I would like to be able to correctly attribute that one when I add it to my collection. SWAdair | Talk 08:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Wight

Another of my articles that was hit with a speedy is Thomas Wight. I have been slowly nurturing it in a sandbox. Here it is so far: User:Filll/Thomas Wight. Is it worthy of WP?--Filll 22:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why this quote: "for when the stomach is full and stuffed with meat, the abundance of humours is carried to the head, where it sticketh for a time and layeth as it were a lump of lead upon the brain." was removed? I also wonder about a couple of the asides, about the usefulness of some of these books. I was amazed that the book on laws of the forest was used until the mid-1900s as a standard text. That is over 300 years ! I also am intrigued by the notion of manorial courts, but that might be a bit far afield for this article.--Filll 23:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Launched as Thomas Wight.--Filll 01:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impact factors

As a librarian could you guide me to find impact factors for scientific journals. I have access to many journals through my university but I do not seem to have access to "Journal Citation Reports". Are there other sources? There are many journal articles that have, quite rightly, a "citation needed" tag after an impact factor. Getting this right is very important because adding an impact factor gives an independent assertion of notability for a journal. Most journal articles only have references to web pages for the journal itself or its publisher. I'd like to fix these. --Bduke 00:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I'll ask the Monash University library people about Journal Citation Reports. Having an honorary position means I only go in about once a week and since January here is very much a holiday period, I have not been in since before Christmas. Everything starts up again after Australia Day next Friday. I do not want to quote the publisher. For example, all the Royal Society of Chemistry journal articles give an impact factor, added by people who work for them (although that point is not important because I can check the site, but it does get people to keep an eye on the articles they edit). I want an outside verifiable source to show that the outside thinks that the journal is notable. I do not think anyone would challenge a reference for the impact factor to the publisher, but at some point someone is going to challenge that a journal has no references other than from the publisher. I'm clearer about what I'm looking for now. Again thanks. --Bduke 22:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think anyone is challenging the notability of peer-reviewed journals (yet! do I hear "academiacruft"?) but getting it established is a good idea. Putting all the information you gave me in one place is also good. Keep up the good work. --Bduke 22:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has happened. Someone just put a prod tag on Chemical Physics Letters just after I had added a reference to the impact factor. I have removed it and explained reasons on the talk page. --Bduke 00:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I just came across two new stubs for Journal of Physics A and Journal of Physics B. They were not good. I have added stuff. Could you please add ISSN numbers and impact factors? I do not have them because you only sent me the chemistry list. I could not find the ISSN on the publishers web page. I can not get into the Monash library until Wednesday since I just discovered they are closed Monday and Tuesday to move into a new building. --Bduke 00:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Fulbecke

I decided he was famous enough that he deserved his own article (actually all of the authors Wight published are pretty famous). But mainly I wanted to get that great quote in. So I have a stub in the sandbox for you to look at: User:Filll/Fulbecke. It has a ways to go, but it is a start. He wrote the first book on international law as near as I can tell. He wrote a book that is STILL in print giving advice to law students. He wrote books giving definitions of contracts etc that are STILL quoted. And he wrote a play that is pretty bad for the Queen. And a popular work on Roman history and a more scholarly work. Unfortunately there are two lawyers named Thomas Hughes and we only have an article for the later one. --Filll 02:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold. I made the article at William Fulbecke--Filll 02:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I need to learn more about bibliographic formats here. But I am slowly learning. I thank you for helping me. I really appreciate it. I will note that Thomas Hughes is not the same Thomas Hughes. --Filll 02:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Ferrill

As we disagree on the notability of Mr Ferrill I've nominated as an AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Ferrill to open up the debate. No offence intended Madmedea 10:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another draft

User talk:Filll/beedrunk is a draft that I do not know what to name, but I am thinking about Bees and intoxication, something like the exploding whales article, but with a bit more scholarly bent and science. I have vetted it with two bee experts, User:Rosser1954 and User:Dyanega and tried to deal with their complaints. I have also posted notices on several bee pages and projects here inviting people to comment on it and edit it. I think it has gone about as far as I can take it, modulo an extra reference or two. So I am reading to "publish" it to the mainspace here. Comments?--Filll 18:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LIS

Hi, would be interested in commenting on User talk:Pegship#LIS and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 20#Category:Library and information science → Category:Library science. —Ruud 02:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prods

I noticed you talking about spurious attempts to delete academics. I have just deprodded a few:

J. du P. Scholtz, apparently prominent South African philologist, was prodded with the noninformative and disparaging comment nn "scholar". I suspected a copyvio, but can't identify where it would come from. Regrettably I find no obit or other good biographical source either, but the basic data are likely to be correct.
Stanley Palmer, American historian, has written at least one major book.
Orin Starn, American anthropologist; had been on AFD, hence it is against the instructions to prod him.

The same guy who prodded Scholtz also prodded Kamal Narain Singh, a former Chief Justice of India (if only for a few weeks) as a "nn judge". (The article was copied from the official website, but I stubbed it.) I don't check everything I see on WP:PRODSUM, and some things are just too short or too badly written to even be worth saving, even when the subject is obviously notable (Starn really needs a rewrite, and I'm not sure the current article is much better than a red link, but it wasn't even properly categorised). up◦land 23:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. What I do with PRODSUM is to check on names that look like they are not going to be a random student saying hello, and are not about a rock musician or video game or something else I don't know enough about to say anything useful. If I think there's some chance, I deprod. For a few where it can be quickly done or if the author isn't around to help, I improve a bit. Either you got there first on these, or I missed them. I will check the articles to see if I too can add something helpful. If there are others where you thing anoth ed. might make it more solid, let me know. I just deprodded Abigail Levine (choreographer and dancer) who seems worth a discussion, & The World and Other Places, by a notable author --no one seems around to fix this one, Charles Hampden-Turner, ditto ditto Christina_Sormani notable mathematician who forgot to include her papers in the article. DGG 00:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seldom look at CAT:CSD, as it is more difficult to make out the spurious taggings from all the real crap. But I recently saved Ayinde Bakare from speedy deletion (now on AFD). Basically, like you (I guess), I try to identify and save academics, representatives of non-pop culture such as classical musicians, and non-Western people (like Bakare) or generally non-Anglo people (there is a degree of systemic bias even against Western things from outside English-speaking countries). There is also a bias against businesspeople, but with all the corporate bullshit and impressive-sounding titles with uncertain meaning that comes with the territory, it is sometimes difficult to make out who is really important (but look at John L. Weinberg, who clearly is and survived AFD; somebody still tried to prod him again after that, against the guidelines). I never try to save professional "wrestlers", and there are some other categories that I never really bother with either. Not that I have anything against Western pop-culture or sports, but these things will always come back if they are really notable. The big holes in coverage shown by the fact that Ayinda Bakare was nominated for speedy deletion, despite apparently being one of the most important representatives of a popular African musical genre, shows that we have to more careful to nurture those areas which are underrepresented, encourage writers working there, and sometimes make an extra effort to save badly-written articles that could safely have been deleted awaiting a better version if it had been about some American TV personality. (Jùjú music is just a stub, and another important Jùjú musician, Tunde King, who was described as the actual founder of the genre in some article I found on JSTOR, has no article at all.)

It seems to me that some users are more prone than others to make these spurious deletion nominations, and have a track record of bad or at least dubious nominations. I'm not sure it is proper to mention names, but if you hang around PRODSUM for a while, you'll figure it out. The group isn't constant, as some leave or change accounts, and some new users learn what should be taken to AFD or what may actually be salvageable.

And just for balance, a couple of points that may be made in favour of letting a PROD run its course, even when the subject is notable and the nomination reason bogus: One reason is that, if the article is really crappy, it may be better to let somebody actually interested in writing a good article have the honour of starting it from scratch, rather than some mass-producer of substubs or some illiterate POV pusher who can't be bothered to cite decent references. A second reason is that it may be better than an AFD, which risks creating a kind of perceived precedent against the subject or similar subjects based on an article that may not do its topic justice. In either case it is a matter of judging the likelihood of somebody else recreating the article in better shape. (If you think you can do it yourself at your leisure, don't bother trying to save something that needs a complete rewrite. It is too easy to waste time and energy on talk and project pages that could be used on actual article writing.) The newbie-biting aspect has to be taken into account as well. If the author is a new user that may do better things once s/he has mastered the formatting and all that, deletion is an off-putting thing. If the author is somebody who has been around for years writing unreferenced one-line substubs and never developing them, it really doesn't make a difference.

The reason my talkpage is blank is that I am about to take a break. But I'll keep an eye on this discussion. up◦land 11:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watching speedy deletions

DGG said: You mentioned to Elaragirl your Firefox bookmarks to look at speedy categories--just what did you set up?--I suspect the application of the categories is too random to be reliable, but Id like to give it a try.

Hi there DGG. It's really easy to monitor for speedy deletions in each category:

Create a folder on your bookmarks toolbar entitled.. well, I've entitled mine Wikipedia, because I have more than just speedy deletion categories in there, whereas you could just entitle it Speedy Deletion Categories, or something similar.

Next, I bookmark links to individual speedy deletion categories' "What links here" page, simply by dragging the tab onto the bookmarks toolbar. For example, for all of the pages marked with db-nonsense, link it to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Db-nonsense&limit=5000&from=0 and entitle the bookmark "Pages for CSD G1 - db-nonsense".

Similarly, the following:

Whichever ones you want to include on there, from the complete list of Deletion Templates. As you can see, in my sandbox, I have included db-nonsense, db-test, db-empty, db-bio, db-spam and db-talk (for talk pages without corresponding articles), and that table is completely copyable if that's where you want to start from. I hope this helps you out. Bobo . 04:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG said: I understand. It will be interesting to see how many get marked for an inappropriate category--this seems a relatively easy way to check up on that. Thanks.

Some occasionally do, but most of the time the categories are clear enough that regular Speedy deletion taggers will know which ones should be categorized and with which template - and, for that matter, those for which it would be clearer merely to use {{db-reason}}, with a more specific note. Bobo . 04:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr John H McNeely

On this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr John H McNeely you talk about teaching award and books written, but I can't find any mention of these in the article. I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something before I !voted. Pete.Hurd 05:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from outside

Hello! You made comments in Kazimieras Garšva could you take a look at it then have more time, because many questions still not answered and WP:LIVING still applicable. Thanks, M.K. 20:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help. Could you please look a bit and in article Vilnija, because there Mr. Garšva`s works are called quasi-academic, while then I trying to correct it I always being reverted by particular contributor user:Piotrus. Thanks again for help. M.K. 21:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you would probably benefit from a little background on this debacle. K.G. and Vilnija's article were created after a user (M.K) started using Vilnija/Garsva's publications in order to push his POV in Armia Krajowa article (see Talk:Armia Krajowa). After questions about those sources being (not) reliable and violating WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and related policies were raised, we finally created pages on those sources. One of the goals is to decide whether publications of this organization and people related to it about history can be seen as reliable. You may want to comment on that point.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry DGG, using your talk here, but this particular contributor misleads again. First of all Piotrus, we should be moved to I. All your "questions" of "reliability" of presented academic publications was limited only by your speculations and WP:OR. Somehow you missed to provide any academic background for the source, which denounce its presented facts. And article Vilnija was created to discredit the source and this is WP:POINT. And as history shows also WP:OR and WP:LIVING. And you right about Undue weight, now the article based exclusively on polish sources, while by trying to add info you reverting it all the time, including to check the sources, which are rather questionable. [5] and of course do not hesitate to remove neutral reviewer tags. [6]. M.K. 18:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally you're right. However, the problem with mr. G and his organization is that apparently hardly anyone considers it reliable. I've browsed through google books and it seems all references mention the organization along with some more or less qualitative statements (such as extremist, nationalist and so on. I bet there are more refs in Lithuanian, but so far our Lithuanian friend was not able to cite them - and I'm unable to do that since I don't speak Lithuanian at all.

Other thing is that apparently the article sums up the beliefs of Vilnija pretty well. Or does it not? //Halibu tt 08:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

//Halibu tt 08:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, let me state clear - by any means I do not agree with Garšva's views, (and sincerely, I know them only as they're presented in the article) - and I do not want to whitewash anyone. Although, and this is only my opinion, for now article on Garšva does sum only Polish press views on him. There are no official documents, no organization statute, no officialy proclaimed goals of the organisation. You might say, that the one, from English book, that does cite mr. Garšva's book from 1988 does. So let me ask you, does it clearly state that he didn't change his views in last 19 years? You might not remember, but in 1990's there was quite radical time, and many people did say things, they most probably would not say now. Does this justify Garšva? I think not, although I do not think it's reason not to treat him fair.

And once again - the purpouse of creation of the article is quite contraversial - to prove it is not a valid source. Point taken. I think M.K might find more reliable sources on AK actions in Vilnius region, than Vilnija's publications, and I think I've found some publications on AK actions in Belarus. --Lokyz 10:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I extensivly searched for English or Polish references to Vilnija or K.G.; all that I found (and is used in both articles) are highly critical references to him (I have not yet found a single neutral or positive ref to him or the organization). I am still waiting for our Lithuanian collegues to present refs that would show him in a positive light, and preferably try to debunk the refs I found. As for him changing his views - we have refs from recent years (2004, 2005) that still show his works as controversial ('nationalitic', 'anti-Polish'). I believe that a commentary by Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs is pretty reliable. PS. If BLP is applied to organizations, then I repeat my earlier request if you can take a look at Talk:Armia Krajowa, where M.K attempts to insert information about AK being responsible for genocide in Lithuania.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we stuck with it Kazimieras Garšva. M.K. 12:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, hope it will be stable. M.K. 20:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Glaser

The article Audrey Glaser did not credibly assert notability; it just said she was a prodigy who spoke 7 languages and had "recieved [sic] 100% on all assignments since third grade." But what clinched it for me was how I found the article. I found it after speedily deleting the following article by the same author:

Jaya Agnihotri has to be the coolest person ever. She has likes for Joe Crede, Southpaw, and Ewoks. She never tells anybody how high her IQ is

I then checked that author's contributions; the only other one was the article on Ms. Glaser. Given that history, the odds were pretty close to zero that Ms. Glaser was an actual prodigy whose intelligence might have attracted attention from reliable sources (none were cited in the article). So I'm comfortable with the speedy in this instance. NawlinWiki 01:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afd/speedy

I did that because there was already one vote for speedy deletion and I don't think it should've gone to AfD anyway since 2 other similar articles by the same user did not. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Glaser

Yes, I would argue that the admin in question disregarded procedure in deleting the article after 7 minutes. But I'm not personally annoyed about it, as I recognise that 95% of editors would have speedy-deleted it anyway. My personal preference is for AfD rather than speedy, as I think it's always better to give articles a chance; however, this is my own viewpoint (as an inclusionist) and I recognise that the majority of editors feel differently. To be fair, I was quite aware that the chances of the article being valid/credible were close to zero; I just preferred to give it a chance, just in case. Walton monarchist89 08:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DGG... Alan2012 here (quackwatch talk page)

Got your message. Thanks. I cross-posted the thing about peer review as a courtesy, since it seemed that no one (?) was aware of the papers I cited. Whatever. They can do with it as they please. I am not pushing a POV. I am "pushing" knowledge of the current relevant literature.

I may add it back to Weasel Words, where it is clearly relevant. I simply want the editorial group there to be AWARE, for God's sake. Why you or anyone would have an objection to this, I have no clue.

Ciao.

-- Alan2012 04:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPWatcher approval

You've been approved to use NPWatcher. Please give me any feature requests or bugs. I'm also happy to help if you have any problems running the program, or any questions :). Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if I've made a new release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Finally, enjoy! Martinp23 17:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

db tags

I'm relatively new here, but I thought that once some other than the author had taken off the db tag one was not supposed to put it back.

That's {{PROD}} tags: see WP:PROD. Ultimately, the applicability of db tags is up to whichever admin is speedying (is that a verb?) pages at the time. --Calton | Talk 06:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

Seems notable from its list of teachers and students and probably can be well sourced. I already removed some of the puffery, of course.DGG

Guy, it's spam, part of a campaign. Here's the walled garden checklist:

Michael Neff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Michael B. Neff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Algonkian Writer Conferences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NYC Pitch and Shop Writers Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Editors:

--Calton | Talk 07:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD

Note my edit here. NoSeptember 08:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Replied on my talk page. NoSeptember 19:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete: Satya Vrat Shastri

DGG, thank you for your edit. Although the article on Satya_Vrat_Shastri is quite informative, the main contributor, User:Rsbj66, is known to be spreading articles related to Hindu/Indian studies to promote his own website(s) and ultimately his music. The said user cites himself as a resource and that is {{originalresearch}}. You have not cited any other sources either, so the artile should remain tagged as original research. As for the speedy deletion, the article is still salvageable if it does not refer to Rsbj66 (A.k.a. Richard Shaw Brown) - the referral makes it a self promoting spam article. So, until that is done, I must retag the article. -- Emana 19:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, thanks for your reply. Yes, you are absolutely correct in that this kind of dispute should not be taken care of by speedy deletions. But please explain why you have removed the original research tag... as the University of Delhi site does not directly show any information on Satya Vrat Shastri - perhaps a different page? Also, can you help to cite specifically where the list of awards was compiled from? Currently, the most reliable source is the Dr's own site, which may be considered promotional. Salvaging an article beats deleting them any day. -- Emana 20:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved what you wrote from my frontpage to my talk page. Unless you write in my Talk page, I won't get a message notice. Let's continue the discussion on the article's Talk page.

Blass (copied from here)

I would like to edit it so it has a better NPOV, but I will do so only with your permission. What c. should I edit? (Besides other qys I raised just now on delrev, who are these notable students? that usu. means students who have gone on to further brilliant careers as a result of ones teaching, not people whom one happens to have had in class. BTW, did you ever find any publications in math?DGG 01:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the infobox to better reflect what is in the article. The information I found is reflected in the article and I did not find any publications in math in the general areas where I looked (e.g., newspapers). From this, I believe that information about Blass' math efforts have not made its way to the general public. I am not qualified to review math journals and determine whether that information may be added to (or kept out of) the article, so I did not review math journals. The article now is open for anyone to edit, so please feel free to do so. -- Jreferee 15:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Buddhist Association

It's not at all clear to me why you removed the PROD tag that I had placed on Philadelphia Buddhist Association. Your edit summary says, "de-prod 'contains erroneous capitalisation.' is not a reason." This would seem to imply that "contains erroneous capitalisation" was the only reason I had proposed to delete it, which is not the case. What gives?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another candidate to consider

I have scratched out John Cotta. Any comments? Will it get hit with a speedy?--Filll 21:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

looking for a moderator and/or contributors

Physics is being rewritten and we are looking for contributors and/or moderators at Talk:Physics/wip Do you have any suggestions? --Filll 16:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phaistos disc reloaded

I remember writing you a while ago, that you would support an entry of the PD in the articles on printing if there is a credible reference qualifying the PD as printing. I found one. By a professor of linguistics in the renowned journal Gutenberg-Jahrbuch in an article which specifically deals with the definition of typography. The question is now

how to phrase the entry
how to organize the material, since it warrants inclusion in no less than three articles (Printing, MTP, and the Phaistos Disc) Gun Powder Ma 01:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion debate on OttoBib.com

Hello, DGG. I see that you've discussed the OttoBib software with User:Dhaluza, and actually tried it out. An article OttoBib.com was created, but is now nominated for deletion. I've not entered my vote there yet. My guess is that the program would have to qualify for notability per WP:SOFTWARE in order for the article to be kept. (Mere usefulness would not be sufficient). Links from WP to the web site would, IMHO, need careful justification. Here is the current deletion debate. Since you've tried the program, I would be interested to know your opinion. (There is also a similar internal tool by User:Diberri available at [7] that you might have heard of). If OttoBib is not suitable for an article, perhaps an internal Wikipedia page could be created that lists out some bibliographic tools that would help in writing the encyclopedia. EdJohnston 21:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taj Mahal RFC

Thanks for your contribution to the RFC - in the interests of clarity would you link the WP article regarding Purushottam Nagesh Oak's book - or did you mean to refer to the Purushottam Nagesh Oak article? Many thanks. --Joopercoopers 11:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger - Organizations & Companies

In December I revived the discussion about merging the notability guidelines for Companies & Corporations into Organizations, with simplified text reducing the confusion of all of the special circumstances, which now reads like the US Tax Code. In mid-January I proposed that we make a decision by the end of January, and move to developing the text. The vote is now open at Talk Companies and Corporations.

--Kevin Murray 02:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of failed candidates

Hi DGG, I note that in this AfD here that you say "It seems to be well established elsewhere that major party candidates in a election for the legislative body are notable whether they win or lose". I'm wondering where you get this data. I see that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#People notes that the precedents are that "Candidates for a national legislature are not viewed as having inherent notability". Best Regards. Pete.Hurd 15:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"the precedents are only as strong as the recent decisions" ummm, ok the precedents aren't really important afterall, we just go with the most recent !vote. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 20:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy candidate?

LO Zone--Filll 20:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC) How about Pogo Island Hands-On?--Filll 20:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surujrattan Rambachan

FYI - I removed the prod on the article - he is the mayor of the largest town in TT, and is an otherwise nationally important political and cultural figure. I'm tracking down some refs to expand the article. Guettarda 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El Cajon Valley Players i saw you proded the article but did not do right so i proded it for you because thats what you wanted right if not i will remove it okOo7565 03:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC) no problum i am new to this here i am learning as wellOo7565 03:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Kyle collins

No, this wasn't a special circumstance, just a normal instance of WP:CSD#A7. It is not a policy violation for an admin to speedy an article like this directly. Some admins have a personal policy against doing so, because they prefer to have input from two people (the template-placer and the deleting admin) on the deletion decision, but I am not one of them. For borderline cases where a second opinion is useful, I'll use one of the db- templates and wait for someone else to delete or keep it, but there are many, many, many cases where it's completely obvious that the page needs deleting. This is just a guess, but I suspect that most of the admins who do new pages patrol or Recent changes patrol do the same as I do. (And actually, now that I look at it, Kyle collins was tagged with {{db-bio}}, but Sly-eye removed the template.) Regards, FreplySpang 09:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, another admin could check, I suppose. (As you probably know, admins can view deleted articles.) Or the article creator could object. But I don't really see what needs to be "solved" here. Part of the deal with being an admin is that one is trusted by the community to make the right call on these things - that's why we go through WP:RFA. The rules are pretty clearly defined at the top of WP:CSD, which says, "The 'Speedy deletion' policy governs limited cases where administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media 'on sight' without further debate." By the way, if you particularly care about reviewing Kyle collins, the content of the deleted page was the same text and image that User:Sly-eye has on his user page. FreplySpang 08:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carnival in Flanders

Hello! I'm curious as to why you created a red link on this page when it's apparent this French film from the 1930s never will have an article in English Wikipedia. I can understand editing articles to create blue links, but why bother if the result is a link that forever will be red? I'm not criticizing you, I ask only because I like to understand why other editors make the choices they do. Thanks! SFTVLGUY2 16:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo A. Soriano

You commented on the talk page of Leo A. Soriano that the reason given for a {{prod}} of this article was inappropriate. Another editor has now listed the article for AfD. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo A. Soriano. --Eastmain 02:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Side High School (Fort Worth, Texas)

Thanks for participating at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Side High School (Fort Worth, Texas). I wanted to let you know that I found some references and added them to the article. --Eastmain 01:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

introductions / overlaps

Hi DGG - Just saying hello. Noticed we have a significantly overlapped set of interests -- I was an academic / systems librarian, before I went to law school to work on copyright, open access, and the like; and I'm not a biologist myself but my partner is, so I work on biologist & other scientist biographies. ... Very glad for the work you're doing on the academic articles. --lquilter 06:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your good arguments

Thanks for your good arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Enterprise Independent School District. Best regards, Icemuon 10:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tall women, List of tall men

Please see new combined deletion debate. ~ trialsanderrors 20:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland Presidential Election

The article doesn't run well with me for a few reasons. The first is the lack of context. You seem to be convinced that this article does have context- if the context is the title alone, then I think there is a problem. I didn't realise that I had nominated it twice, I apologise for that. Secondly, there are no sources. Obviously, not a deletion criteria. Something else that bugged me was my own fault, I misread the box, muddling 'presedential elections' and 'parliamentary elections'. The fact that the whole series is like that does not make it any better- I mean, it makes it worse- we have a whole series of badly formatted articles. They just don't have satisfactory context, for me. They look nasty, and unprofessional. They don't look like good stubs, they look very much like the kind of very poor stub that I would normally nominate for deletion. J Milburn 22:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check some other election articles for other countries. They are all constructed just the same. Your dissatisfaction appears to be with the WP policy on how articles on the subject should be written. You are certainly welcome to disagree, and, if you think it worthwhile, try to change the policy--there may be consensus for changing it. But the way to express it is to bring it up on article talk pages, or on the talk pages for the infoboxes, And then, if you still want to change it, open a discussion on it at the Village Pump. Personally, I'd advise doingagainst doing that unless you think you'll have support on that particular issue. I have some policy disagreements, but I havent brought up any there until I have one that I think will succeed.

It is almost certainly not a good idea to express your personal views on policy by speedies. Remember that speedy is only for uncontestable articles--if you think there might be any problem, or that anyone might reasonably disagree, you should use prod or afd. I use prod for borderline cases, so others have a chance to see and comment. WP::CSD-- "these criteria are worded narrowly and such that in most cases, reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion. Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under deletion policy is recommended. "

Also "Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether an article could be improved or reduced to a stub; speedy deletion is for cases where an article does not contain useful content" -- I think tis means that an improvable stub should never be listed for speedy. Most people dont list them even for prod, unless a few month of trying havent brought improvement. The deletion process is not intended for poor quality articles, just articles that shouldn't be in WP at all. (Typically, if I see a bad article, i will spend at least a few minutes trying to improve it at least a little)

There are various proposals at various places to end or sharply limit the use of speedy because of this sort of problem. I think it a useful procedure in obvious cases, and I would not like to see that happen. DGG 01:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it has just occurred to me how badly I have been editing over the last few days, and, worse, arguing with everyone. I'm sorry, I'll work on it. J Milburn 23:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the message. I use speedies all the time, and I also clean up new (and old) articles all the time. However, as I say, the quality of my edits have been slipping, I will relax for a few days. I appreciate that you have discussed this with me, and I thank you for your advice. J Milburn 23:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

Please put new discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Social Dynamics (2nd nomination), and not an old archive. Thank you. (you might want to think about archiving your talk page too). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Speedy Delete Tags

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself, as you did with Workers Vanguard. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (Please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. --Silverhand^Talk 21:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never removed a dv tag from an article I created, and in fact none have ever been placed on an article I created. I do remove them from articles that others created if I think them unjustified, as is explicitly permitted by the rules on the template. I often make an edit to improve the article as well, as perhaps this made it appear that I was removing a tag on my own article, ~~But I am not sure just which article you have in mind.~~ Perhaps after you check the edit history you may want to say something on my page. As I do sometimes remove such tags,, I try very carefully to stay within the rules, and would like this acknowledged. DGG 21:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize that you are unhappy I tagged Workers Vanguard as CSD A1. I've reviewed WP:SPEEDY, WP:SD, WP:SK and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations. Admittedly, I may have missed something in my review. Could you point out the relevant article that provides for a non-administrator's ability to remove a CSD tag from an article? Thanks! --Silverhand^Talk 21:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template says " if you are the author of the article do not remove the template, " which certainly would normally be interpreted to say that anyone else can. Hangon is provided for the author as an alternative. In fact, i do this two or three times a week, when I think it incorrectly used. Please indicate where it says anyone other than the author can't. I'll mention this on the CSD discussion to get other comments, & so we will not need to argue this between us.DGG 21:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair. I'll watch on the discussion and follow along. Thanks again! --Silverhand^Talk 21:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely apologize for my misunderstanding of how the WP:CSD process works with concern to the removal of tags by a non-admin. I do appreciate the time you've taken to help clarify the next steps in this process, and I look forward to particpating in the process, as defined in recent discussions. --Silverhand^Talk 16:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

League of Copyeditors participation drive!

Dear League member,

We've started a participation drive for the remainder of February. If you can, please help clear the backlog by adopting the following goals each week:

Select an article to copy-edit from the backlog. After your copy-edit, list the article in the articles ready for final proofread section.
Select a different article to proofread from the articles ready for final proofread section.

Thanks for your help! BuddingJournalist 01:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roadcruft

Well, I guess I finally nailed my colors to the mast -> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 999‎. Did I go too far? Or not far enough? Edeans 02:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys went way too far. According to the blocking policy, you can be blocked for damaging Wikipedia. And mass deleting a the 5400+ road articles is damaging the work of 100+ editors. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 03:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell??? I didn't mass delete anything, and I have no indication DGG did either. Back up or back off, jackass. Edeans 04:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL??????? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. Edeans 04:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was directed toward you, Edeans. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I got that. DGG can speak for himself/herself, I'm sure. Edeans 04:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edeans, you made a personal attack against Vishwin60. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Vishwin60 made an unwarranted accusation against me and DGG. Edeans 05:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to drop it for now, but calling Vishwin60 a jacka** was uncalled for. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I myself did not try to delete any road articles, just broadcasting towers, & that's being compromised in a friendly way. I'm not in the least bothered by accusations that I might have and see no need to get angry, because the edit history is straightforward & if anyone gets confused--which can easily happen in the course of a long AfD discussion--I can just explain it to them. I hadn't even head about a mass deletion, and I think it would be a poor way to go--I have never tried a mass anything--I prefer to make tentative tries one article at a time & back off if there's too much opposition.

I do not think I have more than once or twice said something directly personal and even then in polite language. I've often said edits or deletions were wrong, and sometimes said why, but the few times someone has taken it personally I've apologized, usually in several places.

Others I work with sometimes use impolite language--if we have a common goal I will continue working with them, but I never support such language--I have a few friends here who do need reminding from time to time.

V60, when Edeans made a comment on my talk page about nailing colors, and I said I thought his comments right, I was referring to just 2 comments at Rt 999, and my advice otherwise was to go slow. I would not have nominated that Calif road for deletion in any case, and if it hadn't happened too fast, I'd have voted keep. Back to normal, I hope. DGG 05:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Eleonore of Hesse-Darmstadt

I replied to you on the talk page of that article. I assure you, I am not trying to be an ass, or push a some wierd agenda: I simply want to focus on improving the 1.6 million articles Wikipedia already has, mainly because my strength as an editor is not writing, but copy-editing. I guess that makes me fairly reactionary against what I see as being (sometimes) frivolous addditions to an already bloated repository of trivia. I hope we can come to an understanding. Salad Days 03:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion: Anders Sandberg

As I noted in a comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anders Sandberg, you're incorrect that he's not mentioned on the transhumanism wiki article, he is mentioned both there and in the list of transhumanists article. Hypnosifl 03:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Normalcy

didn't I say something about being careful.? Even I would have voted keep on this one.DGG 05:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Edeans" Indeed you did. We simply disagree on this one, but I cannot mind about disagreements I have with editors which accord respect to me and to others. But as you may have already discerned from the above, I will NOT be cowed by "arguments" from bullies. Not that I want to get all G. Gordon Liddy on you, but I can be as subtle or as confrontational as needed for the cause. I will duly and carefully regard your advice, agree or no. Edeans 06:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gutenberg

I cut out the material concerning EA typography. For reasons, please see Talk:Johannes Gutenberg. Regards Gun Powder Ma 15:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion request from anonymous user.

You have previously reversed a request for speedy deletion from an anonymous user. This anonymous user is at it again, and I'd like you to take a look at the article Lucca Brazzi and see if you agree (or disagree again) with this anonymous user. StudyAndBeWise 00:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, somebody else removed the speedy deletion request. Thanks for your time. StudyAndBeWise 01:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry for that. I'm coming from the germanspeak Wikipedia where the same article already has been deletet because it is a fake. I just wanted to delete it here too. (see de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/9._Februar_2007#Cäsar_von_Lohringhoven_(gelöscht)) 80.219.211.132 17:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems it is a hoax, but as speedy is not for hoaxes, W.Marsh did it just right using prod & I have put a note to that effect on the article talk p.. Of course it is important to get rid of en versions of hoaxes detected in other WPs. But I could assert that anything obscure was found a hoax on another language WP, and if I listed it for speedy & the admin was a little rushed,...21:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's talk. Please see my user page.

Coalitionwatch 23:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto

Yes, I undersatand. What do you think should be done with the rest of the class? Dhaluza 12:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Academy of Sciences

Thank you for paring down the redlink farm that this article was. I was hoping someone would do that for a long time. Grand master ka 01:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ebony Anpu AfD

Hello. You recently commented and/or voted on the AfD for the Ebony Anpu article here. FYI, the AfD has been reset because the discussion was not about the merits of the article, but instead about procedural issues. You are welcome to leave a new comment about whether or not the article should be included here, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebony Anpu. In order to be as fair as possible to the article's creators and those who feel it should be deleted, all comments about Wikipedia deletion procedure as it relates to this specific AfD are being directed to the AfD's talk page, here. Thanks for your time, and sorry for the wikispam. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs

I was browsing through AfDs and saw your comments on Ebony Anpu. I thought they were very fair and clear. Could you take a look at another AfD? It's a similar case, but does indeed have two mainstream references. The article is Sam Webster. Khabs 21:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added a couple of comments at the AfD for Webster. Not sure whether you are watching it, so wanted to let you know. Khabs 01:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm confused. On the Ebony AfD you said, "I will support the article if there are two truly RS mainstream sources to base it on--not about the religion, for that is well-documented. About the man, which is the subject of this article." Did you not mean it? Does it not apply to other individuals? Because Webster has some 10-20 pages devoted to him in a book published by Harper, and mentions in books published by University of South Carolina Press and University of Pennsylvania Press. As well as more mentions in lesser books, journals, etc. So why doesn't that count as a keep? You said it would if Ebony Anpu had such sources. I can add more minor ones if you think that's necesary. There are a few more I haven't added yet as they wouldn't add a lot, but they are accounts of Webster's comments, actions, etc. Khabs 06:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

It has been proposed that the following criteria be removed from this guideline: 1. The commercial organization is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications.3 2. The commercial organization's share price is used to calculate one or more of the major managed stock market indices.4 Note this is not the same as simply being listed on a stock market. Nor is it the same as being included in an index that comprises the entire market. The broader or the more specialized the index, the less notability it establishes for the company.

We are close to evaluating consensus, please join with us in the discussion. --Kevin Murray 04:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy question

What do you think of Abus Gun (and several related articles by the same editor) which appears to be an article whose only source is a videogame? I have complained repeatedly since Jan 21, with no response from the primary editor. --Filll 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Please Help!!

Dear Friend, I am trying to let all the world know about a very interesting part of Psychiatry for which the nearest possible researcher was Elisabeth Kubler-Ross and I came in contact with her organization when they were busy inviting people for her funerel. After her the only feeble portion very specifically surviving is described in the article Philosophy of Death and Adjustment. Please help me build this articlev. Edtit it as you like, and as needed. But please help. You do not even need to reply me. I do not much understand or have enough time to read and learn how to talk or discuss. Please forgive me for that, I love wikipedia and it is very helpful. Please just edit it as you think it should be for survival. A whole branch of Psychiatry can be awaited behind this article. Please help me - Samir, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, e-mail me : hmanjur@bttb.net.bd

I made a remark on the discussion p., & if the article gets kept i will improve it. I am a little reluctant to do much ahead of time , because I think it will be deleted anyway. But if no other support comes, I'll try. DGG 23:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I will pray and wait for your support. I believe any experience hand on it might just help it survive. I hope you understand my interest in keeping a feeble part of Psychiatry alive as a teacher of it. 203.112.199.92 01:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have signed with 5 tildes instead of 4 on Talk:Intelligent Design

subject says it all. I thought I'd notify you. i kan reed 06:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pls note

Dear Sir, I have elaborated to everyone, who objected, about the 'Philosophy of Death and Adjustment' article very clearly in their talk pages seperately and in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of Death and Adjustment-- for all to see. Pls read it for yourself. I am not a very smart person in such activity and pls forgive me for anything stupid, but I tried to be clear and honest. In that page I saw someone asking you if you can edit the article upto the mark and also referred that your comment was on my request. But I think nothing here is worth hiding. So once again, will you pls take the challange for me, ofcourse in a rational and meaningful way, not emotionally. I'll be grateful. Mohammad Samir Hossain Assistant Professor of Psychiatry 203.112.197.18 16:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am editing it according to my own judgment to what I think will give a reasonably good article & best keep it from deletion--which will make it quite short-- but I alert you it may be deleted anyway. In order to preserve the present form,userified I have userified it--copied it onto your user talk page, along with Chalyres' advice about what to create as a new p. in case this one is deleted. But there is something I need: the citation to your own published work; if it has not yet been published the entire section will need to be omitted. DGG 23:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creation according to Genesis

You seem to be of a slight misunderstanding of my reason for suggesting delete and merge: Actually, it was mainly the J vs. E text part that set me off: It's done so much better in the Genesis article, and very awkwardly in Creation according to Genesis - it just seemed that putting it back in with the rest of Genesis would allow that part of the commentary to stay with the high-quality description, which only seemed to leave a bit of the rest of the article after that. Eh, weel. Anyway... I accept the vote, though do think it could be done better. (And I have no objection to Creation according to Genesis not including evolution, as it's not including Creationism, which isn't actually the same as Biblical belief.) Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Vilnija

Just reminding you that this discussion is not closed yet. Unless you agree with my remarks?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 15:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing UFO

Hey can you help share your thoughts on the Beijing article here? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beijing_UFO_Research_Organization (:O) -nima baghaei 14:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polish artists

I have the feeling that there is a concerted effort and that there will be some deletions forthcoming but so far most seem to pass WP:N, which makes me think all the more that we need new guidelines for artists and a few more people willing to immerse in the matter to make founded judgment of notability else we will be the artist's phone book Alf photoman 22:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many attempts to get the place cleaned up, and one should commend Piotrowski (that his name?). The matter is not easy though because many things are subjective and pass fast. If we take the young wild, a Berlin movement of the 90's we see that they were the total hipe yet right now you could not even get a professional critic to name you ten of them, art therefore a field with many mines buried in it.

As for publicity, Wiki is extensively used for propaganda and I don't see how to avoid it unless it goes into extremes like the German MP's who made a hobby out of vandalizing the other parties articles. I think the Germans are paying them too much tax money Alf photoman 15:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments

... in the discussion about "Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises should be official policy." The goal is to protect Wikipedia's reputation as a neutral encyclopedic resource, and protect Wikipedia from civil liability. The consensus appears to be that WP:BLP should be modified to include ongoing enterprises. What do you think? Please add your comments to the existing discussion on this page. Dino 11:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fixing my bad date on Johann Christoph Wichmannshausen

I just wanted to thank you for fixing that date. It was embarrassing to see that I was so far off. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 06:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sig

The flag you are using takes up 7 lines in the edit box. It should also work if the lines are run together. Friendly comment, not complaint.DGG 01:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that I out. I had no idea that was happening—those 7 lines of code don't appear when you use the {flagicon} script within an infobox. (example) I thought it was a cute trick, but I guess I'll stop using it. —xanderer 01:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Journal

Thanks for informing me. I had just finished adding a comment to an article about a completely non-notable (and no longer existent) website. I was patrollying the new pages list, which tends to be filled with non-notable articles. I came across the article in question, and saw it as non-notable(as it asserted NO notability), and possibly considered "little or no context", these categories being CSD:A7 and CSD A1,(as seen here). I tend to be a little on the deletionist side, mostly because I value the overall quality of Wikipedia. Thus I marked it for deletion, but it did not qualify for deletion after you merged it into an article worth saving.(have to leave now, on a schedule, might post more later)--Vox Rationis 14:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hermaitge

will you please revise your discision to delete Hermitage High School we have revised it enough that it should now be notable —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr William Wright (talk • contribs) 20:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

CZ

(from discussion elsewhere): I just don't see what can they do to stop wiki steamroller, which is bent on being THE place to collect all important information. As one of my favourite saying goes: The avalanche has already started. It is too late for pebbles to vote. PS. I am always happy to discuss such issues, so feel free to msg me with that subject as often as you wish.-- >[[User:Piotrus Just listening in, but I see no reason why anyone in WP should be hostile to CZ or consider it undesirable competition. From what I understand, their main problem is endless discussions of the rules rathe than writing--which is not unknown here; the difference seems to be that the people there tend to discuss in much longer essays. Remember that WP is free to use their content, just as they are free to use the content here. Ideally, it should result in improvements in both places. [[User:DGG|DGG

You're welcome. Maybe my response follows from an overinterpretation of your remark, please note, however that - as far as I'm aware - none of us thinks in terms of hostility or competition; Well, while I'm (positively) interested in, my colleague looks quite skeptic about both CZ's chances to work and some possible superiority I suggested (he's still a bit interested in).

Anyway, you're welcome to give your opinion on the subject if you like. You mentioned a problem with overdiscussing rules, but it looks natural at the beginning and is likely to pass away. However, a more delicate -and perhaps more important- issue would be how they can deal with complex and difficult behavior. I do not care for the straightforward jerks and trolls, but for those who Jimbo described as "borderline cases — people who do some good work, but who are also a pain in the neck". Do you think CZ would be more efficient in this regard? You seem to know it a bit, so what's your impression ? --Beaumont (@) 21:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think CZ will be much more effective in the borderline cases, and that this is one of its main advantages. The need for concurrence of an editor as well as the original writer &c should deal with it, together with the more mature attitude of the authors. There are topics I will not work on here that I would work on there, because of excessive POV pushing here, often from those with views I in fact share but whose manner of argumentation I deplore. By "mature" I do not mean age--there seem to be here many grown-ups with intolerant attitudes and many younger ones with excellent discretion and common sense--I assume it will be similar there. (The other advantage of course is the more scholarly nature & certification, but this is only an advantage in some topics) ((And I believe there has in fact been one disruptive troll attack over there already, quickly dealt with) DGG 22:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) BTW, that's interesting what you say about POV-pushing. Sometimes I feel similar.--Beaumont (@) 23:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of global warming on Australia page completely rewritten - 40 references

Effects of global warming on Australia page completely rewritten - 40 references The article now has over 40 referenced statements and is based largely on a report prepared by Australia's premier scientific research organisation the CSIRO. The referencing of the article now compares very favourably with most other articles I have looked at. The article has no POV. The report on which it is based was prepared for the Business Round Table. It ought not be deleted now, even if it should have been before. Could each person who has recommended deletion please review and reconsider your view. Thanks dinghy 07:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

I'm picking you at random from a recent AFD discussion. If you are willing, please provide a third opinion at Talk:LOL (Internet slang)#Yet another useless "Here are some random occurrences in film and on television." section. Uncle G 23:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My recent AfD nominations

Greetings! I just wanted to clear up some concerns I thought you may have had about some of my recent AfD nominations. I am currently helping clean out all the unassessed biographies that are part of the {WPBiography} project, so I have been assessing articles and giving them a rating. Currently I am working on clearing out the sections from X through Z. As you can probably guess I am in the Y section now. As for the articles relating to the Three Kingdoms and Chinese history, I am taking the articles at face value and if they fail to contain any pertinent information or fail to meet the WP:BIO standards, I nominate them for deletion. As they currently stand, they do fail to meet WP:BIO standards since they do not contain any references and appear to have been tagged as {fiction} for some time without being furnished. That being said, I have nominated them and let the community decide. My hope is that it will raise some interested in these articles and they will be furnished with new information and cleaned up. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused, and thank you for commenting on the AfD. --Ozgod 15:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC) (I have replied on your page as follows[reply]

You have also sent a similar message to me, but though I find the original deletion perhaps understandable, I do not find it so understandable that you are continuing. The WP article on the novel makes clear that this is one of the great classic Chinese novels, that it is historical fiction, and that all the principal characters are both in the novel and in real-world history. This is making a great deal of work for the rest of the people at AfD, but perhaps someone will as a result adopt them.DGG

AfD for Karen Hanton

Hi, Thank you for your detailed and constructive comments on the AfD page. I've added 4 more sources and an external link (and some more content) to the article. The new references are #s 2, 3, 5, and 6 (one of which is Telegraph.co.uk). The external link (the fifth one) is another interview. As far as I can tell, they are all independent of Karen Hanton. Would you please review the article once again and comment on the revised version? Thank you, Black Falcon 05:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing your comment. User:Dhartung has also improved the article significantly since then. Cheers, Black Falcon 17:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Settlements in Kurdistan - and relevant subcats

As per your comments on the deletion review, I was wondering if we could analyze the issue. The CfD was polarized into a political debate which created a no-consensus. I am having difficulty communication my rationale to other people that participated in the debate. I was wondering what you had in mind with "see the general picture" idea. :) --Cat out 13:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on your talk p., and would like to keep the discussion there.DGG 18:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Academics

Thanks for the note. I look forward to working with you. --Kevin Murray 20:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Growing Earth Theory

Thank you for the change of "vote" on its deletion. Your integrity is notable and your comments well taken to heart. MichaelNetzer 21:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N Talk

Hi. I edit conflicted with you and then dropped my new "peace" section above yours as it was in context to the prior statement. But then I thought that I was being rude. Would you prefer that I move my peace offering before your observation? Thanks! --Kevin Murray 04:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what is WP:Snowball ??

I tried to wikify it on your user page but it does not seem to exist. When I looked for it, I was unable to find it. --Filll 15:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Sormani

Hi, DGG!

I have nominated this article for deletion. You removed the PROD tag a few days ago, so I thought you'd like to know – you might want to participate in the AfD discussion. Please read WP:BIO first, though. If that guideline had been fresh in your memory, you would not have removed the PROD tag from this non-notable biographical article. Have a great day! DavidCBryant 16:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About lists of films AfDs

Hi DGG, and thank you for trying to save one of our WP Films lists (List of childhood-related films). If you see any more film lists nominated, please, notify us in WP Films. We had several of our lists nominated lately with no notification, apart for a notice in our categorization department about a CfD on a category that included several of them, so I got the chance to notify the project and we saved some of them. Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 08:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your view on the lists. Some of them have become somewhat of a playbox for editors who like trivial associations. Yes, "featuring" opens the door to such trivial entries. I am all for renaming, cleaning up and giving a short explanation after each entry as to the role the title element plays in each film. This way lists become informative and play some role other than duplicating categories. I will try to motivate list editors in this direction and will do some samples where I can. We already have such an example, List of films featuring the United States Marine Corps, which started during the AfD. And thanks for offering further help. Hoverfish Talk 08:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Feldman Barrett article

Thank you for removing the tags. Since your edit, I have added a few more references and stripped down the language further. Djbwiki 05:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

Per Wikipedia:user page please post warning messages only on their talk page. Happy editing. Mkdw ^talk 07:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miah

Sorry to bother you with this, but I really fail to see a references section in the article, could you give me a pointer ? Alf^Photoman 23:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, my problem is that I was looking like crazy but could not find any... maybe wrong glasses... thanks. It would be good to leave a note to the editor about comprising the references into a marked section so blind guys like me can find them Alf^Photoman 00:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to help.... thanks Alf^Photoman 00:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

prod

Thanks. It might have been a mistake on my part - my brain gets into a bit of autopilot when looking at new pages. Do you know which article(s) you noticed? --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 03:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abus gun

Hi DGG. The information for the abus gun article appears to have been taken from the Age of Empires III game booklet. As a result, I could not tell whether the article described a fictional topic from an in-universe perspective or a real item. I read your to be clarified comment. Perhaps you can fix this so that another editor does not come by and slap a {{In-universe}} template on the article. Thanks. -- Jreferee 08:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous Aryan Theory

Your comment on the deletion page indicates you support keeping it to give minority theories a fair chance. The problem is that this article is filled with POV against the theory. It's created, Dbachmann, suggests it be moved to Hindutva revisionism or Hindutva and pseudoscience. An article well-written by minority theorists is Out of India theory, which covers all the facts of the IAT plus more. This article and Dbachmann's attitude towards writing such articles does nothing to support minority theories, it only shows how minority theories are random Hindu radicalist groups trying to change their history. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 08:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you know what...

Hi there,

looks like we were right about the media attention the SJ incident would get... and its so bad I can't even feel any glee...

Now I think it is time to start thinking about the consequences this should have... if you have any ideas you can count on my input and help Alf^Photoman 22:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Radcliffe (filmmaker)

I have reverted your reversion. Read the entry, please. What does the first sentence say? --CalendarWatcher 22:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Keith Ellison (politician)

Please give reasoning for your COI tag at Keith Ellison (politician) currently there is a move to delete many of the sub-pages about him that I've made, under claims that its mere pro-Ellison cruft while on the other hand many editors have found the segment which I had nothing to do with about his previous ties with the Nation of Islam as an unbalanced attack. Of course it could be something else, so please explain the problems you see with the article on talk:Keith Ellison (politician).

--Wowaconia 08:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the article writer of Philosophy of death and adjustment

Dear DGG, As a teacher of psychiatry I always liked your attitude of dealing things. I will be glad to let you know that my research is now mentioned in an online article http://ezinearticles.com/?Concept-of-Death-Can-Influence-Mental-Health---A-Research-Finding-In-Bangladesh&id=478743 You can read it and any comment can be mailed to me at my e-mail address hmanjur@bttb.net.bd Thanks Mohammad Samir Hossain

Thank you

Dear DGG, Thank you for your useful suggession. I am working on it already. I have submitted the full scientific article to the journal of the University of Iowa. I do not know whether they will accpet it or not. I am not doing these just to be included in wikipedia article, rather I am doing these with the same reasons of my writing in wikipedia. I want to share my authentic feelings and thoughts with many many other people so that any science in it can be shared by other researchers too- thats the goal here. Thanks Samir Shoovrow 02:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riccardo Campa

I have replied at my talk page. Cheers, Black Falcon 06:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GE Hacks

good job...

noticed that Brandt had something to say about his AfD ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alf photoman (talk • contribs) 00:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

AfD page for List of conferences

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

Attribution

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

Superpower cats

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

Scientific Activist

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

heads up

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

Re: Science

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

Justin Michael Jenkins

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

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

The resource exchange

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

Natural History of South Asia mailing list

This article is up for deletion can you kindly share your opinion on it [8] .

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

Hi

I'd appreciate an explanation of what you meant by this comment: [9]. Did you think the Free Republic article was a proportional response to the AfD listing? Or did you mean something else? Thanks. (P.S.: I mean this as straightforwardly as possible, not in confrontation!) --woggly 10:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smile!

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

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

Cockroaches

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

Glyconutrients

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

Take a peek?

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

Laurence H. Scott

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

(from talk page)

Blood libel

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

article titling

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

Hindutva pseudoscience

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

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

AfD: Laurence Scott

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

Enoch Moore

You de-prodded Enoch Moore with the edit summary "Google??? He died in 1840." I disagree that notable people who died before "teh Internets" became popular will necessarily have no mentions of them on Google. I was prepared not to propose deletion if there had been even one result that indicated the subject had been involved in something notable as claimed therein, but there were no sources to back up that assertion. All I could find of someone who matched his name and birth place and year was some genealogical record. [10] Please consider an article's (lack of) claims to notability, and whether these claims are sourced (they could be totally made up if unsourced), before de-prodding. Thanks. Resurgent insurgent 03:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Factually incorrect information

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

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

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

Gutenberg Bible

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

local history fiend

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

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

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

Excercise physiology

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

MPADV & MP1mgs

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

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

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

Thanks

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

Tap, tap

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Machemehl

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

John Machemehl

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

Vote!

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

Calthorpe Clinic

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

Article about chemistry book

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

Dates of birth and death in articles

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

Thanks,

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

Proof of vandalism by NavyChaps and USMC Padre

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

RE: Fetishes

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

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

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

Online general-interest book database

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

RE:German Soldier's House

see my response to your reply on the article for deletion talk page, or just look at this link.[11]

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

Beware the Yellow Peril

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

re: Frederique_Constant

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

Restoring of Internet Troll Squads after AfD was endorsed

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

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

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

Tom Short

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

PNC Template

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

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

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

Your thoughts?

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

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

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

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

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

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

JG

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

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

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

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

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

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

PNC etc.

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

Master of the Playing Cards

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

Dufferin Mall

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

Benoît Gréan

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

initial decisions

Merging journals list

Catholic-expand

Main Psalter

Palaeos.com AFD

reply, criteria for deletion

Complaints to Google Scholar

Speedy

Re:overspeeding

re Palaeos

Open source

mistake

Open access

Bonner refs

Other deleted article I found annoying

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

N.H. Horowitz

Open access (again)

Peter Cusack

Peter Cusack

Map

on Isaacs

List of films with similar themes and release dates AfD

Creationism

Metasearch edits

Who exactly did I ask?

journal names=

Re: usage of full journal names

RE: speedy of Firestone

My comments

My Thanks and a Question Re: Suz Andreasen

Procedure, Thanks, YOU DO ROCK!=

A clear miscarriage of Wikijustice

Bees and inebriation

WEGO

This month's MCB Collaboration of the Month article is Peripheral membrane protein!

Looking for a voice of sanity at Fruitarianism

Moderator

EVP

Motto

Peer review

Bees and inebriation

Thomas Wight

Sephardic Pizmonim Project

stecchini

Jyrki Niskanen

Jim Shapiro

Quote

Thomas Wight

Impact factors

William Fulbecke

Arthur Ferrill

Another draft

LIS

Prods

Watching speedy deletions

Dr John H McNeely

Comments from outside

Audrey Glaser

Afd/speedy

Audrey Glaser

Hello, DGG... Alan2012 here (quackwatch talk page)

NPWatcher approval

db tags

Spam

CSD

Speedy Delete: Satya Vrat Shastri

Blass (copied from here)

Philadelphia Buddhist Association

Another candidate to consider

looking for a moderator and/or contributors

Phaistos disc reloaded

Deletion debate on OttoBib.com

Taj Mahal RFC

Proposed merger - Organizations & Companies

Notability of failed candidates

Speedy candidate?

Speedy deletion of Kyle collins