User talk:DGG/Archive 36 Jan. 2010

Nov09, Dec09,

Jan10, Feb10, Mar10, Apr10 , May10 , Jun10 Jul10, Aug10, Sep10, Oct10, Nov10, Dec10

Biography

Do you have an opinion at Talk:Mary Dimmick Harrison about whether the lede should be separated from the start of the article by a header? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the opinion that it makes more sense to add content to the article, rather than argue about formatting. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need your experience

I recently recieved a question regarding my decision to remove some links to a video game's GOG.com entry. Just to clarify, GOG facilitates the distribution of old, currently discontinued games. I would very much appreciate it if you weighed with your perspective on my talk page. Eik Corell (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

commented there--mader a suggestion to deal with it more definitively. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you restore SUPER (software) to my userspace?

The adming that closed the AfD is on a "long wikibreak", and some sources like [1] (The Inquirer) were ignored during the discussion. Further, during the AfD for MediaCoder, I found a book that discusses it too. Pcap ping 09:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this very long shoot-out article [2] in Chip.de. Pcap ping 14:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to see this request. I've restored the article to User:Pohta ce-am pohtit/SUPER (software). EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Ava Gardner in Esquire

Hi. I am working on the article on Tom Wolfe's anthology The New Journalism, and I'm trying to find out whether the article Ava: Life in the Afternoon by Rex Reed was published in the may 1967 issue of Esquire . Do you have access to the Esquire's archive, or something like the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature. Your help would be much appreciated.The Ministry (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G books has several sources saying so, including a reliable bibliography [3]--is it contradicted anywhere? DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. (As far as I know, it is not contradicted anywhere, but I just wanted to be sure.) The Ministry (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some more Questions

Do you think you could also help me find when the article Gear by Richard Goldstein was published in the Village Voice, the article Timing and a Diversion: The Cocoa Game by George Goodman (under the pen name "Adam Smith") was published in New York World Journal Tribune, and when Beth Ann and Macrobioticism by Robert Christgau was published in New York Herald Tribune? The Ministry (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JSTORE

Hi, I saw at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Shared Resources that you have access to JSTORE. I am working on the article The New Journalism, a would like the access this article The Review of Politics, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Apr., 1974), pp. 306-309. Can you help me? My email is what.is.the.1404[at]gmail.com. Thanks in advance :) The Ministry (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ban discussion prematurely closed

I was hoping that opening a new thread would help leave some of the histrionics of the earlier discussion behind, but the thread has already been closed without a chance for people to weigh in. I think this is a no-brainer, but if the thread gets archived this quickly that is moot. I know the timing is poor, but are you willing to open a new discussion? I think you see the problem and perhaps if I'm not personally involved it will go better. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like to continue it, but I gave up on it last night. My advice is to watch for future behavior from NJROTC--I do not think he understands in the least what he did wrong, if it were up to me I'd block him for harassment. I do not think this particular issue is worth it. And , as you say, given the timing.... DGG ( talk ) 15:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I have opened a new discussion here and already been inexplicably blocked for my trouble. I have added information from PCHS-NJROTC's contributions -- the bolded quotes -- that is relevant to the off-site activities we discussed earlier. I expect this one to end similarly to the last one, with the possible additional result of me getting a topic ban. :) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OpenBiblio (software)

I deprodded this based on the number of google scholar hits. If you know something about it, perhaps you could help improve the article. I'm getting kinda burned out being one of the few adding references to AfD'd/prodded software. Pcap ping 14:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GS hits in this are deceptive, most of them are including it on a list, where the focus in on another system. There seem to be only 11 live installations, all small.[4]. The number of people working on it in any sense is probably about twice that. The two widely used opensource library systems are Kona and Evergreen, and they are the only two I would consider actually notable. But for Linux software there is an ongoing argument about how complete to be, on the grounds that in this particular field we are the major reference site. Most recent accessible ref to state of the art on OS library systems is a high-quality student paper [5]. There are of course other and more formal refs, & I will add them. The question is how much work to do on an article i do not think important. I gather you have the same problem. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've taken this to AfD. Pcap ping 09:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bessie (lake monster)

Greetings. You "Added {{article issues}} with parameters notability, npov, original research, refimprove and tone tag to [the] article". It would be helpful if you would explain on the article's talk page where you feel each applies, so that I can have a go at resolving them. Many thanks, -Arb. (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

replied on article talk p. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Chi Chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon at Cornell University

To: Wikipedia Editors slakr, DGG, C.Fred & Ronhjones

Gentlemen:

By way of introduction I am H. William Fogle, Jr. (Hwf1870, Bill Fogle, [e-mail]), the Alumni Historian of the Delta Chi Association (the alumni arm of the Delta Chi Chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon at Cornell University). I am also the sole author of the thirty historical papers about this Chapter that you will find on the

Cornell University eCommons@Cornell site. See http://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/7626.

All of these papers bear the notation Copyright: ©2006 -Delta Chi Association, Ithaca NY. As Alumni Historian and member of the Board of the Delta Chi

Association I am authorized to provide permissions for the use of this material and am also required to obtain permissions as required for copyrighted material that I

have used in these documents. There are only one or two cases of the latter.

I am also the author of Cornell Deke House )A History of the 1893 Lodge. Ithaca NY: The Delta Chi Association, 1993. Copies are located in the Cornell University Library (+LJ75/.315/ 1993Z), the DeWitt Historical Society of Tompkins County (728.4 7655, accession #1994.9.1)

401 East State Street, Ithaca 14850) and the Library of Congress (Washington DC).

I noted that there were at lease three existing Wikipedia articles that connected to Delta Chi Chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon at Cornell University:

“Deke House (Ithaca, New York)” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deke_House_(Ithaca,_New_York)

“John De Witt Warner” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_De_Witt_Warner

“Mario García Menocal” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Garc%C3%ADa_Menocal

I edited “Deke House (Ithaca, New York)” on 29 December 2009 to correct the spelling of my name in the references. I edited “John De Witt Warner” on 29 December 2009 to correct the link to the reference Fogle, Jr., Homer William (3 Jul 2006). "DX of DKE Special Study #09: I edited “Mario García Menocal” on 30 December 2009 to add the two references that described the 1920 DKE Convention: Minot, John Clair (February 1921).

"The Convention in Havana," Delta Kappa Epsilon Quarterly, XXXIX, 1, p. 1-25; and Fogle, Homer William Jr. (25 Nov 2005). The Deke House at Cornell: a

concise history of the Delta Chi Chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon, 1870-1930.Cf. pp. 27, 57, 60, 64, 66-69.

My next steps were to create two brief articles, "Delta Chi Association" and "Delta Chi Chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon." The information for these articles consisted

of abridgements from http://hdl.handle.net/1813/3931 (Title: "Chapter and Alumni Operations Handbook, 2006" Author: Fogle, Homer William Jr.)

I completed the first article, "Delta Chi Association" on 30 December and that seemed to be accepted by the system. However, on the following day the text for the

second article, "Delta Chi Chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon." triggered your plagiarism monitor and, I think, perhaps another on significance.

I would like to complete these two articles and see them registered in Wikipedia.

This chapter of DKE is one of the most historically significant college societies in the United States. It has direct connections to a host of important historical figures

including two Presidents of the United States. The lodge is on the National Registor of Historic Places and the Ithaca Landmark list. You will find much of the

historical data in http://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/3223.

Please advise if I may proceed with these two articles.

Respectfully,

H. William Fogle, Jr. (Hwf1870) Hwf1870 (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Alumni Historian, Delta Chi Association [e-mail][reply]

• FYI, Mr. Fogle posted the same message to User talk:Slakr and to my talk page; I have replied on his talk page (User talk:Hwf1870#Notability of Delta Chi Chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon). —C.Fred (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a comment there. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Hudecki_(2nd_nomination)

You commented in the last Article for deletion discussion. This article is up for deletion again.

A10

Let me know any new developments about A10 speedy deletion. I just found out about this. I can't believe this draconian policy was enacted, but I shouldn't be surprised.

The two groups had been vying for control from early on in the site's life, but the numbers suggest that the deletionists may have won. The increasing difficulty of making a successful edit; the exclusion of casual users; slower growth – all are hallmarks of the deletionist approach... [The Guardian]

Ikip 17:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The actual results have not been anywhere near as harmful as I had thought they would be. Just judging by the ones i've seen in patrolling, without doing an audit, most of the ones tagged A10 have indeed been hopeless naïve or inadequate articles on topics we have well covered, and I have deleted them accordingly. Some have had what seems to me possibly useful content, and I have declined them, with a suggestion to merge. None have been really inappropriate. But what I would not have seen, is any single-handed ones.

As for the deletionists winning, I see from many of their comments that they think the inclusionists are winning. What this means, is that neither is winning as much as they think the ought to. Both are unfortunately concentrating on what is really matters of arrangement and emphasis, rather than dealing with the true spam, poor documentation, obsolete sources, and important topics lacking articles. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know why it ended

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers --Grasshopper6 (talk) 11:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer)#Requested move

Hi DGG. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer), you may be interested in the rename discussion at Talk:Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer)#Requested move. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aynesworth-Wright House

Could you explain why you believe that the article Aynesworth-Wright House is not a blatant copyright violation? All the material in the article is lifted directly from here [6]. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you are perfectly right. But , since any property in the NR is notable, and the infobox provides the basic data, I simply stubbified it, which is what I should have done in the first place DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just an Observation

Hello, DGG. I was reading the Printing press article and observed that you have made some work against the vandalism on that page. I just wanted to let you know that there is a phrase at the end of the introduction that is clearly vandalism. I tried to make an edit, but was unable. The text that appeared in the article was not on the edit page. I thought I'd pass the word along to someone who has worked on the article before. Let me know if I can help.

Thank you, Anpetu-We (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

just what phrase is the problem? DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedies

Thanks for reminder re (1) - going a bit too quick I think (sometimes you get a bit of a down the steps mentality if you're not careful). Re (2) - the deleted article - I couldn't actually see where it had been deleted, just that some external sources referenced a previous incarnation that obviously had been deleted. If it was PRODded previously, I'll AfD it, as I believe it is a made up word. I don't know why someone else tagged it to move to Wiktionary - if it was a genuine scientific concept, there would be an article to be written on it.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with AfD'ing that one. DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-disney villains

FYI, now at AfD.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Romanian village

"are you then saying that the Romanian "village" is not an administrative unit, and does not have any governmental role?" Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. And, incidentally, I was not talking about Romanian wikipedians over on Romanian wikipedia (I couldn't really care less about how they approach it over there), but about Romanian wikipedians here. If you want me to answer any more one this point, do me the favor of at least taking into consideration the rationales I expanded upon on the AfD page, instead of repeatedly asking me "why not?". (Those are not the only rationales, there are more around, but there's no sense listing them unless you take some into consideration before replying.) Dahn (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dahn, I must admit that to some extent I was reacting against your statement as a general one that we do not cover villages as separate articles. In the US and UK & Western Europe at least we cetainly do, and I think also almost everywhere else. There may be a reason for Romania being an exception; I recall long disputes over the status of the Philippine Barangay, leading to the conclusion that we would not in general cover them independently. Although they have an elected council and chief, these officials would correspond to the much less formal unofficial neighborhood associations in the US. It seems from your discussion that the Romanian village is analogous, and if so, I apologize. But I was asking you primarily for precedents, in decisions about individual villages. Question--perhaps village is not the best translation? (just as we do not attempt to translate "barangay"

Personally, I differ: I would cover here in Wikipedia every single neighborhood in the world down lowest level, including neighborhoods. I think that at least in the US is that there is always material, at least in established areas, for a separate article. It's not always on the web, but it will be in local historical societies and local newspapers. The question is really how to cover them. Please refer to my suggestion a little further up, that we do this sort of coverage in a WikipediaTwo. This satisfies inclusionist and non-inclusionists alike.

There was another general point where I disagree, but I seem to have stated it incorrectly. We customarily give only limited deference to whether another Wikipedia includes an article, but this depends on the encyclopedia. The deWP for example is much less inclusive than we are, and if they cover a German performer, he would be very likely to meet our standards. I rather doubt I would say that for the Russian. Or in a negative sense, if someone with vague documentation is removed from another Wikipedia, we generally do pay attention. But with regard to content, we certainly do as a policy translate material from other Wikipedias--and even have special add-ons to facilitate this. We would pay attention to differences in sourcing policy, and to such things as national bias, but we would usually accept the content as a matter of course.

Additionally the question became involved of the degree of deference to individual workgroups. This is a real problem. I believe the current position is they can and should set what practices they think appropriate, but they cannot do so if the general community objects, as it tends to do when it is a question of important general policy. I used to think that they should have more independence, in order to deal with the growing size of the project. I now tend to think otherwise, that the key factor in the perceived reliability and maturity of an information sources is a considerable degree of uniformity. Conventional reference sources do this in a top-down manner under editorial direction. To what extent we can maintain coherence without it is an matter for experiment. I think we are doing only fair in this regard at the present. My personal opinion is that we should try to continue, but have wider participation in general discussions. At different times various people have suggested a central group with control over editorial policy, as Arb Com is a central group with control over behavior. So far , I've joined the majority in opposing them, as discouraging the growth of the project, partly on the basis of the over-elaborate workings of Citizendium, which does operate in that manner but does not produce better results. DGG ( talk )

Okay, I see your point. Let me first say that, however we go about it, we have to end up with one result. I do not have a global view on what that result should be, but I know that, in very American terms, a union divided against itself cannot stand. We cannot produce several versions of reality running parallel on the same platform, and I find all proposals that we should do that counterproductive. I also dislike that every single debate where this comes up has to be reflected into an "inclusionist" vs. "deletionist" thing - I object to being called one or the other, and my points, which I believe are rational and well-argued, address the matter as it is, not as it could be. That means that I don't argue for the same subject not to be covered in 14 articles because I'm a fanatic of some ideal of inclusion, but simply because I see what confusion, nonsense and impracticality arises from turning every random assortment of letters and words into a new article (which is the foreseeable consequence of that other scenario). If I read you right, we don't actually disagree about that. Now, wikipedia does a good job of structuring information with a minimum of POV, or at least offers a way of arranging it in this manner, so there is no reason not to keep that information structure.

As for the workgroups: I am not a huge fan of them myself, but one would assume a grassroots review by a collective of people expected to understand the subject is a good filter. Not a perfect one, but a good one, and surely not the only or ultimate filter. The filter exists there to fulfill a natural function: that between crap and quality. This is a stated goal of wikipedia, to preserve the very structure of information. I wish to address here another accusation often vented against those branded "deletionists": that they are tyrants. Quite the contrary: when a representative group of competent and interested users, directly reviewing some content area, suggests not adopting some approach to writing articles in that area, they're as close as you get to whatever the acceptable alternative of tyranny is. When a single user disregards this and overturns the consensus simply because he or she does not agree with the principle of generating consensus in this manner, we get tyranny in the most basic sense. I also don't find the concern of contributor liberty valid in this case, since the ultimate goal is to present the reader with info that he can trust, and which he can read in context (not chase around from article to the other).

The issue of Romanian villages is even more clear-cut than the Barangay. Villages (or sate, generally translated as such into English) do not elect representatives as such, not even at a commune level (the smallest councils are communal, for the entire population, with no distinction between component areas); the only instance where they are represented as such are those where one village, seen as a distinct territorial but not administrative unit, may be moved to another commune or generate a new commune around it (this, as far as I know, is accomplished by a central gvt. or county-level administrative decision). The limits between villages within a commune are apparently only dictated by tradition, and may fluctuate with time. The only reason they're even referred to at the moment is that they predated the existence of communes, even if they were supplanted by them: tradition has preserved the names and ground covered by the villages going into a commune, even in cases where these have been depleted of population one way or another. Now, I can picture a way in which many, many neighborhoods (though by no means not all) can have articles that provide relevant detail which would not harm the overall result. But those are neighborhoods: they will, as simple texts, say things mostly different from the article on their town or city (more detailed, too detailed to be featured in the city article, reflected in literature etc.), will not divide the same info along impractical lines (either one or the other of the two articles would be redundant in the case of villages), they will not be impossible to link to (one can specify what city neighborhood a famous person was born in, but it's a headache having to pick village or commune, or determine which one the source has in mind, for the same issue) and so on. And all this when, as "neighborhoods", villages are, in general, smaller than all notable town or city neighborhoods. Dahn (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD of Leopold Frankenberger, Sr.

I have begun a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leopold Frankenberger, Sr. Your thoughts on the matter are most welcome. Cnilep (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with a disruptive user

If you check my recent contributions, you'll see a lot of edits on a lot of Close Combat-related articles - A specific user is pushing his own fansite, violating WP:ELNO and, by being the owner of the website, WP:COI. Eik Corell (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I commented at Talk:Close Combat series. Let me know if this does not help. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that much of an honor?

It's not like everyone or mostly everyone that dies gets an honor. Barely anyone's deaths get an honor like that. Joe Chill (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I and the nom are the almost only voices of reason here, at the AfD for Bill Barker (police officer). Had I seen afds like this before i had seen ones on major characters of War and Peace, I might have been firmly in the deletionist camp by now. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chordless

Well, I am not sure that Chordless IS of any significance whatsoever. It's just a project I am working on that I find should be interesting to others, and it is also one of rather few independent implementations of Chord. So I guess it should just be deleted. But would be happy if anyone could find a reason not to :)

Also, I don't agree with the notability criterion, I find the non-notable subjects to be a treasure of Wikipedia. But there's not much I can do about that I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zond (talk • contribs) 10:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you mean, because we certainly try to remove the really non-notable subjects. If we didn't, the encyclopedia would be full of listings of totally unimportant businesses, and vanity pages. Perhaps you mean the oddball subjects, but they are not removed if they have the necessary reliable sources to show their notability. This particular article is, however, a topic i cannot judge. DGG ( talk ) 15:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chabad on Wikipedia arbitration request

Since you have been kind enough to comment at the unresolved WP:COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/User:Yehoishophot Oliver, you may wish to know that it has now been nominated for arbitration. Feel free to review at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Chabad movement editors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thank you for your input and patience, IZAK (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to comment about the discussion for deletion. Ikip 04:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^(speak to me) 07:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual 9-day track record

Hi DGG

Wondering your views on an appropriate way to find out more (or get someone else to find out more) about Jennifer500 (talk · contribs). That user has an astonishing level of knowledge and focus for someone who's only been registered for 9-days—so much so that it looks like it may be a new username of another editor. Your advice?

^Bongo_matic 23:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously someone immediately interested in template deletions is an previously experienced editor, and someone immediately interested in a just-opened Arb case is likely to know what has been going on around here lately. But she is doing good work, with standard and reasonable positions, so it does not bother me in the slightest. I see no signs of puppetry, in supporting particular distinctive positions also held distinctively by some particular other editor. If you are curious, the only appropriate method is to look for some other editor past or present who is interested in the same combination of topics. It would in my opinion not be appropriate to ask her about it if she chooses not to say. I would think very differently if it were someone being troublesome. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. ^Bongo_matic 02:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least one admin disagreed (made no comments elsewhere on the matter). See the log. ^Bongo_matic 04:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, some people keep track of all the major recidivist puppet-masters and are able to spot them in their successive incarnations. The identification here seems reasonable, but I have enough to do with trying to look at editors when they turn to actual evil. . DGG ( talk ) 14:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Glassman

Hello, I am asking that the Rodney Glassman Wikipedia page be taken off protection. There is a newly written article that I believe meets the standards for Wikipedia and includes more sources then the original article in question. If you would like to review it that can also be arranged. I would like to post the article with all the requirements so that this does not occur again. I would like to resolve this as soon possible.

Mbellovin (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor has also posted an identical comment on my talk page, as I was the one who added the protection after repeated recreation. Your input (either on my talk page or here) would be appreciated as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on your talk p. to keep it together. I agree with you, & gave some additional advice. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essay on consensus-building

I've been puttering around with an essay about consensus and wouldn't mind your commentary if you're so inclined. It's my first attempt at starting an essay.--otherlleft 21:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

for another one on the general theme, see: Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely said. I wanted to make sure this idea hadn't already been expressed better elsewhere, of course.--otherlleft 22:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tata Venture.

I started few new articles for the vehicles launched at Delhi Auto Show, for this purpose I used Tata Ace article as draft and did not add anything new. The content of the article you deleted (Tata Venture)were part of Tata Ace article. Are you sure the blog you referred to wasn't copying Wikipedia's material ? I will start new article for Tata venture without any text from Wikipedia itself. --Anmol.2k4 (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it seems to have been tata's official blog, so I imagine they wrote it themselves. The tone, furthermore was considerably promotional. It could of course be rewritten. I'll look at the other article also & see how much would need to be w=rewritten there, DGG ( talk ) 15:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you get a moment

Could you take a look at this request I have at the RSN? I'd just like another opinion before I consider the matter "decided". [7]. Thanks. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Reginald Reeves

Hi DGG,

1. This article is one of a great many creations and/or edits by one author who steadfastly refuses to provide any references or to complete edit summaries. Multiple friendly requests have been ignored. The contributor should really be reported ARV, but it's not my style. A PROD is not an AfD and should not be confused with it. A PROD, as in this case, often stimulates exactly the required response, and thanks for your help.
2. If you are adding references, please note that to achieve the desired effect, certain tag formats are required, although there is some flexibility in choice, and these will avoid bold red warnings being left on the encyclopedia's main pages. Please see WP:CT for an in depth explanation. This time I have done it for you.
3. I am still not convinced that Reeves went to Malvern College, and untill the Times website stops reporting a dead link I will maintain that opinion and keep the tag against his entry on the List of Old Malvernians page.

Best, --Kudpung (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Molyneux, 7th Viscount Molyneux

See above, same problem, same author. You may be surprised to learn that I am actually an inclusionist! I actually wasted some considerable time trying to find a source for this and to untangle the complexities of the Molyneux dynasty. However, as neither I nor you, nor the original creator have been able to find any sources either, in the intersts of complying with Wikipedia policy, my next step is to AfD the article. I am firmly of the opinion that no article, especially a biography should be launched as a stub without a minimum of usable content and some references. Without them, such articles are completely useless, serve no purpose here, and simply waste your time, my time, and that of other serious, responsible contributors.--Kudpung (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to both sections

These are both peculiar articles, but not in the way that first appears. As for Reeves, the Times does not report a dead link to me. Please double-check. I've emailed you. The article makes it clear that there is a good deal more to be said about him, not all of it favorable, and I intend to go back to it. I found more besides the Times, as expected, because, as you will see, there are some significant matters here. It is remarkably odd that the article omitted it. , see my G News Archives search [8] to distinguish him from the actor. e.g. NY Times , Time magazine, etc. As for the Viscount, there are some decent refs in G Books, but I need to cross check dates. This will be a little harder, because numbering is sometimes unreliable in the older sources. Again, if he is the man I think he was, there was all the interesting part omitted. As a start, see [9].

More generally, it is very unfortunate that people write lousy articles. But they all need to be properly checked before being rejected. It is all I can personally do to keep up, making a a quick check on everything that I feel just might make it--I cannot check everything, & keeping the one that are possible from being prematurely deleted if they seem possible--I have time to rewrite only one or two a day, not all that need it. (that's why I tend to make format errors & typos--I'm rushing too fast.) As for bios, these people are not BLPs. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DGG

I like your attitude towards editing. I have a similar point of view. You cannot grow a plant without seeds, so why remove the seeds!?

I do not want conflict with Kudpung but I sent him a reply.

Hello Kudpung

Thank you for your suggestions. With this in mind, I will focus on adding references to existing articles rather than adding or expanding articles. I do wish to continue making a positive contribution to Wikipedia. My contributions list demonstrates my enormous positive contribution which has taken many unpaid days, especially on subjects relating to the Earls of Sefton and Malvern College alumni. I have enriched the Malvern alumni list very considerably. You are simply not right to say I added no references to Malvern or that they are "dead-end" references, in the vast majority of cases. (and we know 'dead-end' can happen over time) ...I notice DGG has confirmed that at least one of the "dead-end" references you refer to is in fact good. The Christopher Reeves link to the Times Obituary DOES work and DOES mention he went to Malvern. Incidentally, concerning the List of Old Malvernians talk page, Ellerman DID go to Malvern (please read carefully the Times link on his page) ...Moreover, as I told you before, the vast majority of the problems with the pages I have written on were were NOT written by me, as is demonstrable by their Histories, so it is not fair to single me out.

You have a record of deleting or proposed deletion of articles or their contents, to which I have contributed. You have issued me warnings and you have told me that one more warning will see me banned. I have read your correspondence with User:Peterkingiron (11th Jan 2010) and in which you state that you want to get your GA for a 'Malvern' article and, therefore, you do not want more edits. I realise now think I know why I have been receiving so many warnings from you. While I have no problem with your wish to get a GA, I appeal to you to treat my fairly and not to single me out. It will be appreciated if you kindly stop spreading allegations to users such as User:DGG and User:Peterkingiron (11th Jan 2010), and inferring to them that I should be banned. I think it is not surprising that I was a little upset but I did not use any offensive words and I had reasons to be dissatisfied. I DO wish to be cordial with you. That said, I also wish to emphasise if you continue to promote the notion that I should be banned, I will get justice. I would go as high as is necessary to get it. Please just be open and fair with me. Regards,

Abbachus1974 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abacchus1974 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

threatening people with "justice" is not the best way of promoting cordiality. At any rate, don't do it on my talk page. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, Nowhere on the Wikipedia have I threatened Abacchus with justice (or any other user) in any shape or form (it just is not my style), or in a manner in which the prose of a message could be interpreted as a threat, and I have not communicated with him in any way other than with the utmost civility or through standard templates. I have certainly not suggested elsewhere that he should be banned - let us not forget that all talk and edits on Wikipedia are available for checking, even if they have been deleted. His entire talk page contains mainly semi-automated template messages from various users about his dozens of unreferenced creations and edits, and lately, some extremely friendly help and suggestions from me. It turns out that he apparently "didn't know about these things" until I pointed them out to him. I have also never discussed him on Peterkingiron's talk page; the discussion with Peter was about an entirely different matter which does not concern Abacchus at all, and the unamed user to whom I alluded, was an uncivil edit warrior, who retired from Wikipedia many months ago! I think Abacchus has the genuine enthusiasm to become a valued Wikipedian, now that he has finally found and read his talk page and accepted that there are some rules that have to be followed. However, he still has a lot to learn, in particular the basic principle of the use of talk pages! It's a shame that the only thing that could induce him to reading his talk page were hidden notes in the pages he was editing. These were also completely neutral such as "<!-- Please do not add anything here without first checking for reliable, verifiable sources, and please complete an edit summary -->" and were not addressed to him personally. If you are a sysop, I am sure you will understand the need for helping users to enjoy their Wikipedia experience more. and that sometimes a standard warning template is the only solution that will promote a reaction.--Kudpung (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I think it's time

Hi, David. Would you be willing to nominate me for adminship? I've lately been feeling like doing more janitorial work.--Father Goose (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories: Music competitions prize-winners

Hello DGG (Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft?)! Several categories related to music competition winners are being targetted, and I think it would be useful that you give your opinion regarding the neccesity (or not) of these categories and maybe later help proposing changes to the present guidelines (music awards and prizes). Category:Primrose International Viola Competition prize-winners has been already deleted. The categories proposed for deletion are #Category:Prize-winners of the Leeds International Pianoforte Competition, #category:Prize-winners of the Paloma O'Shea Piano Competition, #Category:Operalia, #Category:Ferruccio Busoni International Piano Competition and #Category:Prize-winners of the Besançon Conducting Competition. Cheers.--Karljoos (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So .... you were blatantly canvassed.

1. You didn't warn the canvasser.
2. You didn't mention this when you !voted at CFD.
3. You went on to change the guideline to suit the canvasser's request without mentioning the canvassing, but citing "emerging consensus" at a heavily-canvassed CFD.

You have been editing for long enough to know better than to think that this is the sort of conduct expected of an admin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for Tiger Lily, Alberta and Bearberry, Alberta

I think I've fixed these up enough per WP:HEY to prove notability. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

good work. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, David. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Hi there. Would you have time to please offer your opinion as an admin on this issue? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

seems to have been handled ok now. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just an Apology

Hey this is shikoistheone, back in 2008 I had made a test page called "Shiko's Sites" that you yourself deleted, I didn't mean to be a spammer. I was very new to Wikipedia. Was only having a little fun. If I had known I wouldn't have even used it as a Test. shikoistheone (talk) 1:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

New ANI created.Proofreader77

I believe I should give you a heads-up on this ANI regarding Proofreader77 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing

--Tombaker321 (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

quite enough people are already participating. DGG ( talk ) 16:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day NYC

Wikipedia 9th birthday coin

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lambda Allince at the University of Montana

So once upon a time there was an article about the Lambda Allince at the University of Montana on Wikipedia, but it was deleted. I am wondering if whatever information that was there is recoverable so that I can put it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:OneofLittleHarmony/Lambda_Alliance until it is article worthy. (If it ever is.) Your name came up on the thing, so uh.. that's why this is being posted here. If you could respond on my page too, that'd be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OneofLittleHarmony (talk • contribs) 12:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

seems someone else did it. DGG ( talk ) 13:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkowske

David R. Wilkowske listing has been deleted once again!! Wikipedia Admins could you please Userfy my 2007 and yesterday's post?

I have considerable encyclopedic published knowledge to disseminate but I need some time to set up the third party verifiable references. Any help or suggestions for following the standard Wikipedia protocols would be greatly appreciated!!

Thanks in advance, drwilkow (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC) David R. Wilkowske[reply]

I placed the material on your user page; most of it, except that you are looking for a job, is suitable there--people do give their biographies briefly- on such a page. I don;t think giving the full name there violates your privacy, given the articles you have been trying to write. If you think otherwise, just edit it out; if you[d like it more thoroughly deleted, just let me know. As for advice:

To get a Wikipedia page a person first have to become notable , in the sense that the public will want to look the person up in an encyclopedia. As you are an author, this is usually accomplished by writing several non-self published books that get reviews in major references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases--and, usually, that are found in a substantial number of libraries. In the meantime, see our page about the many useful things to do here. DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Military people

I noticed you left a message on Dana boomers talk page regarding military people. Was this in regards to the message I left about MOH recipents or something else? --Kumioko (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in response to his tagging for PROD multiple articles on DSC recipients, such as Ross McCluskey -- as I recall, there was agreement that the DSC alone did not show notability. The MOH of course certainly does show it. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, typically second tier awards are considered non-notible (I would personnally be ok with having the article in WP but others don't agree). The exception would be if the person was notible for something else as well such as being a General officer, a major combatant commander, an ace pilot or the first of something (such as first female combat pilot or first puerto rican). I hope this helps. --Kumioko (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a quick reply, I did a quick Google/Google book search on all of them and came up with nothing more than the DSC citation. If I missed something, then I apologize, but AFAIK they were simply recipients of the DSC, which is admirable, but not considered notable by WP. Dana boomer (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

great! that is all that's expected. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Favazza

Ok, sorry for putting the prodding the article, it does need some work though to meet WP:NPOV IMHO but I agree with you removing the prod. Thanks, Jdrewitt (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion sought

Hi DGG

Wondering your views on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kongthin Pearlmich.

Regards, ^Bongo_matic 14:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

good catch. DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do you think that posting to BLP noticeboard would be useful to get the eyes of people who concern themselves with these matters on it? ^Bongo_matic 07:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete an article that's been deleted twice?

Hi DGG, I'd like to get someone to undelete The Manzai Comics, (I've found reviews and listed them on WP:ANIME/REQUEST) but as it's been deleted twice (AFD and G4ed), I'm not sure who to ask first. What's the usual procedure? I assume an undeletion would recover whichever version would be more useful? --Malkinann (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it to your user space, as User:Malkinann/The Manzai Comics. All the previous versions are in the page history. After you add the reviews, ask someone who understands the subject, preferably the admin who closed the original AfD, Aitlas, if it's now OK , and can be restored to mainspace. If he disagrees, and you're sure it's ok, ask at Deletion Review. DGG ( talk ) 20:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. :) --Malkinann (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer and AIDS cure research catalyst

Hello DGG, we have added information about the non profit organization from Spain: Cancer and AIDS cure research catalyst, we are not sure how to add tis information so it would be compatible with all wikipedia rules. We believe it is important to give information about such organization, as it is unique in the way it works. 213.37.222.2 (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to show notability with references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, such as recognized newspapers, (but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases). Remember not to copy from a web site -- first it's a copyright violation, but, even if you give us permission according to WP:DCM, the tone will not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable. For further information see our FAQ about organizations. It does not matter how interesting or worthy it is, unless you can show it is already notable. If you are certain you can show this from good references, try to rewrite the article, but if you don;t have such material about you yet, wait till you do. DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Chi Chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon

To: Wikipedia Editors slakr, DGG, C.Fred & Ronhjones Gentlemen: Please recall that we were having some discussion about the appropriateness of adding an article on the Delta Chi Chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon to Wikipedia. I concede that an article on the Delta Chi Association (the alumni arm of the Chapter) is not necessary, but I would like to go forward with an article on the chapter. I have prepared a text that follows in this message. All sources for the material are cited. I note that Wikipedia carries many articles on specific clubs and societies in American universities. The "Dartmouth College Greek organizations" article provides subarticles on the individual Greek-letter chapters. "Eating club (Princeton University)" links to separate articles on the five bicker clubs and the five non-selective clubs in Princeton The secret honor societies of Cornell University have articles, i.e. "Sphinx Head" and "Quill and Dagger." There are individual articles on six of the eight final clubs at Harvard University. Yale University's societies, e.g. Skull and Bones" well are represented. In other words, I see ample precedent for an article on a specific college club. You will note that there is sufficient historical significance cited to warrant an article. Please advise if I may proceed. I would appreciate responses by email: [e-mail] H. William Fogle (HWF1870) Alumni Historian, Delta Chi Association Hwf1870 (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will email you, but my feeling is that the best course would be to insert a section about the chapter into the article on the building. notable members could be listed. Asfor a separate article, we need some secondary sources, not just archival. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Proposed text for Wikipedia article. The Delta Chi Chapter of [[Delta Kappa Epsilon]] (ΔX of ΔKE) is an undergraduate [[Fraternities and sororities|social fraternity]] for men at [[Cornell University]]. *The Chapter has functioned without interruption since its [[Charter|charter]] was granted by the Phi Chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon (Φ of ΔKE) at [[Yale University]] on February 11, 1870. *The Chapter’s lodge, known as the [[Deke House (Ithaca, New York)|Deke House]], was listed on the [[National Register of Historic Places]] on 11 January 1991. The marble veneered building, erected in 1893 and expanded in 1910, was designed by [[William Henry Miller (architect)|William Henry Miller]] in the [[Romanesque Revival architecture|Romanesque style]]. ===Historical Significance=== The historic importance of this fraternity chapter derives from four attributes: #the intent of its founders and architectural mentors for the Chapter to take on the role of an [[Oxbridge]] style college within an American university setting; #the exceptional political and martial traditions of its membership as evidenced by the many memorials preserved in the Chapter’s lodge; #the leading role played by Delta Kappa Epsilon in the [[Secret society]] movement at Cornell University (c. 1870-1930); and #the number of members who achieved distinction in public life and commerce while maintaining close ties to the undergraduate establishment in Ithaca throughout their careers. ====Noteworthy Events==== Noteworthy events in the Chapter’s history include the following. *U.S. President [[Rutherford B. Hayes]] became an honorary member of Delta Kappa Epsilon in 1877 following the initiation of his three sons in the Delta Chi Chapter of DKE: Birchard Austin Hayes '74, [[Webb Hayes|James Webb Cook Hayes '76]] (both initiated on October 7, 1873) and Rutherford Platt Hayes '80 (initiated on October 13, 1876). *New York State Governor [[Theodore Roosevelt]], a Deke from the Harvard College chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon (A of ΔKE), visited the Chapter on 20 June 1899 and planted two Norway Spruce trees to commemorate the memory of Brother Clifton Beckwith Brown ’00 who had been killed in the [[Battle of San Juan Hill]] on July 1, 1898. *The chapter was an active member of the Star League, the five leading secret societies at Cornell during the nineteenth century: [[Zeta Psi]] (founded 1868), [[Kappa Alpha Society]] (1868), [[Alpha Delta Phi]] (1869), Delta Kappa Epsilon (1870) and [[Psi Upsilon]] (1876). This [[consortium]] that cooperated to varying degrees with respect to social affairs, intramural athletics and rush, eventually became the Big Six with the addition of Chi Psi (1869). *The Chapter’s lodge was used to house a contingent of the Student Army Training Corps during [[World War I]]. This militarization of the lodge was repeated during [[World War II]] when a [[United States Marine Corps|U.S. Marine Corps]] element was undergoing training with the [[V-12 Navy College Training Program]]. *Delta Chi Brother [[Mario Garcia Menocal]] III '88, the third President of the Republic of [[Cuba]], invited the members of Delta Kappa Epsilon to hold their 76th DKE Convention in [[Havana]]. This assembly convened in December 1920. The Delta Chi Chapter of the fraternity was represented by a delegation of fifteen brothers. The convention elected Delta Chi Brother Stephen Byrd Horrell '21 to preside in the office of Convention President. ====Distinguished Alumni==== '''Political Leaders and Public Office Holders''' *[[Rutherford B. Hayes|Rutherford Birchard Hayes 'Hon.]] – [[President of the United States]] *Frank DeElwin Nash '72 – [[U. S. Congressman]] from Washington *[[John De Witt Warner]] '72 – U. S. Congressman from New York *Leon Orlando Bailey '80 – Indiana Senate Member *[[Cuthbert W. Pound| Cuthbert Winfred Pound]] '84 – Chief Justice, [[New York Supreme Court]] *[[Mario Garcia Menocal]] III '88 – President of Cuba (1913 – 1921) *Louis William Marcus '89 – Justice, New York Supreme Court *[[Maurice Connolly|Maurice Francis Connolly '97]] – U. S. Congressman from Iowa *[[Thomas C. Hennings, Jr.|Thomas Carey Hennings, Jr. '24]] – [[U. S. Senator]] from Missouri *[[Andrew Biemiller|Andrew John Biemiller '26]] – U. S. Congressman from Wiscon¬sin *[[John P. White|John Patrick White ’59]] – U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, 1995-97 '''Naval and Military Officers''' *[[Webb Hayes|James Webb Cook Hayes '76]] – LTCOL, [[Medal of Honor]] *[[Mario Garcia Menocal]] III '88 – MGEN, Hero of [[Victoria de las Tunas]] *[[Robert J. Thorne|Robert Julius Thorne '97]] – [[Distinguished Service Medal (United States)|Distinguished Service Medal]] *Samuel E. Hunkin '16 – Silver Star for Gallantry *John Milton Nazel, USA '18 – PFC, [[Croix de guerre]] *Charles Baskerville '19 – COL, [[Silver Star]] for Gallantry *McClary Hazelton Brown '19 – Croix de guerre *Caesar Augustin Grasselli, II, USA '22 – COL, [[Legion of Merit]] & British [[O.B.E.]] ===Objects, Motto and Arms=== ====Objects==== The Chapter's purpose and goals accord with the original statement of the Delta Kappa Epsilon Fraternity's purpose: :The Objects of Delta Kappa Epsilon are the cultivation of general literature and social culture, the advancement and encouragement of intellectual excellence, the promotion of honorable friendship and useful citizenship, the maintenance of gentlemanly dignity, self-respect and morality in all circumstances, and the union of stout hearts and kindred interests to secure to merit its due reward. ''DKE handbook for Pledges'' (Delta Kappa Epsilon Council, 1956). ====Motto==== The overt motto is “Μή δοκεῖν ἀλλ᾽ εἶναι,” or in Roman transliteration, “Me Dokein All Einai,” meaning “Not to seem, but to be.” The phrase is taken from line 592 in the 467 B.C. play, [[Seven Against Thebes]], by [[Aeschylus]]. ====Arms==== The [[Coat of arms|armorial bearings]] of the Chapter are listed with the [[American College of Heraldry]] as Registration Number 715, effective as of 14 October 1987. The blazon reads as follows. : Arms. : Or, between two chevrons counterpoint, the upper Gules and the lower Azure, as many men's hearts, issuant from each and pendant overall a chain of seven links, joining them in base as their fifteenth link the interlaced Greek letters "Delta" and "Chi" Gules, counterchanged Or over the lower chevron. At fess point an inescutcheon depicting a landscape, namely, Azure, the sun rising in splendor from behind three mountains Vert, and in base Sable, therein the sun reflected wavy Argent. Above the Shield is placed a helmet with visor closed, and in Escrol below the Shield this motto: "Not to seem, but to be," in Greek Letters. ===Charter, Governance and Tax Status=== ====Charter==== The Chapter was [[Charter|chartered]] by the Phi Chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon (Φ of ΔKE) at [[Yale College]], New Haven CT, on 11 February 1870 with an inaugural dinner held at the [[Clinton House (Ithaca, New York)|Clinton House]] on that date. Brother James Julius Chambers '70 (1850 - 1920) served as the Chapter's first president. The Chapter was subsequently incorporated in the State of [New York] as the Delta Kappa Epsilon Fraternity at Cornell University, Inc., on 5 November 1883 "for the purpose of mental, moral and social improvement." The Certificate of Incorporation was filed with the [[Tompkins County, New York|Tompkins County]] Clerk on 7 November 1883 and with the [[Secretary of State of New York|New York Secretary of State]] on 8 November 1883. ===Governance=== The undergraduate organization (1) operates a fraternal association, (2) manages a residence facility, (3) runs a dining service, and (4) conducts social entertainments for the benefit of its active members and alumni. The Chapter is organized and governed in accordance with Chapter Bylaws that were last revised and ratified on 29 January 2009. In addition, members are bound by the provisions of subordinate House Rules that govern conduct, discipline, decorum and other such matters. ===Federal and State Tax Status=== The Chapter is a tax exempt public charity in accordance with Title 26 U.S.C. ([[Internal Revenue Code]]) §501(c)7 per a group ruling letter issued to the Delta Kappa Epsilon Council in January 1943. The chapter is recognized as a "not for profit" corporation by the New York State's Division of Corporation Records in a letter dated 23 April 1987. ===Historical Resources=== ====DKE Depository==== The records, correspondence, publications and selected artifacts of the Chapter are held in the DKE Depository (Collection #37-4-1535) maintained by the Cornell University Library's Rare and Manuscript Collections Department under terms set forth in a formal Memorandum of Understanding dated 29 February 1988 and executed on 4 March 1988. The Depository holds the original 1870 Charter. Black & white and color photographic images of this document are filed as N4279 and N4317, respectively. A replacement charter, also held in the ΔKE Depository, was issued by the Sixty-Second ΔKE Convention held at Hartford CT, 12-13 November 1908. Black & white and color photographic images are filed as N4280 and N4318, respectively. ====Publications==== The chapter publishes ''The Delta Chi Deke'' newsletter (ISSN #0895-5255, registered on 10 September 1987 with the [[Library of Congress]] National Serials Data Program) under the direction of an undergraduate editor and distributes same to all alumni and friends of Delta Chi. Back issues dating from Volume I, Number 1 (May 1935), are held in the DKE Depository. ====Chapter House and Grounds==== The 13 South Avenue property ([[Ithaca, New York|City of Ithaca]] tax parcel #31-1-10) and the lodge thereon known as the [[Deke House (Ithaca, New York)|Deke House]] (Cornell Facility #4719) are owned by Cornell University. The lodge has been listed on the [[National Register of Historic Places]] managed by the U. S. Department of the Interior, [[National Park Service]], since 11 January 1991 consequent to a petition filed by The Delta Chi Association on 20 August 1988. The lodge has also been listed on the New York State Register of Historic Places managed by the [[New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation]], since 3 December 1990 as a result of a collateral petition filed on 25 September 1988. The Deke House was designated as a Local Landmark in accordance with the City of Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance by unanimous approval of the City of Ithaca Common Council on 15 January 2003. The two [http://hdl.handle.net/1813/3255 Roosevelt Spruce Trees] ([[Norway Spruce]], ''picea abies'') standing on the west lawn are listed on The New York State Registry of Famous and Historic Trees administered by the [[New York State Department of Environmental Conservation]]. ====Alumni Organization===== The Delta Chi Association is the alumni arm of the Chapter. ====External links==== *[http://hdl.handle.net/1813/3223 Delta Kappa Epsilon History Collection (Cornell University Library)] *[http://www.dke-cornell.org/ Delta Chi Chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon Website] *[http://www.dke.org/ Delta Kappa Epsilon Website] ===References=== #Fogle, Homer William Jr. (5 Dec 2006).[http://hdl.handle.net/1813/3931 "Chapter and Alumni Operations Handbook, 2006"] #Fogle, Homer William Jr. (7 Feb 2009).[http://hdl.handle.net/1813/11800 "Articles of Governance: Effective and in Force on 29 January 2009"] #Fogle, Homer William Jr. (25 Nov 2005). [http://hdl.handle.net/1813/3235 ''The Deke House at Cornell: a concise history of the Delta Chi Chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon, 1870-1930''] #Fogle, Homer William Jr. (2 Jul 2006). [http://hdl.handle.net/1813/3255 "DX of DKE Special Study #04: The Roosevelt Spruce Trees"] #Fogle, Homer William Jr. (1993). ''Cornell Deke House --A History of the 1893 Lodge.'' Ithaca NY: The Delta Chi Association. Copies are located in the Cornell University Library (+LJ75/.315/ 1993Z), the DeWitt Historical Society of Tompkins County NY (728.4 7655, accession #1994.9.1) and the Library of Congress (LJ75 .D315 1993, LC Control No.: 94226682). #The Heraldic Register of America, IV, p. 64 (Delta Chi Chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon).

Autoreviewer rights of Nkf31

Okeyday! Feel free to see here, here, and here. Thanks a lot for letting me know, cheers! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Whittemore-Goad

Hi, would you please have a quick look with your experienced eye at Andrea_Whittemore-Goad this article about a girl with an illness, the article appears to be more about her parents, if she is notable it is only for having an illness and her parents, is she worthy of her own bio or would a redirect or a merger be more appropriate? Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that the subject was 31 years old in 2009 and has been interviewed and photographed by The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Not only was she the motivation for her family to found a notable chronic fatigue syndrome research organisation, she has participated in outreach for that organisation. It's possible that she is the most prominent person to have taken the experimental drug Ampligen and to have discussed her experiences with this controversial treatment. She has lobbied for government coverage of Ampligen for CFS patients in Nevada.

Compare this biography with that of Gaetan Dugas. Although, to date, Dugas has had more media coverage, both are famous for having an illness; in contrast to Dugas, who was famous only for what he had and for what observers (erroneously) thought about him, Whittemore has been and is an active participant in treatment and research advocacy. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking in general, not about these two articles, at Wikipedia we evaluate each article individually, and the consensus is that of each individual discussion. Certainly we should be more consistent than we are, but I do not see how our general process could at best be expected to have better than a 5% error rate, and in practice I think it is considerably greater than that, both for inappropriate keeps and deletes. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you general comments, I have sent it to AFD for community discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornerstone Christian School (Camarillo, California)

Hi, DGG. You might be interested in the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornerstone Christian School (Camarillo, California). A user has listed AfDs from 2007 or earlier where many high schools were deleted. Best, Cunard (talk) 07:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

debate closed as a NAC in 10 hours, before I got there. As you pointed out in the discussion, one of the reasons for the current consensus that all HS are notable is that any established high school with have sports results of some sort, and these count, even for the people who insist on applying WP:ORG in a different way than the consensus. With the increasing coverage of GBooks and GNewsArchive, finding such articles is much easier than two years ago.

The deleted articles --or most of them --should now be reconstructed, and if no other admin does it in a few days, I will start doing so, beginning with the merge/redirects, which probably will not take an admin unless the orig. contents was deleted first. Needless to say, the articles probably need improvement, and I suggest anyone undeleting them would do well to improve them a little, just as we should try to do always. Given the clear change in consensus, I don't think they need deletion review, or even the usual checking with the deleting admin. When consensus changes, and a type of article previously accepted is accepted no longer, the previously kept articles get deleted via Prod without objection, and the same applies here.

A few of the schools may have been deleted as no proof of real existence, and these would have to be checked to see if any proof is now available, & if not they must stay deleted. Some of them may have had no encyclopedic content whatsoever, and for these, the basics will need to be added. . DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input on this. I looked through the list, and nearly all of the deleted articles have been recreated. All of the merged articles have been unmerged. The only one that is still deleted is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stearns High School. Would you undelete that one for me? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Undeleted, and expanded 2 fold from earlier versions, and from several sources found easily on Google. And then I found there was already an article under its full name, George W. Stearns High School, so I merged it in. In 2007, only one person defended it; at that time, I too was just beginning to realize the practical advisability of keeping articles of this kind. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Peter

Like you, my hobby is rescuing worthy kittens from drowning at AfD and PROD, but this one had stumped me until I finally found that the main source (at least for his notability) spelled his name "Oto". I still can't find anything to verify his DoB and the fact that he studied with Hindemith, but it's probably somewhere in print. This was one of many articles created by a very problematic editor.[10] At least this one wasn't a copyvio and/or have a spurious source (another of his tactics, sigh!). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the work, I just had a feel-- DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digifold

Can you take a look at this AfD and see if the product is notable. It seems related to book printing, but I have no idea on the reliability of trade publications in that area. Pcap ping 14:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instrumentation and Control Engineering

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

Elaine de Kooning

It is found in the article [11] under Representation:

"Levis Fine Art represents a number of Elaine de Kooning's heirs and has an comprehensive collection of her lifetime works."

In my opinion 'Representation' belongs to a gallery guide but not to Wikipedia. What do you think? Best regards (Salmon1 (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Very true in general, but the best way is to see if they have published such a good resource online (such as a complete catalog) that they can be listed as an EL. (Or if they have published one in print, that can be listed as a source. We can usually guide people to information in commercial sources without promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point but I am not so good with this. Here is the information [12]. Best. (Salmon1 (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I revamped the article and added proper EL from museum collection. Thank you for your attention. Best. (Salmon1 (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

You did it right. You are pretty good it it, really. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy that you like it. Best regards. (Salmon1 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GNU Oleo

I always look for sources before nominating. I said "I can't find significant coverage for this software". Are you calling me a liar? Joe Chill (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there and modified my statement to explain it better., Sorry for any implication , but you are using a word here (and there) which is much better avoided, as it tends to escalation. DGG ( talk ) 12:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a list

I ran across a list yesterday that just bothers me: List of school-related attacks. The list is reasonably well documented and I'll even give them points for going back to 1764 to list an attack on a school by Lenape Indians......but this ends up having a lot of very minor incidents too. A kid committing suicide is now a "school attack"? Any way, this lists criteria is: "These are attacks that have occurred on school property or related primarily to school issues or events. A broad definition of the word attacks is used for this list so as to include public attacks or one's self (suicide)." That seems really broad to me and this whole list sort of gives me a "news" feel. You're one of the most balanced, policy based people I've interacted with on here, so I wanted to get your take on it. Am I completely off base with feeling that there is is more of a news reporting feel with an overly broad inclusion criteria? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it would help to follow the usual rule and remove those that are not notable enough to have Wikipedia articles on the incident or the victim or the perpetrator. Suggest it on the talk p., and you can quote me. But I am too busy right now preventing the further deletion of unsourced articles without people making the least attempt to verify them. Trying to cope with what i can only call recklessness is taking up the time of many editors. That not only arb com but Jimbo has just congratulated the apparent leader [13] makes the need to protect the encyclopedia all the more urgent. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elisha Benjamin Andrews

Something happened when you attempted the move of Elisha Benjamin Andrews and you ended up with a circular redirect. I'm not exactly sure what you were up to, so can you take a look and fix whatever happened? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

someone else seems to have been working on it at the same time, and we crossed wires. I think it's right now, as Elisha Andrews. I'll recheck some other similar moves I did at the timer. Thanks for alerting me DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walter B. Wriston

Hi DGG. I appreciate your good work. You're what seems like one of the few good guys left in a sea of ever increasing deletionists. In any event I saw you did some work recently on Walter Wriston. I thought a while back there was a fairly substantial article on him. But I saw there was a flurry of deletes to make room, etc. regarding his article. I didn't think much about it until now that I see there's a speedy on a practically existent article. It seems inconceivable a biography on him could have been reduced to such. I believe you're an admin and so can see the earlier article when it was something. Thanks. Americasroof (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your amazing quick response although despite your restoration of 83 revisions, I still only see a handful of revisions. The talk page tags it as a "start" article (rather than a stub) so there was clearly something there at some point. Thanks again. Americasroof (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again thanks. I can now see the edit history (and restored it to Jan 7). I guess something got messed up in a good faith to move it to a new name. Thanks again! Americasroof (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there seems to have been a database lag. It is necessary to make sure each step is complete before doing the next. That's the advantage of going manually, one step at a time. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue | Next issue

Content

The community is currently deciding whether 60,000 articles should be deleted. background

News items and announcements Contest

Featured editor: Teeninvestor Featured administrator: WereSpielChequers

Want ads Feature: FeydHuxtable: Search Techniques

Clarification re AfD

Hi DGG. Were it not for your vote, I would be inclined simply to see the latest NB AfD as another example of "Malice in Wikiland". But I really respect your judgement as an Editor and I wonder if you could possibly explain:

1. How writing a notable book, being a featured speaker in notable forums and on the radio, and having a full-page article in the FT about your work can make someone less notable?
2. In what respect WP:AUTHOR was not met?

In addition I hope you may agree that, since one of the points of discussion was whether the full-page article in the FT was largely about my work or whether I was just "mentioned" twice (actually quoted) it was legitimate in the circumstances to ask David G. Rand who was also quoted in the article to come to the AfD since he knows the background. Many thanks. NBeale (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@NBeale: maybe you should try actually reading the AfD, where these issues were addressed over and over again. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the comment below: When I am undecided about what to do, I say so. In terms of discussing the issues, the AfD is (or was) the place for that. I reiterate what i said a little earlier, that I although it is not an actual criterion, in practice my personal human judgement tends to regard the pressing desire of the subject of an article as a reason for a skeptical attitude. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I refrained from pressing this during the AfD but since the closing admin said any new article would have to address the concerns raised, and they may be fresh in your mind, I thought it would be helpful to have them on record. As a social phiolosopher (according to my publisher, the Ri, Onoroa O'Neill etc but Slim thinks she knows better) I am concerned about truth and justice. I know I'm biased, but I can't imagine a there has been a single instance where someone in comparable circumstances has been deleted. When, in fact, did we last delete the co-author of a clearly notable book? NBeale (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) Who, other than you, says that your book is "clearly notable"? You yourself created the article and added most of the puffery that's currently in it. It's certainly not a "significant cultural monument" as described in WP:AUTHOR.

2) If you had actually read WP:Notability (people) before starting this crusade, surely you would have noticed this bit of language: Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. In other words, you are not entitled to have an article just because you can make some tenuous, Wikilawyering claim at one minor criterion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Merritt Wriston

Hi. As a result of various moves including this one, this article had become a redirect to itself and the content had got lost; I came on it flagged for speedy deletion. I have restored things so that the article is at Henry Wriston and this is a redirect, but I am confused (and reading the guideline has not unconfused me) about whether this is the right way round; I will delay sorting out various double-redirects until you reassure me. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the guideline is that they go as firstname lastname unless there is a conflict. I was attempting to move them, using the db-move tag, and the process went wrong--please do help me sort them out. Personally, I think the guideline is not a good one, and that we should always disambiguate at least to middle initial if possible and probably to full middle name if easily determinable. But it is a well established guideline, and I was attempting to follow it. I made a mistake by doing several articles this way without checking that the first one went correctly. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've rescued Barnaby Keeney too and will sort out his redirects and look for others after supper. Are they all Presidents of Brown University? JohnCD (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. I recheck my log later today,m & try to figure out what went wrong. thanks. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I have sorted out the following Brown U. presidents (and expect an honorary degree shortly):

• Ruth Simmons
• Howard Swearer
• Donald Hornig
• Barnaby Keeney
• Henry Wriston
• Clarence Barbour
• Ezekiel Robinson

I think the problem was that Baseball1015 (talk · contribs) put the {{db-move}} templates on the wrong articles - on "Henry Merritt Wriston" for instance, where the actual text was, and filled in "Henry Wriston", which was a redirect, as the "page to be moved here". So when you clicked on "Click here to perform the move" the result was a circular redirect with a db tag on it. I'll drop him a note about it. I have fixed all the resulting double redirects, I think; I spent some time correcting other links before reading WP:NOTBROKEN and realising it wasn't necessary. We live and learn. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Leonard^Bloom 3.
Message added 06:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Coffee // have a cup // ark // 06:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi,

After our discussion above, I just tried my hand at writing an article about a figure from early Islamic history. Things learnt (too much of generalisation, though):

• It is not difficult to do a search and find what a person is notable for
• It is very difficult to find a source (even primary) for hundreds of statements that are seen in a google search
• My Arabic translation skills, even aided by Google translate, are really hopeless

Personally I am not too happy with the article and some of the inconsistencies I have come across during searches. But as the writer, my capability to evaluate it properly is very limited. Could you please have a look at the article? It will be great if you could tell me what the problem areas are, where I need to improve etc. so that I could try to correct them while working on future articles. Your help will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you very much, and best wishes -- Raziman T V (talk) 07:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

looks good to me--I clarified one point, because at first glance C. E. looked like someone's initials. What would be most needed is some online accessible text, preferably in English, to give as an external link. If on of the references you already list is in fact available this way, say so in the reference. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got practically all the info from google books. In those cases, I have given the links as well. NK Singhs' book has a chapter about the person and that is the one that I think comes closest to an external link. How should I change the reference? Thanks and best wishes -- Raziman T V (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must say

I am delighted we finally found something which we both agree on. ÷seresin 07:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope there are many more. I am sure we agree on most basic principles, and i think we see many of the same problems. There is often too much of a focus on disagreements, and people see changes as threatening their positions. DGG ( talk ) 07:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher P. Shore

If there is major political ramifications for the actions Shore and the soldiers are done, then an article should be made about the incident and everything from here and Trey A. Corrales needs to be merged into that article. If the incident is important, then write about the incident and not the people involved. User:Zscout370 ^(Return Fire) 05:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you;ve give a good reason for a merge, so go right ahead with it--I was unaware of the other article . DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will think of something soon. User:Zscout370 ^(Return Fire) 05:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of David F. Haight

An article that you have been involved in editing, David F. Haight, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David F. Haight. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I commented there. Most of the articles prodded as unsourced BLP do turn out to have sources and be about notable people, once the work is done on them; but not all of them do. this is one that does not. It is worth going carefully through the list, with the emphasis on carefully, as in your analysis at the Afd. DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ogi Ogas

Hi there. As a contributor to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ogi Ogas, you may be interested to know I have re-nominated the page for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ogi Ogas (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring in Binary prefixes

Dear DGG, would you please intervene in the continued war editing by user User:Fnagaton in article Binary prefixes. Multiple editors have found his edits and reasons objectionable and reverted them, but this user continues to revert not only specific statements, but all improvements to the article in whole. Thanks. Kbrose (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained on the article talk page that all of the edits by Kbrose contain violations of WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE so it is a stretch to call them "all improvements". At the moment I think the best course of action for Kbrose is to step back and talk through any factual/content changes on the talk page first and gain consensus, but Kbrose instead added more unsuported assumptions WP:OR so unfortunately I was forced to revert them and explain why on the talk page. On the same talk page I have invited Kbrose to be welcome to make improvements to the formatting of the article as long as unsupported assumptions are not added. Fnagaton 23:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I protected whatever might be the current version for 24 hours. You will need to ask elsewhere for an outside opinion on the content, for I can no longer do that. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello DGG, I noticed Kbrose reverted again without talking about the changes even after inviting Kbrose to talk first. But I noticed you've blocked the page containing Kbrose's WP:OR changes shortly afterwards. On the talk page I explained how Kbrose is adding WP:OR and to invite Kbrose to provide valid evidence, note not Kbrose's assumptions based on Kbrose's reading of the document. During the page block period that should give Kbrose plenty of time to provide reliable sources for Kbrose's assumptions. If after that time Kbrose does not provide reliable sources then Kbrose's changes will still be WP:OR and as such think they should be removed from the article.Fnagaton 01:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

my role as an admin is not to decide the conflicts, but to stop them. You'll have to discuss the matter further there, not here. ` DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fnagaton has continued his disruptions in article JEDEC memory standards as well as on the prior talk page. Would you please protect the page as well for the duration of a 'poll' in this version which accurately reflects the source. I have called for other editors' consensus on that talk page to vote on the accurate reflection of the content according to the source given. The user continues to challenge other editors to engage in a debate in which he wants to prove his point only, when there was already consensus as to the proper interpretation of the document. In view of the user's past editing troubles and the ongoing and uncalled for activity on Talk:Binary prefix this is an attempt to end this conflict through broader consensus. Thank you. Kbrose (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I have requested a similar poll on Talk:Binary prefix. Would you please maintain the page protection on these pages until a consensus is reached? It is unfortunate that the pages need to be protected as they both are in need of improvements, but prevailing forces seem to necessitate delay. Kbrose (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

recent comments indicate that protection is no longer necessary. My advice to everyone: when there are two views, give both ofthem. Wikipedia is not here to settle RW issues. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death Star

I noticed this edit [14] and was wondering if you could expand on it. Your edit summary was 860 Library holdings, look for reviews before deciding its not notable. perhaps try a merge but when I look at WP:BK nowhere does it mention library holdings as a reason to think that a book has sufficient notability... The guideline seems to indicate to me that fiction such as this in general does not pass Wikipedia's notability standards, so what am I missing? -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

right, it is not a formal justification, though it works a good deal of the time at AfD. More formally, libraries buy on the basis of reviews, so it indicates there will be reviews, and reviews are the usual secondary sources that prove books or other creative works notable. But as I said, I'd be inclined to merge. Per WP:BEFORE, we do not delete if we can merge. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I will try that going forward... -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Kavanaugh

Thank you for the rewrite on James Kavanaugh. I have a lot of material I would like to add but I am just learning Wikipedia. I see that have rewritten it to keep it from being deleted. I can come up with some of the references needed but don't think my understanding of wikipedia will be up to speed. I am not even sure I am using your talk space correctly. If you would not mind starting a discussion about the article on my talk space I think I have mastered that and can provide references from my Father his brother to get the article out of the deletion category. I know there are many fans who are looking for information on James and it would be nice to have it all in one place. If you see my talk space there is a video 1 of six I would like to see referenced. realfakemarlene 20:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Realfakemarlene. You can see I tried adding it but my knowledge of Wikipedia is weak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realfakemarlene (talk • contribs)

no one is now proposing to delete it, nor do I think that they will. comments on your talk p. DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Jaames

I saw you note about looking for reviews prior to marking for Speedy. I did and came up with GHits adn GNEWS. Your message implies I missed something, can you point me to what I missed? ttonyb (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between speedy and AfD or prod. for speedy, any indication of notability is enough to pass, and writing multiple books is such an assertion. For AfD, the books have to be important enough to shown him actually notable. As for reviews, it's a good idea to try Google News Archive, not just with the name of the person, but the name of each individual title. I also usually try a check of worldCat, to see if any substantial number of libraries have them. Then if you do not find anything, nominate for AfD,saying where you looked. If you checked even a little, you are doing much better work than many people here, and therefore you need to say so to avoid the assumption that you didn't do any. . DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter O. Price

Thanks for correcting me. Bearian (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree with you 100%, David. I've tried for the past 3 years to fix up articles, and get nary a pat on the back or a barnstar, much less any help. The barbarians at the gate have taken over Wikipedia. They cry: Carthago delenda est! - get rid of 60,000 articles all at once, delete on sight! When others do the same, that is, ProD unreferenced articles, they get away with it, quoting Chairman Jimbo. But all I've gotten is grief over the past few days when I've been as sloppy a few times, as they have been for years. At least I've made some good test cases to show that I'm right. That's my only consolation around here. The proposed rules suck like dead bunnies. I was just testing them to prove that they won't work. I'm glad at least you and The-Pope have noticed. Thank you again! Bearian (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are more of us than two.. But considering the hundred-fold greater ease of nominating for deletion as compared to sourcing, there needs to be many more. The first step towards solution to getting them is to make the people who want to delete article try to source them first. It's fine for people to concentrate on different things, but they must be aware of the general need for other sorts of work also: I concentrate of saving whenever possible, but I delete more than I rescue. and it isn't only the articles that have some sort of a source that need the rescue, or the deletion. (and of those I try to delete, about 10% could probably have been rescued--nobody here is free from mistakes. But at least people shouldn't court mistakes by closing their eyes when they work--at least not deliberately, the way arbcom seems to have praised them for doing. The logical consequence of their ruling is to delete all articles dealing with 1900 and later, for they all might possibly have an error affecting a living person.

The general solution is to attract more editors. We do not have enough people here to keep track of the articles we have on a timely basis. The way to get more is to do everything possible to encourage people to edit and to write articles. Anyone who in good faith comes to write an article should be encouraged to stay--and the best way is by experienced Wikipedians assisting them how to make their article acceptable if that is possible, or at least by politely and personally explaining just what is wrong and why working on another article might be better. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Jurith

Hi, and thanks for saving that article. I apparently didn't look hard enough. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

actually, this was a particularly difficult one, because the dates of office in the original article were wrong altogether. I came very close to saying , the hell with it. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JBWatson

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

... and now yet one more (briefer) comment on JamesBWatson's talk page ... Hi, thank you very much for your comments and appreciating the fact that it is a worthy topic. I tried to make it an impartial note on the topic. As there is another wikipedia docs on The Golden Bough and Sir Frazer I didn't try to work on Frazer's overall view on Magic and Religion. There aren't new research that I could find other than the ones quoted. If I do find I will add them in the future. To make it less essay like (this was unintentional),and add wiki references, I will re-edit the text. I didn't try to give many examples but the summary. Perhaps, that made it reads like an essay. I will try to improve the style. Thanks again and hope to hear from again soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Da veder (talk • contribs) 01:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]