User talk:DGG/Archive 84 Jan. 2014

                                       ARCHIVES

DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG

Barnstars, Awards, etc.

Reminders

Topical Archives:
Deletion & AfD,      Speedy & prod,        NPP & AfC,       COI & paid editors,      BLP,                              Bilateral relations
Notability,               Universities & academic people,       Schools,                       Academic journals,       Books & other publications
Sourcing,                Fiction,                                               In Popular Culture      Educational Program
Bias, intolerance, and prejudice

General Archives:
2006: Sept-Dec
2007: Jan-Feb , Mar-Apt , M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D 
2008: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2009: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2010: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2011: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2012: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2013: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2014: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2015: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2016: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2017: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2018: J, F, M , A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2019: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2020: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2021: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2022: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2023: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O

 

            DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG

NeighborCity article

From User DGG (NYPL) you suggested using User talk DGG. User DGG, I have a good rating on the real etate information website and app, Neighborcity, so I'm not inclined to edit the article because of my potential tie to the entity. NeighborCity is also in a landmark antitrust lawsuit with the National Association of Realtors and the Multiple Listing Service that realtors post real estate ads to. This subject deserves coverage when people search for the NeighborCity lawsuit because it impacts the one and a half million real estate agents, brokers and commercial agents of which I am one, and then the millions of homebuyers each year who are likely to be impacted if the association ends up with evaluations and ratings of all of its member-brokers and agents.

If there is a problem with the litigation section, or other sections of this page, then why not fix it? If a salaried marketing assistant or intern at the company or a hired person wrote the article in the first place, write over their work like the last 12 months of editors have. I saw the link User Rybec posted, and it doesn't look like the page creator was actually blocked until months after the article was created. I'd like to see increased interest in the Neighborcity lawsuit, not less.64.182.119.244 (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

A similar message was left at User_talk:Rybec#Neighborcity_article, where I've replied. —rybec 19:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what you want me to do.I removed a sentence of summary that made a very strong "only prominent" judgment that did not seem to be supported by the references, and changed the wording a little, but otherwise left the information intact. rybec (talk · contribs) cleaned it up a little, but then proposed to for deletion on the basis that most of it was written by a known paid editor ring. However, anyone can remove that tag, and admin User:Sj did that. The normal next step if anyone wants to delete the article is to take it to AfD for a community decision--unless he or someone does that it will not be deleted. As rybec said, the appropriate thing for you to do if you think additional information should be included is to suggest it on the article talk page. article is challenged would be AfD. The article has been subjec tto vandalism ,and perhaps semi-protection would be appropriate. I or Sj can do that. DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Response to proposed deletion of Kavi Workspace page

DGG, thank you for your attention to the Kavi Workspace page. I have removed the proposed deletion notice, but I will of course abide by whatever decisions are made. I have reviewed the guidelines for creating Wikipedia content at some length and feel that I have a solid grasp of the principles. In creating the page, I have tried to emulate and be parallel to other software product pages linked from List of collaborative software. Many parallel pages seem also to lack significant levels of notability, or refer simply to articles generated by press releases or commercial web sites. Projectplace (software), Telligent, and ProtoShare are three of many examples. I have reviewed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Do you have recommendations for how to proceed? Thank you. MisterPendrake (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

many parallel pages ought to be deleted also. Not all, of course--it depends on the importance of the company, now or in the past. we measure that here by 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. For products like this, the most convincing references are substantial independent signed product reviews in publications of acknowledged responsibility and authority, (but not mere notices or announcements). If you can add them, the article is not likely to be deleted. Otherwise it probably will be. If I (or anyone) think that they have still not been added adequately in a few days, I will nominate the article for discussion at WP:AFD. The consensus of the community as expressed there about whether it meets the guidelines will decide, as judged by some other administrator. Good luck with it--I hope you are able to show it notable by our standards.

Of the pages you mention, one seems to be adequately sourced, and two less adequately, but I (and possibly others who may happen to see this) will take another look at all three of them. A great many insufficiently notable articles have been aded in the past, and we ought to remove them if they can not be improved sufficiently.At the very least, we do not want to add to their number. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. In lieu of signed product reviews in publications, I submit that the product page earns its notability on the basis of its use. Specifically, it is used widely in the US standards development community. Good examples of entities that rely on the product are the OASIS Open organization, INCITS, and many other ANSI-accredited organizations. The smooth functioning of these organizations and their consensus-driven output relies on the product. While the product does not warrant mainstream press, it does warrant the attention and participation of a large number of technical professionals who use it daily to conduct committee work that results in important American standards. Can this level of participation justify inclusion?

I am seeking parity with other product pages. To explore the comparison further, Sharepoint is a collaboration environment which underlies a large range of business activity, some of it important, some not. As a part of the Microsoft portfolio, it garners large amounts of attention. But as a product, it is not inherently any more important than any other development environment. In the case of Workspace, it is a niche product performing a specialized function in an activity generally considered important to the US economy. I submit this line of reasoning for your consideration and ask that it be entered into the debate. Is there a more direct way to do that than here on your talk page? MisterPendrake (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This is WP, a community project, that has no way of expertly judging anything.. WP was built on the principle on relying on what other publications said, those that do have expert editing. If they cover something in a substantial way we include it , and we include what they say. It was almost universally thought 12 years ago that in the absence of such expertise a reliable encyclopedia could not be constructed. Nonetheless this seems to have worked, worked much better than any of those who started it, or anyone else for that matter , would possibly have imagined. It is not the only way to make an encyclopedia, but it is the way this particular one is being made, Those who have chosen to work on it, almost all of us volunteers, are fundamentally determined to see it through--to see how far we can carry this concept.

To avoid expert judgment of our own, we avoid considering intrinsic importance. Other publications in the world do, and we rely on them. I sometimes get impatient at the apparent indifference to common sense and the occasional inconsistency that the implies, but I have to acknowledge that it does seem to work. Even were you to persuade me otherwise, all that I could say is that it would be necessary to start another encyclopedia on a different principle. Neither I nor anyone here would want to take the chance of compromising what we have done with our current way of working, for we have done collectively something which nobody ever thought ordinary humans collectively could accomplish. I dreamed of this as a child, and it is amazing to see it accomplished only half a century later in my own lifetime. .

We do not try to meet every need; we try to meet the needs of those who find what we are doing worthwhile. Among the people whose needs it does not meet are those who seek recognition or publicity for what has not yet been recognized in external reliable sources.

So much for the rhetoric. You come here to ask my advice, and I would not be honest if I did not give you the most accurate advice I can give about what will happen here, based upon my seven years experience working primarily with incoming challenged articles. Regardless of your desires or mine, the article will be deleted without the sort of sources people here consider necessary. I've told you what they are. if they're not here by monday, I will do what I am supposed to do , and list the article for discussion.

I am not going to go into a debate and say things other than I think. I shall say it does not seem to meet our guidelines, and let others argue as they will and decide what to do with it. You can enter what you like into the debate, but I don't think anyone has ever succeeded with an argument along your lines, and I have seen hundreds of people try. It may be much less than your merits deserve, but it's what will happen; the experience of others is the best predictor. DGG ( talk ) 06:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Re:thearticle

If you would like to translate it you're welcome (and with the help of others). It is a copy and paste from the German Wikipedia since the page wasn't in the English Wikipedia (but in the German, under the same name). Ich spreche keine deutsch (i speak little german) if that is translated correctly. I have a german vocab but it is not that big so that is why i copied and pasted it and then the browser can translate it to english, that was my thinking anyways. OR instead of translating it should i just have it redirect to the german version and then people can click on translate to english if they'd like? Its your decision, really. and I took out {db-g7}} from the article's code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcfrommn (talk • contribs) 00:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure. As I said, I can do the basics of putting the general sketch into idiomatic English. I have only an ordinary graduate student's knowledge of German, but I can do that much, and I like the exercise. I will try to to get the technical vocabulary hopelessly wrong, butorganizational names are always a problem, as it is generally our practice to translate some but not all of them, as many do not have an exact English equivalent. I leave the more knowledgable to fill in the gaps.

As a rule, it's better to ask for a translation than to simply copy the page--the process goes more easily. The place to do that is. in this case, Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Article requests or wherever it fits best in the pages listed at Wikipedia:Requested articles/By country or the subject oriented sections at Wikipedia:Requested articles -- in this case it would be Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social sciences/Military and military history. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Mass creation of non notable corporate stubs

I think your experience and wisdom is required here and here and its talk page. In brief, there are serious doubts that this is a genuine educational project. Editors claim to be students at various Chines universities. The non notable stubs have been ostensibly created by just going through stock exchange listings and cover specific commercial areas. Most of us agree what needs to be done, but your input would be a plus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I've left a comment on the noticeboard and also a more extended one at User talk:Blueena DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

CSD A7 for Gavin Patterson

As I understand it, you recently tagged Gavin Patterson for speedy deletion per WP:CSD A7. This seems quite inappropriate as I would expect that being the CEO of any plc is a sufficient claim of importance to require a proper deletion discussion. I have asked the admin who deleted the article to undelete it. The editor who created this article in good faith seems quite cut up about it so please could you explain your thinking to him so that we may avoid future difficulty in such cases. Andrew (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You're right. This was my error. Remembering it, I seem for some reason not to have noticed that line, but did notice the paragraph about nonexecutive directorships. Even as an American, I certainly should have spotted the abbreviation and recognized it for what it was. And in any case the directorships should have caused me to go more carefully. It would have helped is if the article had linked the names of all the companies that had WP articles in the first draft. It would also have helped if it had had at least one reference in the first draft. As far as I can tell, I seem to have an error rate of about 1 to 2% misjudgements and 0.1% downright bloopers, like this. Even so, that's 144 bloopers over the years. Both figures should be at most half of what they are, but neither of them will be zero. Some people say their rate is in fact zero, but I am not sure I believe them.

However, the check on both misjudgements and errors is the need for a second person to actually do the deletion. (technically this isn't necessary-- I could have deleted as an individual admin, but because I know I have a non-zero error rate, I don't normally do so) A few admins do, and they're wrong to do that, but we haven't agreed on a rule to prevent it.)

I see the comments at that admins talk p., and at the talk p of the person who originally deleted the article. I see the admin involved has not commented. I assume that's just a rare aberration brought on by the unfortunate manner of the original complaint. I am quite distressed that it was my original action that start the chain of compounding errors. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for encouraging new contributions

I barely have time to create a stub article on one of the oldest mountain huts in the Alps than it is marked as Not Notable! Perhaps you should consult with your colleagues in wikipedia:it, wikipedia:fr, wikipedia:de all of which have many articles on alpine refuges. I have removed your so-called contribution. Semudobia (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Different WPs have different standards, though normally we do defer to other language WPs for the geography of their regions. The article did not indicate that it was in the Italian WP, or I would not have tagged it. I have now edited it to indicate--the easiest way tis to add at the very end the line [[it:Rifugio Guglielmina]] There's an automatic procedure which then makes the necessary connections--you only need to add one of the languages, it does the rest. I also added at the top {{Expand Italian|Rifugio Guglielmina}}. However, you are right: I should have checked myself. You would do well to go back to the articles you've been writing and add these links for each of them. (And that particular article as it stood said very little; I only listed it for proposed deletion. You asked it be kept, and another ed. added to it & clarified the notability. ) DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Toll

Hi DGG

I noticed that you have done some work on the Toll Global Resources page. We have communicated before and you may remember that I am pretty new to Wiki and I'm learning as I go. Toll is a pretty big company in Australia in that it is widely known and used. There are lots of Toll Wiki pages and some are really old and have out of date information. As we discussed previously it would be much better if there were fewer, pithy Toll pages rather than all the ones that exist at the moment. I think this was your point previously and I agree with you. It would be good to put any current information that exists on the old Aviation, Shipping IPEC pages on the more relevant newer pages and to get rid of the old ones altogether. You may have noticed that I had a go at classifying the pages. I goofed somewhat but I have fixed it over the Christmas break when I had some time. These classifications are a little tricky and I don't really understand why someone would remove the "Companies of New Zealand" from the Toll NZ page, when Toll Group NZ Limited seems to me to very clearly indicate the appropriateness of the category. Do you know why that is? It would good if someone with more experience than me consolidated the Toll pages. Do you have the time and inclination to do so? Do you know of an editor who might be interested in doing it? Regards --PinkAechFas (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

What pages do you think should be there? The company is large enough we might want to go down one level for clarity, but not beyond that. If we agree, I can do the merge. I think the larger articles can be still clear if written so each company name--especially the overall name-- is written only once or twice in it, as I did last night for Toll Global Resources. You'll see how I handled the subcompany names there. I haven't checked if there are redirects, but if not, you or I can make them. .

For the article I worked on last night, I removed the navbox for Toll Companies because they were listed as well in the see alsos. They should be listed just one place or another, but either will do. Which do you think better? DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

As for categories, I can not find that we ever had a category Logistics Companies of New Zealand. Are there any other such companies? If not, we usually don't make a category for a single company, but because there is a possibility that there will subsequently be articles on other companies, I can do it

Hi DGG Thanks for your message. Toll was a fairly small company until the 1990's when it started on an aggressive growth plan based on purchasing other small businesses. In 2012 Toll decided to create six operating divisions to simplify their business. They have rebranded their entire business as "Toll" In a similar way to General_Electric. The most visible aspect of their business to the general community is their trucks and vans on the road so most people have the perception of them as a 'courier company'. Each division has very different operations eg Toll_Global_Express is a courier business in competition with companies such as Fedex whereas Toll_Global_Resources provides remote area and military base camp support in competition with organisations such as Fluor_Corporation. I would certainly not suggest that they are trying to hide some of their potentially contentious business activities from the public eg military, mining etc. Having said that, I think that it is fair that each of these divisions should have their own Wiki page so that it is clear what this multinational conglomerate does.

I think there should be 7 Toll pages (Toll Group, and Toll Global Forwarding; Toll Global Logistics; Toll Global Resources; Toll Global Express; Toll Domestic Forwarding; and Toll Specialised and Domestic Freight). This is how the company is structured and information from various sources such as news articles readily slots into this structure. This is the structure that the company has stated it intends to use for the foreseeable future.

There are several 'legacy' pages that have been created in the past that I have found on the English Wikipedia. Of these pages I think:

Toll_IPEC content should be reviewed (the timeline can be edited down significantly - it looks like it was simply cut and pasted from a sales brochure). The relevant content could then be moved to Toll_Global_Express

Toll_Priority is also an old brand name however the fleet content could be moved to Toll_Global_Express

Toll_Aviation is a business unit of Toll_Global_Express and the history could be moved there

Toll_NZ is part of the Toll_Domestic_Forwarding business unit. In saying that Toll NZ does seem to be important to our Kiwi colleagues. However, if it was kept then it may encourage users in other countries eg Singapore to create their own "local" Toll Group page so maybe it should be consolidated?

Toll_Shipping is part of Toll_Domestic_Forwarding. I think the information on the Shipping page could easily be incorporated into the TDF page.

Also just mentioning the name such as TGR once or twice is fine with me. TGR reads better since you made the changes. Removing the duplication from the nav box and See Also is fine with me. I think I prefer what you have done - leaving them listed in the See Also - it is very easy for people to find them and go to them if they want to. At the end of the day I think all articles should be as reader friendly as possible.

There are categories for logistic companies by country on a Wiki page called Category:Logistics companies by country. I see your point about a cat with one entry but I think there would be others that may be added in time. I think it would be good to have the cat. Also the category that was removed was Category:Companies of New Zealand and there are a number of NZ companies listed. I think the cat Railway companies of New Zealand should if anything be removed because their activities are much broader than rail.

I'll follow your example on the Toll Global Resources page and start editing the others in the same vein. I hope to hear from you again.

Regards --PinkAechFas (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help about "How to do it and avoid deletions"

Blueena (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Though most of the articles I've created are being proposed for deletion, it's really happy to receive your message about "how to do it and avoid deletions". The message includes many detailed suggestions and I believe it must have taken you a lot time. Once again, many thanks!

Draft:Chris Wright (Entrepreneur)

Could you assist Lemanglaise (talk · contribs) with this? He seems to be having a difficulty, but could not elucidate it to me clearly. Dlohcierekim 15:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

done; I think the actual problem is merely that he didn't see the submission notice because it was at the bottom. We ought to fix that, as I've been asking for a long time. DGG ( talk ) 19:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Dlohcierekim 20:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox

Hi, please undelete Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox, as it is used by AFCH developers for script testing. Thanks for understanding! Theopolisme (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Sorry--I should have realized there was some purpose to it. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Remember the David Pettersen article?

Hey, DGG, I was just wondering if you could drop a line on my talk page because the COI editor CoffeeDrinkers wants a more senior editor to assist "them" on the deletion of said article. They seem to be a bit frustrated. I believe I have a handle on the situation but if you could drop a line for me that would be appreciated. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 02:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I'm contacting you and not the deleting admin because you protected the page from recreation and said so on my talk. Thanks! --MrScorch6200 (t c) 02:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

P.P.S. They also requested that the content be restored to their user space. I'm sure you'll be able to help out. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 02:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. The admin told me to speak with both the users who tagged the article for deletion, and the one who actually deleted it. We believe David Pettersen's article complied with the notability requirements - and definitely will in the future. CoffeeDrinkers (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Receive Old Articles

Hi, Would we still be able to receive his old articles posted in the past, and the one that was just posted yesterday? We were wondering if we could receive and retain those records for review. Thank you for your time. CoffeeDrinkers (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

not in this case. Now or ever. Your talk p. has the explanation: you are either engaging in advertisement or harassment. BTW, you may not under any circumstances remove something from another person's talk page. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

According to the deleting admin, Slon02, the seven articles are not the same. He stated that here. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 03:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Pine River Capital article

Hi DGG or Doug (and anyone in structured finance!),

I commented on Pine River Capital Management through the talk page. I proposed revisiting what fact is asserted as to why the firm is notable and how to arrive at the conclusion that it is notable. I found some better references. Thanks for reviewing. What makes Pine River notable is that it was the first to, in August 2009, launch a $250 million real estate investment trust that was the first to be formed through a merger with a special purpose acquisition company. http://www.iijournals.com/doi/abs/10.3905/JSF.2009.15.3.073?journalCode=jsf#sthash.8N39Uvww.dpbs

and

http://www.structuredfinancenews.com/news/-199076-1.html

After the housing market and RMBS market fall out, this was a big and rather contrarian play to see Pine River not just invest, but wade in in such a permanent way into the RMBS market. Later, we saw big finance firms follow suit. Thus, Pine River had a seminal impact on the RMBS market from 2009-2014. From an financial academic standpoint this is a page to keep tinkering with. It needs a bit of TLC from structured finance academics. 172.162.49.167 (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Now, do you have any good sources that say what you just said about the significance? That's the sort of material we need. I don;t think most of the users will realize the significance unless it's pointed out to them, and we can't say it on the basis of your own original analysis, even if it seems sensible to me. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, like most articles probably, this one will need some real digging for the best quotes. I found a few sources off the beaten path-- one of which I found via google scholar.172.162.49.167 (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The cite added properly: Thetgyi, Olivia (Fall 2009). "MBS REIT First to be Formed Through SPAC Merger". The Journal of Structured Finance (Institutional Investor Journals) 15 (3): 73–75. doi:10.3905/JSF.2009.15.3.073. Retrieved 6 January 2014, supports the "first MBS REIT" concept. Two other complementary sources support the same. Housingwire is the better of the other two.

I think the issue you might see following press releases relates to churnalism, or an attempt by some journalists who don't really know what to write because they don't really understand the subject, and the result is just a copy of a press release. Here the structured finance community covered a good bit of the subject. The mainstream media did a lackluster job. The most useful coverage actually comes from law firms, which started whole practice areas around the idea. The finance world isn't often innovative, but this is an example of innovation at work. It deserves some interlinking with the REIT and RMBS articles. It's possible that the area of structured finance might lack sufficient coverage on Wikipedia.172.162.49.167 (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Most fields of business except computer technology and the transportation and entertainment industries lack sufficient coverage on Wikipedia. Finance may actually be one of the better ones, but the articles are not systematic, are not usually based upon good academic sources, and are insufficiently clear for the likely readers. But what we need to do most is improve those on the general concepts. The ideal way of bring a particular company in is if someone has written an article using it as an example, or even better, discussing it as a pioneer. But to show this, especially with paywalled sources, requires carefully selected in-context quotes. Writing this sort of article is difficult in any subject. all I can do is comment as a reader whether it is clear to me and seems to be fair and NPOV and uses representative examples.

You seem to very much know what you are doing and I will help you as much as possible with what I do know, which is what sort of articles fit into WP and what sort of sources we accept. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC) .

Thanks. I'll see if I can get some additional research assistance here to find deeper sources beyond the Journal of Structured Finance and Housing Wire.172.162.49.167 (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Auxiliary fraction

Re your unprod of Auxiliary fraction, would you care to address the {{onesource}}/WP:GNG concerns that were the primary reason for my prod? Your edit summary only talks about the other concern, WP:NOTHOWTO. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I expect to work further on it. The question is whether it's a basic part of Vedic mathematics or an idiosyncratic technique & I do not yet know. DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

See Tekriwal, Gaurav (2014). Idiot's Guides: Speed Math. Alpha Books (Penguin Group). pp. 69-77. ISBN 978-1-61564-316-5. for its continuing utility. --Bejnar (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it's importance in the fundamental subject is more important than it's current usefulness for mental arithmetic. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Adam Wiercinski for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adam Wiercinski is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Wiercinski until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Macrakis (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion advice needed

• Dark Mail Alliance A new article seemingly aimed at promoting its Kickstarter campaign. If I PROD it the creator will remove the tag. At the same time I don't think it qualifies for G11 as its got a minor mention in The Guardian. Should I PROD it anyway or take it straight to AfD? Thoughts?
• Taylor Wallace, Another new article. I can't find any secondary sources on this guy. Creator will likely remove PROD, should I AfD it instead?
• RAAM any thoughts on this one? Its marginally notable. Merge to Global Country of World Peace?

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I would extend the benefit of the doubt to DMA--notable founder; there's likkely to be more. Otherwise, consider a merge to him. Wallace would be covereed by WP:PROF, which does not require secondary sources--the published papers are independent verification, and the univ. wewebsite can served as a RS for routine bio data. However, his notability is borderline. Fellow of a major scientific society is often sufficient for notability, but ACN seems to have rather low requirements. Highest no. of citations for any published article, 65 , which is not high in this field, nor is 20 published areticles. Book on Anthrocyanins in few libraries. Merge seems a good idea for RAAM, especially because the bulk of the article is unusable promotion. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, good thoughts. I'll let DMA slide awhile. Subjectively, it appears notable and may have enough press soon to meet WP's objective requirements. And I'll let others argue over Wallace and his possible meeting of the WP:PROF threshold. Re: RAAM, I notice someone has proposed a merger there for the second time, so I'll clean up the fluff and support the merger at the talk page. Thanks for the feedback. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

CODEC Acceleration deletion proposal

I've responded to your proposed deletion of CODEC Acceleration in the article's talk page.TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

User:TeeTylerToe this was a proposed deletion, and even tho you are the contributor ,you are entitled to rremove the PROD tag yourself (unlike speedy). If you do that, however, please expand it and add some references, or I will send it to AfD. As an alternative, why not redirect it to Video Processing Engine, merging any content you think relevant? DGG ( talk ) 23:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Luckett (businessman) (2nd nomination)

Please comment. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Chinese education project

Did you intend to remove the PROD from United Security Bancshares this one? You didn't say so in your ES. If it was your intention, that's fine and I won't send it to AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I did that one early, before I had settled on the standard I would use for screening, which is NYSE. I restored the prod, considering my removal of it as an error. That may not be technically the right way, but NOT BURO. Thanks for catching it. DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

External link section in journal articles

Hi David, I remember that ages ago you reverted me when I removed external links to journal home pages from the EL section of articles because I argued that they were redundant. I remember that you explained to me why I was wrong and ever since I have added them to such articles. However, for the life of me I cannot remember the reasoning. RockMagnetist has removed such links from several journal pages, so could you perhaps remind me of the reason why these links should not be removed? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:EL,we always add a link to the home page of the person or organization. . I see it not merely as a permitted optional link--which WP:EL is unambiguously clear about (in which case, nobody should remove it once added) , but a required one, in which case everyone who sees an article without it should add it. . The rationale is that it's basic data, as much as any information possibly is, because that's where people find the further information that isn't encyclopedic DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, DGG. If the link is in the infobox, is there any need to have it in the External links section as well? RockMagnetist (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The infobox just supplements the article by duplicating structured information. I hope someday we won't need to actually enter it twice--I think that's one of the future plans for Wikidata. DGG ( talk ) 07:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viktor Schauberger

David, could you have a look at this discussion? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I was very much surprised by how much I found--normally I would never bother to work on something like this. How did you pick up initially that it might be significant? DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

UI was surprised, too. But when I looked at the article, I saw that there was a whole book written about him and saw that it is held in a surprisingly large number of academic libraries. I then found a second book, also held in several libraries. (Surprisingly, neither book seems to be held in Austrian of German libraries). The counter argument provided was that fringe books cannot be used to show notability of a fringe subject, which made me unsure, so that is why I came here. I subsequently was as surprised as yourself by the articles that you found in mainstream journals. Thanks for your assistance! --Randykitty (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

from his continuing arguments, he does not understand and may never. DGG ( talk ) 16:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

btw, KVK shows many of the books in German libraries--of course they're the German editions, not the English ones used for the article. DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that's why I didn't see them then, I didn't look for the German editions. As for DD, he's pretty new, so there may be hope that he'll get it at some point. --Randykitty (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for QMobile

An editor has asked for a deletion review of QMobile. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. UBStalk 21:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany#Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Heinz Maria Lins

Hello, DGG. I just noticed that you must have seen this G13 submission at about the same time that I did. It's still around. Can you make it go away? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

what do you think the problem is? If the recordings are reviewed the singer would be notable,--they're on major labels--and I have it on my list for checking. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, it seems that Kudpung has already checked it out (see the link above) and found nothing, but if you want to work on it that's fine; maybe you will have better luck. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Marks article request

Hi there DGG, I wonder if you could just check the Stephen Marks article you tagged with news release when you get time. I’ve removed some bits that I felt might read as extraneous or non NPOV (although the article wasn't written with any POV other than notability by virtue of role/longevity). He does tend to be written up in a certain way from profiles and interviews I could find as source material and – on rereading – that ‘character of the high street’ stuff may have crept in a bit too much. Would appreciate your opinion on any bits that still stand out as needing a rethink. I don't believe Marks should be shifted to Wikinews – after I compiled the page I discovered he was on a Fashion project hitlist of pages needing creation. Should have done this before and have now added the Fashion banner to his talk page so the project can also review. Many thanks.Libby norman (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

OriGene

My only contribution to the OriGene article was to rate it as Start class and to improve the grammar. Somebody else provided all of the references. Your criticism of the references seems reasonable, but you should record it on the Talk page of the OriGene article. If you feel my rating of Start was overly generous, please downgrade it to Stub. Folklore1 (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Don't know if you know or not, but the delightful Gregory Kohs of MyWikiBiz mentioned this edit of yours in his latest tweet. Probably harmless, but I saw it and thought I'd let you know. :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 21:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

well, the first posting is an example of what I try to do here; the second indicates a possible imbalance that has been frequently noticed by many people. Some of his comments about WP are worth thinking about. We are cutting back on extravagant content in one field; perhaps other fields we should do so also, or perhaps there is a good purpose in the distinction. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Notable?

I was looking at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steve Tomasula and couldn't make up my mind. Perhaps you'll be able to decide. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The subject is clearly notable as an author; there seems to be sufficient critical comment. One of his works was published by U Chicago. There are 2 graduate theses devoted in substantial part to his work. However, some of these sources used are unfamiliar to me. I see what probably caused you to ask: the article somewhat resembles a self-written author profile.he various books claimed to be discussing him need page numbers, and I do not like the use of cherry-picked laudatory quotes.

The difficult with AfC is that it would be good to send AfCs like this back for rewriting, but experience seems to show that only about 10% of them ever do get rewritten, and then we lose them. On the other hand, I feel uncomfortable simply approving articles of low quality. Ideally, we more experienced editors would fix them ourselves, but the relatively few of us interested don;t have time to cope with them all. For some sorts of writers, I feel comfortable making a quick rewrite myself, but I am not familiar with this form of literature. What I would do is remove some of the less justifiable material and hope for future improvement, like the rest of WP, all of which also needs improvement, and a good deal of it is worse than this. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Tomas Deletion Review

Hi. Thanks for making the text of the entry about Andrew Tomas available for review, and for noting this in the Deletion Review. I've added an explanatory note to your comment, so that people can see what the page looked like at the time of the deletion debate. If it's not clear, please let me know, and I'll try to make things clearer. (Because I didn't know the rules properly, I just re-created the article with a brief text so as to spark some debate. Fortunately, User:Coffee put me right, and I shan't make that mistake again, but my ill-informed actions may have inadvertently muddied the waters.) Anyway, thanks for your help with this. RomanSpa (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

~~

Anonymous Section Blanking

Hello DGG, The Zycus page was updated in November but content on the history and competitors section was removed recently and info box content was replaced with derogatory remarks by an anonymous person. Is it possible to keep a check on this? Is there a way we can lock it? You have proposed deletion but this page was updated and full of information until two days back. Rima.sharma (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Request

I would greatly obliged if you can take a look if you have time as I understand you have many such requests deletion review of article Ben Jordan: Paranormal Investigator .I would really appreciate your feedback either way as I value your opinion greatly .Thanks.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Hossein_Zakeri article

Well thanks very much for it anyways. This article was going forth and back between me and editors and I was trying to find a way to include what I want and satisfy Wikipedia's standards in the meantime.

Thanks again for your time, Regards, Babak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babak1981 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Nicholas Whittaker

Hi DGG, please feel free! If you need any more info you can email me on muzzyhilly@gmail.com

Picknick99 (talk)

Berkeley Hall School DRV

Hi DGG, Thank you for your review on Berkeley Hall School DRV. Most of the information in the previous article was drawn out from the sources that I mentioned & perhaps a few other sources which I have now listed in the DRV. The only part of the redirected article that may not be well sourced is the "Administration" part which I can remove if it is a concern. Azakeri (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue

Books & Bytes

Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013

(Sign up for monthly delivery)

Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:

Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%

Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC

New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers

Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors

Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration

Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting

...Read Books & Bytes!

Wine Selectors

Hi, do you remember the history of this? It appears that you deleted this in October and it's just been re-created. Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sippar tablet

Not only was the main source a self-published book[1], almost all the text was copied verbatim from it. I don't think there's enough left for an article. I've created Sippar Tablet as a redirect, although I'm not happy about the section headings starting with 'The' at Epic of Gilgamesh - if they get changed obviously the redirect breaks. Dougweller (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

you found a good solution--as for the headings, why not remove the The from them yourself. But our usual method of linking to section headings often breaks--in this case, the table of contents is clear enough, but the alternative is to use a explicit target anchor with the template {{Redirect}}-- , see WP:TARGET DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael L.J. Apuzzo

I noticed you've had Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael L.J. Apuzzo marked as being reviewed since November. Is this intentional? Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll get to it very soon, thanks for reminding me. He seems to meet WP:PROF DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Arno Tausch

Could you perhaps have a look at this article? It was deleted at AfD a few years ago and recently re-created and just scraped by through another AfD. I have tried to give the main editor advice, but he kind of politely ignores me. I'm a bit at a loss how to handle this. --Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Not this again. I remember it leading into a very long debates in several places about the reliability of one of the publishers. It's a prime example of how one can ruin an article on a notable person by trying to include too much, and harm one's case in an AfD by saying too much. It would never even have been challenged at AfD had it been appropriately modest. The current editor (or editor name) thinks he has found a clever way of getting in the titles of all his articles, but we can deal with him. I'll say what has usually worked--though it is not easy to make an impact on editors of any articles about this entire general sphere of thought-- and make some cuts and changes. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

a very good edit of the arno tausch article

simply thanks a lot, best wishes john de norrona from i phone — Preceding unsigned comment added by John de Norrona (talk • contribs) 18:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have a good deal more to do there. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Ref: Your recent nomination

Dear David, first off thank you for being a passionate Wikipedia curator. This is to shortly let you know that I left a reply to your recent nomination and hope you'll reconsider. Thank you. Ibjennyjenny (talk) 10:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Comodo

What rationale do you usually use to PROD stuff like this?

• Comodo Cloud (cCloud)
• Comodo Endpoint Security Manager
• Comodo Internet Security
• Comodo HackerGuardian
• Comodo Mobile Security
• Comodo PC TuneUp
• Comodo SecureDNS
• Comodo SecureEmail
• Comodo SSL
• Comodo Web Inspector
• Comodo Dragon
• Comodo IceDragon

CorporateM (Talk) 14:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Any rationale you would have used at AfD , such as "insufficient references for notability" or "overdetailed promotional articles with insufficient references for notability". However, since this does seem to be a major company in the field, at least in the b to b segment, perhaps a better way to approach this would be to selectively merge the articles--either all of them to the company, or in logical groupings. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Adult Diagnosed Dyslexia

Dear DGG: I postponed deletion of this article so that I would have time to ask about it at Wikiproject Medicine. I did that, and was told that it is too essay-like and should be deleted. Can you do that, please? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The best way of doing it will be for you to revert your own edit, and then mark it for G13, The actual problem is that it is not just essay-like (in which case I would have suggested accepting and marking for a merge) but that seems to be a copypaste--the style is strange enough that it must have been originally written for somewhere else. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've done that. I wasn't sure that it was all right to do it since the eligibility box doesn't reappear on the Afc template and the script doesn't present the "Tag for deletion" option. I learn something every day (or more likely every hour). —Anne Delong (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

the bot seems erratic. Check the article history. If its 6 months past the last deliberate edit to contents, it's eligible--tho I usually wait till it's also 6 months past the last comment or review. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Blue Gables Motel

You appear to have nominated Blue Gables Motel for deletion, but you didn't start a deletion discussion for it and it's been several hours since. Did you add the AfD tag by mistake? TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not the first time, unfortunately. As I noted in another section above, Bulls Bears and the Ballot Box has the same problem. Ansh666 01:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure it out. I think it happens when I navigate away from the page before twinkle finishes; I obviously need a little more patience. If you see any, please just fix them. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

That seems like the problem. You really do have to be patient with Twinkle; it'll load the AfD page when it's finished with the entire process, so wait until that happens before moving on to the next thing (or, you could just open a ton of tabs like I do). Also, we can't fix them (besides removing the tag) because we don't know your rationale, and unlike the average 50-edit user that slaps an incomplete nom on an article I'd assume you have a really good reason for it. Ansh666 08:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

you're right that I need to go back and give the specific rationale. I will. My current method for fixing them is to revert the incomplee AfD, and do it over. Does that strike you as appropriate? DGG ( talk ) 08:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course! That's what I'd do to really anyone else, but I've seen it happen to you specifically multiple times, so I figured there was a pattern somewhere. Not sure how that's relevant at all. I should really go sleep. Cheers, Ansh666 09:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello DGG: It appears that your deletion nomination for Bulls Bears and the Ballot Box never posted. It is listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 22 as a transcluded red link, and the link itself is red: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulls Bears and the Ballot Box. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I decided not to put back the AfD notice on Bull, Bears, after checking further on the sources and the comments added by User:Tokyogirl79. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Demon Fuzz

Dear DGG: Should the above article be made into a redirect to Demon Fuzz? Or should it be deleted? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

If you make a redirect, it goes to the article talkpage, not to the article. The redirect is only needed if the material at the AfC is actually a prior version used for the article, and even then I think the requirement is usually just technical unless the article is made under a different username. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)This one is complicated. The AFC version pre-dated the live version by a couple of days. Their histories have many overlapping edits from 07:44 1 February 2013‎ (UTC) when a completely different article was created in mainspace until 20:55 the same day when the AFC version was merged into it (there are 2 later edits to the AFC version, but they are not relevant). I doubt even our resident super-splicer could make a clean merge of these two. I'm recommending MOVING the AFC version to Talk:Demon Fuzz/2013-01-30Draft and adding some hatnote-ish stuff to the top of the Talk page. DGG, Anne Delong, what do you think? Oh, I've already postponed G13, so no rush. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I've once or twice in such circumstances moved a variant draft into mainspace under a variant title, and redirected it. e.g. Demon Fuzz (band) But i do not think it matters very much. In practice, maintaining clear attribution in a branching chain is impossible, and this is not the sort of copyright problem I worry about--tho some people feel otherwise DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'l make it into a subpage of the talk page as suggested and put a note on the talk page. Thanks for taking time to look at this. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, done. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Givens (2nd nomination)

I've relisted it...am dubious. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Declined speedy

I've declined the speedy on The Face of Appalachia, as I re-wrote it to remove the copyvio. I've blocked the editor, who seemed to be a pretty blatant COI representative for the artist, Timothy Lee Barnwell. They did a mass plastering of copyvio all over various articles, so I figured I'd give you a head's up to keep an eye out for anything Barnwell related just in case they try to return. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• thanks; I should have done that myself, since the book does seem to be notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Econometrics (journal)

David, the infobox is incorrect. The journal is not published by Elsevier but by MDPI. --Randykitty (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

my error--I restored the prod DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

-==R systems== R Systems International has changed its logo and tag line. R Systems International wants to change its logo hosted at wikipedia and used in the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_Systems_International. Please provide us a way to change logo file. You can view new logo at its official website http://www.rsystems.com.

Forth Bridge

I think that you should read the talk page of this article and then reconsider your precipitate renaming of this page. I'm not very inclined to take the experience of someone living in America as to what this structure is usually called very seriously. And have you read the section on your userpage "How I work2 recently TheLongTone (talk) 10:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hallo David, The editor who asked for the page to be deleted to allow the page move used {{db-move}} which states "Asserted to be non-controversial maintenance". Reading the talk page, with several previous rejected suggestions to move "Forth Bridge" to "Forth Rail Bridge", shows that this nomination was incorrect, as it is certainly not "non-controversial". Please revert the move you made. Thanks. PamD 12:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

And there are 100+ [2] incoming links to Forth Bridge, intended for the rail bridge. PamD 13:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• I endorse these comments. If you look at book titles, it's clear what the common name for this is: The Forth Bridge: A Picture History; The Forth Bridge; 100 Years of the Forth Bridge; The Forth Bridge and its builders; &c. It's a cultural institution in the UK and so will arouse passion. Please revert. Andrew (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

My error, but let me explain:

I personally also think of the Forth Bridge as meaning the Forth Rail Bridge, which from my viewpoint represents a structure of very great importance to the history of technology, while I know the road bridge exists but nothing more and I have never heard of the new one My awareness might represent the general view outside the UK, and WP is worldwide--and is in any case irrelevant, since, as you tell me, I coincides with the UK view. (except that people in the UK are undoubtedly more aware than I of the new bridge). But it is always a conflict between best-known and avoiding ambiguity, & on balance I think its generally safer to pick the solution that avoids ambiguity, so it made sense to me. .

But you are right that I had not seen the prior discussion, which I should have done. So its my mistake. Anyway. an admin has no more authority in a move than anybody else, and is only needed for the technical purpose of doing the necessary deletions. I will restore the prior status. DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks...although I do see the point about avoiding ambiguity, the road bridge is just another lump of infrastructure, while the rail bridge is one of the few structures that merits the epithet 'iconic' (a word that normally sets my teeth on edge), & if one says 'Forth Bridge' it is what most (UK) people will think of: & I'd guess the rest of the world. Toolserver hung up on me when I tried to check the page view figures, but a dollar to a donut the rail bridge gets an order of magnitude more hits.TheLongTone (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll get there tonight. There have been enough changes that it's tricky. DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The Forth Road Bridge, built in the 1960s, is on the point of collapse so any ambiguity is strictly temporary. Thincat (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hallo David, You said above that you would "restore the prior status", but didn't do so, presumably because a formal WP:RM had been set up by the time you looked back at the article. You don't seem to have commented in that discussion, and it might be helpful if you did so. If the RM were to be closed as "no consensus" then I suppose the changed status would remain, which would be unfortunate, given that your move was in response to an incorrect request for it as "uncontroversial maintenance". PamD 21:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Follow-Up to Deletion Review Decision: Peter Pakeman

Hello. Unfortunately, you may have missed the question in my last message on Dec. 27, 2013 were I asked whether you were able to access the reference [File:North York Rockets Program Insert (August 1987).pdf]. In its decision, the deletion review noted that the reference file was not accessed at all and hence was not included as part of its decision. This reference file was available to the Administrator, Mark, prior to the article going to Deletion Review. Is there anyway, this file can be retrieved and made accessible to the reviewers in order for an informed decision to be made? As previously noted, the subject of the article is confident he'll be able to obtain the needed permission. However, it would be a waist of time for the subject to seek and obtain permission, and then submit it for review if the reference is already accessible within Wiki.Xave2000 (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been in contact with the subject of the article. Apparently, he's been able to find the reference (proof) he needs. I do not have a copy of the article containing the links-- finding them was a tedious task. Are you able to reproduce the deleted article or email it to me, links and all?Xave2000 (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hsin Sheng College of Medical Care and Management

Hsin Sheng College of Medical Care and Management was speedy deleted because of WP:A7. However educational institutions are exempted from A7. Please check the criterion and recover the page. Thanks! --Quest for Truth (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• a/c the article, it's a " private vocational school" not an actual university; we usually define a university by whether it offers academic degrees, rather than certificates However I can not really determine its nature from the web site--it is in Chinese and the way it is set up, Google translate is totally useless. Have you any information? DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That was my take as well. If this was a legitimate college or university in the commonly accepted sense of the term then I missed it and will take the hit for the improper (A7). -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the inclusion of the college in the list of universities in Taiwan can be a piece of useful information? It is not strictly a university but it is in higher education. More specifically it is a technical institute. By the way WP:A7 does not apply to all educational institutions, not just universities. --Quest for Truth (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

the wording of A7 seems to have changed. I must track down just when. since there is some doubt, I will restore it. but I have nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hsin Sheng College of Medical Care and Management, since it cannot be verified to be a university. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:PROF

Do you think this scholar would be notable based on his citation count (or perhaps other criteria)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

not necessarily on the basis of the citation count but he also has a number of published books in worldcat, some with substantial holdings. He's now an associate professor, btw,: CV DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

So he would pass WP:PROF? I was not sure about that and want to avoid writing an entry if it is to be deleted. How would you justify your vote on AfD here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

If I could find book reviews in the usual indexes, it would pass WP:AUTHOR. WP:AUTHOR (and WP:BOOK) are two very nondemanding criteria. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

International Journal of e-Collaboration

This journal is currently at AFD and the discussion is mainly about whether inclusion in Scopus is sufficient for notability. I have been arguing it is, although I must admit (I think I already told you a while ago) that I think Scopus is getting too all-inclusive to be really regarded as being very selective. The nom is coming with some convincing arguments about this. Of course, the journal is also in PsycINFO, which is fairly selective, although being a "major database" is perhaps debatable. Perhaps you can have a look. --Randykitty (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Farhan Aslam

Hi DGG,
Could you take a look at Farhan Aslam? There is something hinky going on there and I'm not sure what it is. I had looked at it last week as a new page and tagged it for ref improve, COI and notability. I also put a PROD on it. Sometime in the last 24 hours it was suddenly deleted, allegedly at the author's request. And now it's popped back up, as a new article, and as best as I can remember it looks the same. The author was a SPA if I remember right and it just looked like a piece of self promotion. Any idea what's going on here? -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It was indeed the author's request; it was replaced by the same editor with an expanded article--the 2nd half seems to be new, tho I have not checked all the old versions. I don;t know why they did that, instead of contesting the prod, but our procedures can seem inscrutable. In any case if you think it does not adequately show notability, take it to WP:AFD, and it'll be decided one way or the other. There is apparently no point is using prod. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/A._T._Moorthy

Dear David/DGG, Many thanks for taking the time to review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/A._T._Moorthy, which is the draft entry of my father on which I have been working. I note that you worry that the manner of writing suggests to you that I have plagiarised it. I have no defence against that charge, in the sense that it is difficult to prove a negative (i.e. that the original source from which I plagiarised it does not exist). All I can offer you, to convince you otherwise, is this note, which you may wish to analyse to see if it bears the same signature as the article. I do write a lot, at work now, and have written a lot in the past (e.g. my PhD thesis in Solar physics from University College London).

Perhaps you would reconsider your charge that the article is plagiarised, in the light of my note?

Kind regards Sri Sri.moorthy (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)sri.moorthy

I revised my comment. The parts which primarily attracted my notice were the sections on the Tamil conflict & his retirement--this is interpretation, which we refer to as original research. Tho of course normal and required in academic contexts, we do not do this here, and present only what is in the sources. For general background, we present only the barest minimum for orientation purposes, and then we just link to the article here on the subject. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Request block the violator, who does not respect Wikipedia

Hello. On behalf of all Wikipedia community, I ask you block this violator forever in English Wikipedia: OneLittleMouse

Because he violates the reputation of living and dead people:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

When he got the warning be free of the violations in accordance with the common rules of Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OneLittleMouse#Notification_to_provide_respect_of_the_rules_of_Wikipedia (not was the rollback of this warning, because he understands that he is the violator on very high level, and he continues violate the rules: full anarchy exists in Russian Wikipedia). This page must be deleted totally: OneLittleMouse (violator got warnings many times). Do not need do something else even (other users will know their fate in English Wikipedia, if they will support the violator). Thank you! - Euro5125 (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC).

Please use WP:BLPN, the BLP noticeboard. I myself do not read Russian well enough to fully understand the problem. DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you! Can I appeal to the texts on your page (my topic with the information here)? - Euro5125 (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC).

Disruptive Editing

Hi DGG,
I have a problem with an editor who keeps removing maintenance and merge discussion tags from two articles List of songs recorded by Zubeen Garg and Zubeen Garg. I have already reverted these edits once and issued a cautionary note on his/her talk page. But it appears User:Janiinsan is at it again and is also engaging in a little sockpuppetry. I am inclined to revert them again but some of the other edits may be legitimate. And just to make things even more confusing, when you click on the user's about page it takes you to the first of the two articles. Is the user the same person as the subject of the two articles? This looks like a mess and I wanted to get a second opinion before I start making drastic reversions and post a testy warning on his/her talk page. I guess my question is, what the bleep is going on here? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Festival of Neglected Romantic Music

This could use a rapid rescue. It was prodded, and I tagged it. Please help if you have time in the next week. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I will work on it at NYPL next Monday. DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sven Voelpel

Hi DGG, I have changed and added sources and references in order to improve the notability. The style has also been changed. And please see the German WP page for comparison. I hope the article now finds your approval. I'm happy to make more adjustments and learn more, thank you. Jacobsflem (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

My AfC draft

DGG, I hope you're doing well! You've given feedback on my AfC draft a couple times, so I'd be glad for your input on some changes I've made. The main changes I've made since you last commented:

1. Dropped the entire partnerships section.
2. Cut down and reorganized the section on Titanium.
3. Reworded some phrases more straightforwardly: for example, replaced "the company began turning over the management of Titanium's desktop application toolkit to the community" with "Appcelerator...decided to end development of Titanium's desktop application toolkit" and replaced "Appcelerator acquired Nodeable...in order to strengthen its mobile application analytics for enterprise customers" with "Appcelerator bought Nodeable...seeking to strengthen its mobile application analytics offerings.

—N at Appcelerator (my conflict of interest) 16:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking at not the details but the basic problem, the company seems to be known for one product only and its extensions, and I don't really think it's justified to have two articles. About half the existing article is really about Titanium and could be merged in--the rest could be used as a new section in that article about the company. From the point of view of an encyclopedia, that's the best way. From the pt of view of getting maximum publicity, it might be otherwise. The accepted standard for an article being accepted is a 50% chance of passing AfD. It might pass. I'm not going to accept articles that are technically justified but I think inappropriate. What other people may do is up to them. DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm surprised to hear you have notability objections; I thought you were concerned mainly with point-of-view, style, and so forth. Since you ask, from the standpoint of publicity, it really makes no difference whether there are two articles or one—the information would be the same in either case. And, more importantly, while I personally I think the company and the product are separately notable, I don't think a merged page would do either topic harm. But that leaves the page in an odd bind: you can't approve it because it should be merged, and it can't be merged because it isn't in the mainspace. Is there any way around this? —N at Appcelerator (my conflict of interest) 22:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You have found one of the problems in AfC reviewing--it's easier to concentrate on the details. As for the merging, there are several ways, all of them non-obvious. I'm going to approve it, saying I'm approving it for merging. Then I leave it to you to merge the content. Say you are merging in the edit summary. Then change the article on him to a redirect. I'll look in a few days to see if help is needed. If you have additional information on the company at some point, such as if it makes other notable products, you can reverse the merge by yourself. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that seems reasonable. I'll ask for objections on Talk:Appcelerator Titanium first, but I doubt I'll hear any. Generally, I feel paid editors shouldn't edit the mainspace directly (which is why I spent all that time at AfC), but since you'll be keeping an eye out, I think this merge won't be an issue.—N at Appcelerator (my conflict of interest) 23:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Maria Boniecka

What do you think about her notability? She authored about 10 books, but there are next to no reliable sources for her life. I tried looking, and couldn't find anything. Borderline case - a lot of minor achievements that in themselves are not enough, but... Perhaps I missed something. Perhaps you can find a good argument to save her? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to delete it , as she has a p. in poWP, and there's what may be a major literary award. (I'd reduce the political material, & emphasise the literary work) Ucieczka za druty is in 35 worldcat libraries, so she is known outside Poland. For how well he work is known in Poland, there's apparently a Polish union catalog: NUKAT, Union Catalog of Polish Research Libraries . The best way to go forward is to look for reviews in Polish periodicals & newspapers. I do not know what there may be in way in indexes, or if the search can be done elsewhere than in Poland. The other thing to do is to try to establish the importance of Ziemia i Morze . If it isworth an article, she is worth one as the founding editor. Looking at the Google translation of the article on it in poWP, I think an article on it would work here also.

Now, can you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Pomorski, which I just rescued from deletion at AfC. There should be bnespaper articles in appropriate places. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I will, but in the future, could you WP:ECHO me? I don't make a habit of checking for replies on other people's talk pages. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)