User talk:Dodger67/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 → Archive 15

15:22:53, 11 April 2015 review of submission by Maryhess2015


I have added substantial citations to news articles and other external sources to justify the contents of the article on the Religious Education Association. I submitted it for re-review over a week ago, but it seems to just sink further back in the review queue. This is very discouraging. How can I get this article reviewed and up where everyone can see and improve it? Thank you! Maryhess2015 (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Maryhess2015 (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Maryhess2015, the number you see is not the draft's position in the list, it's the total number of drafts waiting for review. Yours is almost one of the "oldest" so it will most probably be reviewed quite soon. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! that's helpful. Maryhess2015 (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Normalization

Dodger67. I just spent over a day starting to clean up the normalization article which has been on for over 2 years. I have known Wolf Wolfenberger since the late 1970s, and have met Bengt Nirje; the proponents involved since Wolf's death in 2011 are termed his students (then to degrees), primarily from Syracuse University where I was faculty, or recipients of assistance from his institute. More commonly, in the 1980s on, our National Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Community Integration (a Presidential Center) is purposefully confused with his views and institute; he was my associated faculty in the Division of Special Educaiton and Rehabilitation.

I do see the disparaging remarks on homophobia were taken off yesterday, and I came back with our first lesbian research study reference today, and of course that section is missing, so I will end up with an unknown woman researcher again (Shoultz, on above). The list of community paradigm supporters (those are not the students, but national center directors) is off again, which means you have taken my references for someone else's use only, disparaged my national center for supporting a moral coherency group in the world, and exited again as an institutionalizer that way! The "kids" only are involved, primarily with rips offs at the other gates, and have been sued already. What was left on was public ignorance on the dolls associated with my national research center!

JARacino (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)JARacinoJARacino (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

14:16:48, 9 April 2015 review of submission by Rmreally


Thank you for reviewing the IPFH submission. We have revised the copy as best we can according to your feedback. Can you look at it before we resubmit to see if there is anything else required?


Rmreally (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rmreally, you need far more references, I see entire paragraphs that still have none. Every single substantive claim or fact needs to be referenced. I've cleaned up the first sentence, it was a bit messy and repetitive. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
HiRoger (Dodger67) , thank you so much for your advice and help on the Institute for Preventive Foot Health entry. I deeply appreciate your specificity and the examples you provided. I'm resubmitting and will keep fingers crossed. Best regards.--Rmreally (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
@Rmreally - You need to add many more references. References from medical journals are the "gold standard"; I found this: "Clipboard". Home Healthcare Nurse. 30 (8): 442. 2012. doi:10.1097/NHH.0b013e318265d2e1.. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 3

Greetings! For this month's issue...

We have demos!

After a lengthy research and design process, we decided for WikiProject X to focus on two things:

  • A WikiProject workflow that focuses on action items: discussions you can participate in and tasks you can perform to improve the encyclopedia; and
  • An automatically updating WikiProject directory that gives you lists of users participating in the WikiProject and editing in that subject area.

We have a live demonstration of the new WikiProject workflow at WikiProject Women in Technology, a brand new WikiProject that was set up as an adjunct to a related edit-a-thon in Washington, DC. The goal is to surface action items for editors, and we intend on doing that through automatically updated working lists. We are looking into using SuggestBot to generate lists of outstanding tasks, and we are looking into additional options for automatic worklist generation. This takes the burden off of WikiProject editors to generate these worklists, though there is also a "requests" section for Wikipedians to make individual requests. (As of writing, these automated lists are not yet live, so you will see a blank space under "edit articles" on the demo WikiProject. Sorry about that!) I invite you to check out the WikiProject and leave feedback on WikiProject X's talk page.

Once the demo is sufficiently developed, we will be working on a limited deployment on our pilot WikiProjects. We have selected five for the first round of testing based on the highest potential for impact and will scale up from there.

While a re-designed WikiProject experience is much needed, that alone isn't enough. A WikiProject isn't any good if people have no way of discovering it. This is why we are also developing an automatically updated WikiProject directory. This directory will surface project-related metrics, including a count of active WikiProject participants and of active editors in that project's subject area. The purpose of these metrics is to highlight how active the WikiProject is at the given point of time, but also to highlight that project's potential for success. The directory is not yet live but there is a demonstration featuring a sampling of WikiProjects.

Each directory entry will link to a WikiProject description page which automatically list the active WikiProject participants and subject-area article editors. This allows Wikipedians to find each other based on the areas they are interested in, and this information can be used to revive a WikiProject, start a new one, or even for some other purpose. These description pages are not online yet, but they will use this template, if you want to get a feel of what they will look like.

We need volunteers!

WikiProject X is a huge undertaking, and we need volunteers to support our efforts, including testers and coders. Check out our volunteer portal and see what you can do to help us!

As an aside...

Wouldn't it be cool if lists of requested articles could not only be integrated directly with WikiProjects, but also shared between WikiProjects? Well, we got the crazy idea of having experimental software feature Flow deployed (on a totally experimental basis) on the new Article Request Workshop, which seeks to be a place where editors can "workshop" article ideas before they get created. It uses Flow because Flow allows, essentially, section-level categorization, and in the future will allow "sections" (known as "topics" within Flow) to be included across different pages. What this means is that you have a recommendation for a new article tagged by multiple WikiProjects, allowing for the recommendation to appear on lists for each WikiProject. This will facilitate inter-WikiProject collaboration and will help to reduce duplicated work. The Article Request Workshop is not entirely ready yet due to some bugs with Flow, but we hope to integrate it into our pilot WikiProjects at some point.

Harej (talk) 01:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Rmreally (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC) I am in a quandary. I resubmitted the text after following your suggestions, including rewriting since you felt the original entry read like an essay. Now I see that I have been rejected again, with the reviewer saying the copy reads like an advertisement and stating that the references are not appropriate. Do you have suggestions on how to proceed? I am in the process of gathering external links from external sources and reviewing copy again, since I am not sure why the reviewer thinks it reads like an ad. Thanks for any help you might provide.

07:13:10, 28 April 2015 review of submission by Wc5tRE4URILpNcMNQRJp


Hi, could you help me understand what else I need to do to get this document online as I am struggling to see what else I can do.

I have quoted numerous independent sources about the venue so am at a loss, any other advice you can offer would be greatly appreciated.

Wc5tRE4URILpNcMNQRJp (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Wc5tRE4URILpNcMNQRJp - You've actually referenced only one source, the Nuneaton News, a local newspaper. You need a wider variety of sources and with a national or at least a wide regional level of coverage, the local community paper is not sufficient. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the feedback, I have added some more content for others including 2 articles from a natioal newspaper, I hope this is sufficient and look forward to hearing from you soon.

Many thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wc5tRE4URILpNcMNQRJp (talk • contribs) 10:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

17:58:24, 30 April 2015 review of submission by Atcny


Can you give me an explanation of why this is being declined. I have seen a few other pages of Real Estate executive with less notoriety than Horacio Ledon. He is in the top 1% in his field and currently is the President of New Development for the largest brokerage in the US and is responsible for over seeing the development of over $10 billion of building development. Like the others he has appeared in the news papers, The real deal, the most read industry magazine, he has also been on CNBC and other programs to answer questions and speak about the market.

Can you suggest what changes need to be made to get this approved?

Thank you Atcny (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Atcny - The main problem is that you have not actually referenced the sources you mention here such as CNBC or "the newspapers". You have used only "industry magazines" which are usually nothing more than publishers of press releases and other advertorial content for people and firms in the industry. Most of your references indicate that Ledon is the author of the articles, so they are not even close to being independent. Use the "hardcore" press sources that you say do exist, but make sure that the sources actually contain extensive information about Ledon the person, and not the company named after himself. Avoid press releases like the plague. If you find that you have more material about the company than the man you should consider changing the article to be about the company rather than the person. Hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 09:11:44, 29 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Gaidinliu


@Dodger67:: Regarding related article, I want to seek your advise as what section/para/lines need to be re-written. From peacock terms perspective, there should be none on the page. All the references that I found about the person were highly appreciative and I have tried to make them neutral and informative.

Also, regarding references, all the references provided were different news sources. The news coverage is also wide for this person and duration of coverage is consistent across many years.

I have sought an advise at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk and was asked to clarify with the reviewer first. Please help me update the relevant parts that are not in line with Wikipedia:Encyclopedic style.

Gaidinliu (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gaidinliu - I will reply at the AFC Help desk, then others can also join the conversation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Liquid crystal water

Could you explain your rationale for accepting this article, given the concerns raised over its promotion of claims regarding a supposed 'state of water' apparently neither accepted or even discussed by mainstream science? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi AndyTheGrump, I accepted it on the strength of the sources cited, various scientific journals. Issues of the topic being mainstream or fringe science need to be resolved by editing and discussion, they are not a barrier to acceptance per se. Even the most crackpot pseudoscience is a legitimate topic for WP as long as it is sufficiently sourced to pass Notability. The obverse of "no amount of editing can fix notability" is "once notability is demonstrated everything else is a content issue". If you believe it should be sent back to Draft-space the option to do so is available through AFD. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
See WP:FRINGE:
"For a fringe theory to be considered notable it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals – even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article themselves. To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia"
The article cites nothing but primary-source material promoting the theory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump Do scientific journals really count as primary sources given their editorial controls? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump - given the discussion at the Fring Noticeboard (which I was not aware of until you mentioned it on the article talk page a short while ago) I will revert my review and send it back to Draft-space. In future please place a notice on the draft/article talk page if it it being discussed elsewhere! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the WP:FTN discussion should probably have been prominently linked - it gets mentioned in passing by User:Roches, but that could easily be missed. I think that everyone was expecting more work to be done on the draft - or for the creator to accept that it didn't belong on Wikipedia. As for articles in scientific journals being primary, they unquestionably are in this case - the authors are the ones conducting the research. In any case, scientific journals can vary greatly in terms of editorial process - the worst of them will publish anything they are paid to, and 'peer review' may exist in name only: see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

edit conflict

Hello Dodger67, we were unknowingly working simultaneously on improving the Union of SA section, which resulted in an edit conflict when I tried to save my version. I'm gonna try combining your good faith changes with the ones I was about to save. Might take a little while yet. Glad to know someone is keeping an eye on my edits and/or interested in improving that long-neglected article. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, edit conflicts happen fairly often. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
PS - am pushed for time right now. So I'm just going to upload my previously mentioned conflict-edit version which contains extensive changes, and then peruse your edits at leisure and incorporate them if or where necessary, when time allows. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2015 (UT
PPS - whoops, never mind. Just had a sudden power failure, lost the all the (unsaved) extensive changes I was telling you about. Maybe some other time. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

ANC flag revision

Hi Dodger67. I don't understand this revision. The version you are reverting to is not even a proper sentence? And of course there's no connection between the ANC and the Grand Duchy of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach. However, the flags are identical, which is an interesting fact. Greenman (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Greenman It is not particularly interesting - but that's not the issue - the statement implies that there is an intentional connection between the two flags - as if a committee of founders of the ANC deliberated and decided to recycle some random old German noble family's flag as their own. Given the ANC's close association to Marxism/Communism the very idea of the ANC intentionally apropriating a flag of a an elitist noble family is patently absurd. I'd be willing to bet serious money (if I had any to spare!) that nobody in the ANC was even aware of the existence of the old german flag - not when they chose their design and not even now - except if some members happend to have read the article while the statement was included. There is simply no relevant connection between the two except a chance coincidence of using the same colour scheme. You are of course welcome to fix the broken sentence (which I did not notice) but please keep the irrelevant German flag out of it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I've continued the discussion on the article talk page so that others can contribute. Greenman (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

A consolation Kitten

No-one should have to go though a rotten RfA. So this kitten will curl up in your lap and make it all better.

Fiddle Faddle 15:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The "Do you know who I AM????" gentleman

the org has no web site even, just a facebook page. I think he wanted one on Wikipedia. He would appear to be broadly unknown, as is his org. Fiddle Faddle 22:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:Timtrent Meh... What he doesn't get is that he is the only person who actually cares that the articles exists, the rest of us look to the sources. I do my best writing when I know nothing and have no opinion about the subject, then the sources alone determine the content. Bedtime... G'nite! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I tried to tell him just that! I think he has mistaken Wikipedia for a self published directory entry. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:True School Entertainment seems, to me, to be appropriate. Fiddle Faddle 22:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

On Vikrant Class Aircraft Carriers

Thank you for helping in clarifying the question with your views in Teahouse. I request you to express your views in the talk page of the "Vikrant Class Aircraft Carriers" also. Regards--M.srihari (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

On Quantum Thermodynamics

Currently I am in vacation in Peru nevertheless I am quite disappointed by the rejection of this topic. Quantum thermodynamics is an emerging field only this year there were 4 conferences devoted to this subject in Singapore Berlin Brazil and Spain. But to the point quantum thermodynamics is not quantum statistical mechanics. It resembles the subtle difference between probability theory and statistics. I would appreciate if other editors could address this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkosloff (talk • contribs) 02:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rkosloff, the issue is being discussed at WT:WikiProject Physics#Draft:Quantum thermodynamics, please join that conversation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Request on 03:23:14, 13 May 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Dsouzaronald



Dsouzaronald (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

See WP:NOTDIRECTORY -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for speedy deletion

I would ask that you reserve judgement on the Draft article Vulcan Blazers, as it is not a self promotion and is in progress. I see the use of We in many places that may have triggered your pique, it was an oversight and the article still has a way to go. Thanks Robco311 18:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeeCeePhoto (talk • contribs)

Hi BeeCeePhoto - I have removed the Speedy deletion nomination. You would do well to remove the entire "Mission statement" section in addition to rewriting the text in third person. Look for additional independent reliable sources that discuss the organization in significant detail. The only current reference that does so is the leagle.com one, the Congressional Record and Baltimore Sun articles contain only passing mentions of the Vulcan Blazers. With a history going back to 1970 a visit to libraries that have newspaper archives may be productive. Please do not resubmit it for review while it still has "a way to go". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Islington Assembly Hall

Hi Roger,

Thanks for your comments about the Assembly Hall draft.

I removed the bits about the restoration because I only had the Islington Assembly Hall website to reference which has a picture of when it was originally used... Would this suffice as reference?

Any help you can give me would be really appreciated! It has taken me 6 months to get this page published! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatKing15 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@KatKing15 You can indeed use its own website for uncontroversial basic information such as when it was built, restored etc. so please include it. However you still need to get hold of a few independent mainstream press or book sources as evidence that the place is notable in its own right. Have you tried local libraries, colleges, local history society, etc? They may have old books, newspapers or magazines with useful information. As a listed building there might have been some reporting about it at the time it was listed, or what about when it was originally built or the restoration might have generated some press interest - other than just the local paper. There's an awful lot of information in the world that Google can't find. Your persistence is admirable, unfortunately as Wikipedia is maturing most of the "easy" subjects have already been done - except for new pop stars and princesses! As we drill down into finer and finer detail sourcing becomes harder. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Where are we on the Vulcan Blazers?

I'm not sure is it is submitted or still out there, changes were made.... Robco311 19:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeeCeePhoto (talk • contribs)

20:17:22, 13 May 2015 review of submission by BeeCeePhoto


The article has been adjusted to be more neutral, please be gentle...Robco311 20:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Robco311 20:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, can we remove the "Blatent self promotion tag on the article? It's like ... all caps. 108.29.158.133 (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Drafts and maintenance tags, re Draft:Eli Benshoof Klein

I'm thinking on draftspace articles it's better to leave an {{AFC comment}} than put maintenance tags on them. Inline tags like {clarify} and {citation needed} can be useful but I mean those big tags at the top of the article seem inappropriate for drafts. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:Jeraphine Gryphon I don't think there has ever been a proper discussion about whether such tags could/should be used on drafts or only in mainspace. Perhaps we should raise the issue at some apropriate venue? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Request on 12:24:22, 28 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Muab2


Hi,

Thanks for your feedback Dodger67. I will make the necessary changes as per your feedback and put it up for review again.

I have a question, other than adding additional references for the current content, will it be okay if I add awards and milestones with relevant external references (wherever possible) to show that it is a notable company?

Regards, ~~muab 28 April 2015~~

Muab2 (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Muab2 What you really need to do is look for articles about the company in the mainstream press, financial magazines and similar independent journalistic sources. Just check first that those articles are not press releases from the company, you need articles written by people with no connection to the company. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


Hi Dodger67,

Thanks for your advice. I will make the necessary changes before putting it up for review.

Regards, ~~muab 29 April 2015~~ Muab2 (talk)


Hi Dodger67,

I have added the revised article again for review. I would like you to take a look and comment.

Thanks & Regards, ~~muab 30 April 2015~~ Muab2 (talk)

Hi again Muab2 - I will not be reviewing it again. It's better to get a fresh opinion from someone else, we do not want the article to become biased by being exposed to only my opinions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


Hi Dodger67,

Sure Thanks.

Regards, ~~muab 4 May 2015~~ Muab2 (talk)

Hi,

Thanks for your continued support. I am happy to hear that the article can be moved to the article space now. I have resubmitted the article for review. It's been up for 2 weeks now and it shows 1063 submissions are in queue. Can I move it from AFC space to main article space? If so, how?

Kindly help.

Regards, Viny

--Muab2 (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


@Muab2 It's done! So what are you going to work on next? We have many India related articles that need fixing and improvement. Many contributors from that part of the world are not really fluent in English - take a look at WP:WikiProject India if you're interested. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


Hi Dodger67,

Thanks a ton for helping me publish the article. I learned a lot from you and other wikipedians in the process. I would love to work on projects related to India.

Thanks once again.

Best Regards, --Muab2 (talk) 05:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting for your review

You stepped back from the Vulcan Blazers draft, which you left with a 'Blatant Self Promotion' tag. Is that still warranted? Robco311 (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Robco311, the comment is relevant to the state the draft was in at the time, that's why such comments come with a "timestamp" that links back to the history of the page as it was then, click on the "View history" tab at tye top of the page to see how every edit is recorded. Btw it's not a "tag" as such, all the review templates and comments are stripped away when a draft is accepted so don't worry about it.
I will not be reviewing it again, we do not want repeated reviews by just one person because that creates the risk that the article becomes biased towards that single reviewer's point of view. The next review will be done by someone else who brings a fresh opinion, though obviously informed by what previous reviewers have said so far. The new reviewer would take care to check that issues pointed out by previous reviews have been fixed and give further advice as needed. If your sources are good and you interpret them neutrally the article should be accepted soon, good luck. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

question

Hello Roger. It's been nine months since Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dodger67. Are you still interested? If so, maybe the thing to do is ask DGG for his opinion beforehand.—Anne Delong (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anne, I'm currently travelling and quite busy, I'll get back to you within a week or so. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Request on 05:31:49, 20 May 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Sangeeta29Singh


Sir, I have submitted the article in Wikipedia on “Indian Sign Language” about one month ago. The article has been declined on the ground of its earlier existence in Wikipedia under the title “Indo-Pak Sign language”. Indo-Pak Sign Language in itself is not a sign language but a term given by Ulrike Zeshan (2000) while studying the sign language varieties in the two cities i.e. Karachi and New Delhi. The findings of the study indicate that the sign language varieties are same in two cities across the border. However, the existence of Indian Sign Language (ISL) and Pakistan Sign Language (PSL) cannot be denied on the ground of terminology give to the sign language varieties used by the Deaf people in both the countries. Both sign languages have their own history and the journey of its development. The Indian Sign Language is the symbol of existence of Indian Deaf communities and their struggle for the recognition of their mother tongue which is ISL. The Deaf communities in India have started taking strides to raise their voices for their rights including the official recognition of ISL. It is the beginning of revolution initiated by the Deaf Leaders and Deaf communities of India for the recognition of their native language which is ISL. So, it becomes very necessary to start with the new page under the title “Indian Sign Language” to create the awareness about ISL and to contribute Deaf Communities of India in their struggle for recognition of ISL. Kindly, request you to allow me to start a new page under the title “Indian Sign Language” to disseminate the issues and concerns as well as the historical development of Indian Sign Language. However, I am open to edit the article wherever needed as per your suggestions. Sangeeta29Singh (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC) Sangeeta29Singh (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sangeeta29Singh In the opening paragraph of the draft you wrote: "Indian Sign language is also known as Indo-Pak Sign language" so you must edit the existing article, not create a new one. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

04:43:46, 25 May 2015 review of submission by GreatLakesdemocracy


Dear Reviewer(s): I am not asking for a re-review. The reviewer's critique that the article requires more sources, about more than one person associated with the article's subject is germane, reasonable and persuasive.

I can and will secure more credible sources, primarily from the Malcolm-King archives, located at Marymount Manhattan College; and from a number of scholarly works -- dissertations, scholarly articles in obscure and defunct journals -- and the archives of The Amsterdam News.

My question is:

Is this worth it? Malcolm-King was influential in its day, and a number of its influences have been instituted within the sponsoring Catholic institutions and The City University of New York. That seems significant, especially in contrast with the level of self-promoting articles about any number of educational programs in Wikipedia.

On the other hand, I simply wonder if it's so bygone an institution, with so limited an interest base, as to warrant the research.

Any responses? Or clues about how i can determine whether it's worth the effort, and can defend notability in addition to citability?

Thanks. Appreciate your reflections and work.

GreatLakesdemocracy (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi GreatLakesdemocracy. How much effort is "worthwhile" depends entirely on how much effort you are willing to put in. It certainly seems as if it is a notable subject and Wikipedia can do with more historical topics, one gets tired of reviewing the umpteenth wannabe garage band article advert. I have been working on an article about the early history of the South African Air Force for quite a long time now, iirc I started it well over a year ago. I note you don't mention newspapers among the sources, if you can access news archives you might be able to find some good source material that is truly independent of the college. Articles about academic institutions often stumble over the lack of independent sources - written and published by people who have no connection to the college itself. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft of Buddycloud

Hi Dodger67

(I hope this is the right way to contact you)

I was googling and I saw you were editing Buddycloud. Really nice draft imho and thanks for spending the time on it.

If you needed any help or information from me (I run the team), please let me know - [email protected] and I'll do my best to provide sources or links that would help you.

Hi, I'm afraid you've misinterpreted my edits, I'm just one of the reviewers who fixed up a few technicalities in the draft, the actual writer is User:Aliothcor, who started the page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, ok - thanks. I'll look at getting some references into the article to help strengthen it. PS: nice to see you are also in SA. I'm from Durban and most recently I have been working with the Project Isizwe team on their free wifi initiative. Breakfastofsecrets (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

On quantum thermodynamics

Hi Doger67, I removed the redirection of quantum thermodynamics to the page of Quantum statistical mechanics. The field of quantum thermodynamics is much bigger then that presented in Quantum statistical mechanics and even not really related. That redirection was a mistake. The article by Rkosloff on quantum thermodynamics is much more suitable and extensive. It covers the main approaches to the field 1) Dynamical view of quantum thermodynamics. 2) Typicality as a source of emergence of thermodynamical phenomena. 3) Quantum thermodynamics and resource theory. The topic of quantum thermodynamics is very relevant and contemporary, you can have a look on the web site <http://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/qut/>. I wish to resubmit the Rkosloff article letting the community to further expand and enrich this article. Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmikmik (talk • contribs) 15:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmikmik (talk • contribs)

@Lmikmik Please discuss this at WT:WikiProject Physics#Draft:Quantum thermodynamics as the draft has proven to be highly controversial. So far the consensus of opinion has been that the two articles are about the exact same topic, thus separate articles are forbidden. I am not a physicist so I am not qualified to even have an opinion about the issue, so I really cannot help you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

23:14:28, 26 May 2015 review of submission by Jonkmanskas


Hi Dodger67, you may remember this draft page that I created and with which you so kindly assisted me with good advice. As you will remember, the article was fairly significantly edited and references were indeed added. Unfortunately, the article was rejected. I suspect the person who reviewed it (Sionk), simply looked at your initial comments and decided that there were no subsequent amendments made to the aricle after that. Please, look at the article and advise me on what more to do. Yes, the sources are mostly the JC de Ferrieres's books, except for a few other sources. However, let's face it, the article IS ABOUT THE AUTHOR JC de Ferrieres. She was undeniably a well-known person, both in South Africa and Europe - and is still remembered by many. And, according to reliable sources, her autobiography is in the process of being republished. I am attempting to lay my hands on more sources (publications), the information I will add, as and when I receive it. Any advice and guidance from you will be greatly appreciated. Jonkmanskas (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)



Dodger67, I forgot to quote the title of the page I referred to. It is Draft:JC de Ferrières Jonkmanskas (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jonkmanskas, I see the problem, almost all the sources are either written by de Ferrières or published by the church itself. Other than that you have only an obituary in the "Volksblad" and a single passing mention in a footnote in the University of Johannesburg publication where she is simply named as an example of a female evangelist within the AGS church. If you cannot locate further sources it may be that she is simply not as well known as you think, outside of the church community in which she was active. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Please Provide An Explanation for My Removed Link

Hello, I was notified that a few resource links which I added to the Mobility Scooters and Motorized Wheelchair page were deleted. I am confident that I did not violate any rules and that my links should be reconsidered. They are directing users to a page that will allow them to find user manuals for every single type of mobility scooter and power wheelchair. Can you please explain why it was removed with more precise details? For example which rule I violated or why exactly it was removed? The links were placed on the two pages below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobility_scooter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorized_wheelchair

I linked them to the respective User Manual download pages on a trusted source found below:

https://www.mobilityscootersdirect.com/user-manuals/mobility-scooters.html https://www.mobilityscootersdirect.com/user-manuals/power-wheelchairs.html

I look forward to your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio101bank (talk • contribs) 20:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Geology museums in Denmark

A tag has been placed on Category:Geology museums in Denmark requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for four days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Deor (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

15:35:33, 1 June 2015 review of submission by Vltava


Vltava (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There would appear to be some misunderstanding here. As indicated below both articles concerned are already in existence.

The page Runciman Report, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runciman_Report, does already exist (created on 20 May 2009). It is concerned with the misuse of drugs in the United Kingdom. However, it does not yet have the additional phrase “on misuse of drugs” in parenthesis. I presume that would need to be added by an editor.

The page Runciman Report (on Czechoslovakia), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runciman_Report_%28on_Czechoslovakia%29, also exists (created by me on 16 September 2014).

Hence my suggestion that a disambiguation page might be helpful to users. It might read as follows:


Runciman Report (disambiguation)

Runciman Report may refer to:

Oh I see! Disambiguation is not really an AFC issue, the general Help desk is a better venue for it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

07:05:37, 11 June 2015 review of submission by Ethan Lvw


I have a question about my article: Why did you decline my submission Ethan Lvw (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ethan Lvw - It is not an article, it is a statement about your user account. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
but whyEthan Lvw (talk) 07:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Nit police

In this post I assume you meant 4000 not 400.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Sphilbrick - If you find another of my typos, just go ahead and fix it. (I hope the asker realized it was a typo) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I almost did it myself, but I like to be exceedingly careful about editing someone else's text. Thanks for the permission for the future.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

07:05:37, 11 June 2015 review of submission by Ethan Lvw


I have a question about my article: Why did you decline my submission Ethan Lvw (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ethan Lvw - It is not an article, it is a statement about your user account. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
but whyEthan Lvw (talk) 07:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Nit police

In this post I assume you meant 4000 not 400.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Sphilbrick - If you find another of my typos, just go ahead and fix it. (I hope the asker realized it was a typo) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I almost did it myself, but I like to be exceedingly careful about editing someone else's text. Thanks for the permission for the future.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 4

Newsletter • May/June 2015

Hello friends! We have been hard at work these past two months. For this report:

The directory is live!

For the first time, we are happy to bring you an exhaustive, comprehensive WikiProject Directory. This directory endeavors to list every single WikiProject on the English Wikipedia, including those that don't participate in article assessment. In constructing the broadest possible definition, we have come up with a list of approximately 2,600 WikiProjects. The directory tracks activity statistics on the WikiProject's pages, and, for where it's available, statistics on the number of articles tracked by the WikiProject and the number of editors active on those articles. Complementing the directory are description pages for each project, listing usernames of people active on the WikiProject pages and the articles in the WikiProject's scope. This will help Wikipedians interested in a subject find each other, whether to seek feedback on an article or to revive an old project. (There is an opt-out option.) We have also come up with listings of related WikiProjects, listing the ten most relevant WikiProjects based on what articles they have in common. We would like to promote WikiProjects as interconnected systems, rather than isolated silos.

A tremendous amount of work went into preparing this directory. WikiProjects do not consistently categorize their pages, meaning we had to develop our own index to match WikiProjects with the articles in their scope. We also had to make some adjustments to how WikiProjects were categorized; indeed, I personally have racked up a few hundred edits re-categorizing WikiProjects. There remains more work to be done to make the WikiProject directory truly useful. In the meantime, take a look and feel free to leave feedback at the WikiProject X talk page.

Stuff in the works!

What have we been working on?

  • A new design template—This has been in the works for a while, of course. But our goal is to design something that is useful and cleanly presented on all browsers and at all screen resolutions while working within the confines of what MediaWiki has to offer. Additionally, we are working on designs for the sub-components featured on the main project page.
  • A new WikiProject talk page banner in Lua—Work has begun on implementing the WikiProject banner in Lua. The goal is to create a banner template that can be usable by any WikiProject in lieu of having its own template. Work has slowed down for now to focus on higher priority items, but we are interested in your thoughts on how we could go about creating a more useful project banner. We have a draft module on Test Wikipedia, with a demonstration.
  • New discussion reports—We have over 4.8 million articles on the English Wikipedia, and almost as many talk pages as well. But what happens when someone posts on a talk page? What if no one is watching that talk page? We are currently testing out a system for an automatically-updating new discussions list, like RFC for WikiProjects. We currently have five test pages up for the WikiProjects on cannabis, cognitive science, evolutionary biology, and Ghana.
  • SuggestBot for WikiProjects—We have asked the maintainer of SuggestBot to make some minor adjustments to SuggestBot that will allow it to post regular reports to those WikiProjects that ask for them. Stay tuned!
  • Semi-automated article assessment—Using the new revision scoring service and another system currently under development, WikiProjects will be getting a new tool to facilitate the article assessment process by providing article quality/importance predictions for articles yet to be assessed. Aside from helping WikiProjects get through their backlogs, the goal is to help WikiProjects with collecting metrics and triaging their work. Semi-automation of this process will help achieve consistent results and keep the process running smoothly, as automation does on other parts of Wikipedia.

Want us to work on any other tools? Interested in volunteering? Leave a note on our talk page.

The WikiProject watchers report is back!

The database report which lists WikiProjects according to the number of watchers (i.e., people that have the project on their watchlist), is back! The report stopped being updated a year ago, following the deactivation of the Toolserver, but a replacement report has been generated.


Until next time, Harej (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

17:23:28, 18 June 2015 review of submission by Rich gitsch


Does this work, or do I need more independent References?

Rich gitsch (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rich gitsch, yes it definitely needs a few more independent sources such as news or magazine articles.
I've found a few possibilities:
Also look at the sources used in Port of Tillamook Bay Railroad#Oregon Coast Scenic Railroad.
Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on this. I've added a few other outside references.

I didn't want to get into the current controversies with the "rails-to-trails" or the court cases yet. I wanted to just get the basic page started, and update it as I get more understanding of those issues.

Rich gitsch (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The litigation sources are the strongest support you have for notability, also keep in mind that Wikipedia articles must maintain a neutral point of view which means we do not avoid discussing controversies or critical sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for your assistance yesterday. How does it look now? I will be expanding the section about the track repair work, and will add a section about the Rails-to-Trails (aka Rails-With-Trails), too, as I can get reliable documentation.

Rich gitsch (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rich gitsch, the best reliable documentation in terms of Wikipedia's rules are news articles in the mainstream press, such as the links I have already shown you. I'll take a proper look at the page tomorrow, it's bedtime at my end. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Disability

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Disability for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (sing) @ 19:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

05:37:28, 22 June 2015 review of submission by Rich gitsch


Good morning. I have been working on clearing up the References. How does it look now?

Rich G.

Rich gitsch (talk) 05:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Nominating Sharjah Biennial Page for Speedy Deletion

Hello,

You have nominated the page for speedy deletion for copyright issues, can you please help me and tell me which part are you referring to? is it the name of participants? because that is the only thing i did copy from the page and i send them an email to take their permission, can you help please? i am trying to document arab art scene and this biennial is one of the important ones and actually the only biennial that doesnt have a wiki page which is a shame..


Hi Uaearthub As the page has already been deleted I no longer have access to the content. The deletion log however shows that it has in fact been deleted more than once because it contained a copyright violation from http://www.sharjahart.org/biennial/sharjah-biennial-9/information
The admin who performed the latest deletion is Jimfbleak, perhaps he can help you. Basically you must stop copying directly from sources, you need to write the information in your own words. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

We have an article at Sharjah Biennale. If it's the same thing, it should be checked for copyvio and then we should have a redirect from one of the spellings to the other, whichever way round is correct. --Dweller (talk) 10:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dweller @Jimfbleak - Done! The sources and the subject's own website use "Biennal" so I've moved and redirected accordingly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for your help. Uaearthub (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

On StorMagic

Hi Dodger67, thanks for your review of my article submission on StorMagic. I am responding to your question about what reviewers said about StorMagic. Two articles include info that confirms what other articles have said about their technology. Example quote below. Two of the articles are password protected (you need to be a subscriber) so I wasn't able to read them, just their abstracts. Do you think I should describe the comments from the "free" content in my article? Perhaps I should only include links to non password-protected (public domain) articles? Thanks for your help!

From Enterprise Strategy Group - "StorMagic is moving forward with a very wise approach: It is staying true to the value of its product and the type of customer it best serves. StorMagic understands the fundamental problems with legacy solutions and built a virtualized storage solution optimized specifically for distributed organizations with a large number of remote locations. The technology is proven and it shows based on the recent deals StorMagic has won with some of the largest retailers in the world. In fact, one retailer’s legacy storage deployment across 2,200 stores reported an average of five outages per week, with six hours of downtime per outage. After replacing its legacy solution with SvSAN, the retailer has run virtually outage-free since the initial deployment occurred almost a year ago. If you are looking for a way to efficiently deploy a cost-effective, highly available virtualized storage solution across a distributed organization, ESG Lab recommends taking a look at StorMagic SvSAN." Fairwin99 (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

H Fairwin99 - use whatever you can access but don't cite what you have not read. If you would like to see the content that is behind a paywall but can't justify the cost of a subscription, someone at the WP:Resource exchange might be able to provide you with a copy - posting a request there is easy. Don't forget that paper magazines also exist - a visit to a library might be productive. Don't include long quotes, a phrase or two would be ok, briefly summarise the rest in your own words. Don't forget to mention the negatives if reviewers were critical of some aspects of the company or its products, our "job" is to neutrally record notable subjects, not to praise them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying! Your comments help make the article better. I will cite the ones i've actually read for now and take your advice about including only short paraphrased content. Good point about neutrality. If there are negative comments to balance it out I'll also include them. If/when I can access the paywall stuff I'll update the page with new citations. Thanks again!

2602:306:CEEF:7740:ACE3:4E46:2615:F63C (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Roger (Dodger67) - I was checking into whether you needed any more information from me on the submission. I updated the article as proposed. I didn't see any additional comments or questions so wasn't sure if you were waiting on me to confirm anything or if the article on StorMagic was already being reviewed by other editors. I appreciate any input you can provide at this stage. It's been more than a month since I submitted and I realize there's a backlog of reviews. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing a step as I know everyone's busy. Thank you! Fairwin99 (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
thank you Paulhus15 (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Paulhus15, thanks for the barnstar, please could you remind me what I did to deserve it. I can't remember doing anything unusual that intersected with you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

you helped me over in the tea room area with my submission question and I appreciate it. It's been awhile since I did anything here so it was great to have your input. thanks again Paulhus15 (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Glad I could help, thanks again. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Imperial Gift

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Imperial Gift you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomandjerry211 -- Tomandjerry211 (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


The article Imperial Gift you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Imperial Gift for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomandjerry211 -- Tomandjerry211 (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Is there a good reason why you're not an admin? --Dweller (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dweller - Been there, done that, didn't get the t-shirt, thanks for asking. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Just reviewed that. I loved your honesty and the calmness with which you went through that. I think you would stand an excellent chance of passing this time and if I took a little bit of time to review your contribs, and they stacked up with what I think they'll be like, I'd happily nominate you. --Dweller (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@Dweller - Anne Delong recently asked me to consider facing the inquisition again, so perhaps I should. However I have not actually done much AFD work as suggested at the failed RFA, I've been far too busy at AFC - which I consider to actually be superior evidence of knowing what constitutes an acceptable article. AFD is simplistic !voting and NPP (also suggested to me at the RFA) is IMHO merely semi-organised tag-bombing that I could do while half asleep. AFC doesn't simply shoot down unacceptable articles, like NPP does, or delete articles that could be fixed, as frequently happens at AFD. AFC actually helps newbies to improve their first attempts into fairly decent articles, thus a productive AFC reviewer demonstrates not only knowlege of what constitutes acceptable content but also shows the ability to guide and assist new editors to become regular Wikipedians. BTW, my CSD record is pretty good IMHO. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello again. I've seen successful RfAs in the past where the candidate has said up front that they are content contributors, they have no real interest in AfD and deletion procedures and would not wish to use the delete button, but would like to, (eg) protect and unprotect or use other admin tools. The fact is, RfA is about whether the community trusts a user. If we'll trust a candidate with block and protect, why wouldn't we trust them not to use delete? --Dweller (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Would you mind if I asked DGG to weigh in here? If they could support your nomination, it would be a big help. --Dweller (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Dweller Sure, if he's willing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I've asked. --Dweller (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I've taken a look at your current work and at RfA1. You are not making the same errors, and you are doing good work in all respects. Considering my role in AfD1, I think it would be particularly appropriate for me to co-nominate. I rechecked some of the articles you nominated for deletion that were closed as keep, and by our current standards some of them should indeed not be kept--and I've listed a few for deletion by various processes. My advice would be first to participate a little more at some of the less obvious AfDs, and to start commenting at Deletion Review--not as much to prove you know what to do, but to raise visibility with people interested in this area. And then, in a month or two when you know you'll have time clear to deal with the questions, let me know so it can be synchronized. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks DGG. I'll let you and Dweller and Anne Delong know when I'm ready to take on the inquisition again.
Sounds perfect. I'm happy you're not rushing - shows your not nuts about collecting hats - and even happier that I've persuaded you to go for it. --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
@ DGG, Dweller, Anne Delong - I have a very busy week or two (or even three!) ahead, so let's provisionally pencil it in for the last week of July. (I also have a pending GA nomination, there's no telling when that might start.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
As an impartial guy, though one who is well aware of your longstanding and well-respected tenure at AfC, I'm happy to put my name as nominator or co-nominator on this. Your CSD log is fine, just one or two AfC submissions declined instead of G11 speedied - big deal. Art jewelry forum isn't a problem either - you couldn't find sources to improve it, other people managed to overhaul the article substantially, and I'm sure had you revisited the AfD you might have swapped your !vote to keep. Actually, it's a good example of article rescue,(quick wave to MelanieN) if you can dig out a few other bad AfD noms, improve them to a keep consensus, that should sort out any naysayers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help at Teahouse

Thanks for your help at the Teahouse. I am quite new here.PeterLFlomPhD (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

15:01:49, 23 July 2015 review of submission by HaastrupA


I have re:written and applied all the changes. It will be appreciated if you can give my article another look.

Many thanks.

HaastrupA (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC){{SAFESUBST:|}}

PROD versus BLPPROD

Hi, sorry, but you're mistaken. The rule for BLPPROD is not the same as for PROD. Once a BLPPROD tag has been posted, it is not permissible to remove it until the issue has been remedied. See WP:BLPPROD. (In the case of Hugo Chinchilla, I see that I may have not noticed that references were already there, in which case removing the BLPPROD was appropriate for that reason, and it was my mistake for not noticing.) If it is removed without the issue being remedied, then it's supposed to be restored. See WP:BLPPROD#Objecting. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@—Largo Plazo Thanks for the info. There seems to be an IP still editing it in Spanish, is that allowed? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if it's technically allowed. If someone were doing that repeatedly to a page in English even after being warned, I would call it disruptive editing. In this case, practically speaking I don't see any point in worrying about it. Either someone will start translating the article, in which case we can then call the user out on disruptive editing, or else it will disappear, in which case the edits made in the interim won't have mattered. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@—Largo Plazo That makes sense. Well I don't have anything else to add or edit on the page so I'll just be watching what happens to it, out of plain old curiosity. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate your "thank you".

@Dodger67: I appreciate your kind "thank you" for my recent Wikipedia edits, and wanted to let you know. --- Professor JR (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Professor JR - I'm just sorry I can't really help you with the "due diligence" check as I am not familiar at all with most of the controversies. I'm South African, our news media doesn't report much detail about the Clintons since they moved out of the White House. I'm sure someone will step forward soon though, the article looks really worthwhile. Checking for possible BLP violations is one of the "prime directives" of the Articles for Creation process; it is in fact the main reason why AFC was instituted. The nature of your draft means it carries a high risk; just one missing or misplaced "alleged" and we could be in hot water! If there's anything else I can help you with, you know where to find me. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@Dodger67: Thank you very much. I appreciate it, and will review the article with that in mind. --- Professor JR (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Request on 00:32:10, 28 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Puertorican52



Puertorican52 (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

00:20:01, 25 July 2015 review of submission by Fodya


Fodya (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Dear Dodger67, I really do not understand the reasons why you've declined the submission about John Borstlap. You've commented" I have done quite a bit of cleaning up of this draft, correcting various layout problems, etc. but it still lacks many references. There are entire paragraphs without a single citation and even more problematic are the direct quotes that are unsourced" How do you mean "references"? Just take a look at the list of Dutch composers at Wikipedia. There are a lot of composers mentioned which don't have half a list of references mentioned on the submission about John Borstlap. So that's why I'll resubmit the draft.

Hi Fodya - Take a look at the first sentence, it contains two references; one after the word "composer" and the next one after "classical traditions". The information between the <ref> and </ref> codes is a reference. Now look at the "Early career" section - there are no references anywhere in that paragraph. You need to add references that directly support each of the substantive claims in the article, for example which source says he was educated at the Rotterdam conservatory? Find that source and put its details between ref codes after the statement about the conservatory, in the same way it has been done elsewhere. Then do it for every significant claim in the rest of the article. See the Referencing for beginners guide for more detail. If you'd like I can place "citation needed" tags at all the places where I think a reference is required - just let me know if I should do that. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Still I can't understand why you are that critical about this submission. Please look for instance at the Wiki page about other Dutch composers; i.e. Hendrik Andriessen,Louis Andriessen(just two references mentioned!!), Henk Badings, Kees van Baaren, Patrick van Deurzen (there's not a single reference mentioned!!), Douwe Eisenga, Klaas de Vries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fodya (talk • contribs) 09:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fodya - you are more than welcome to resubmit the draft so that a different reviewer will look at it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

09:27:03, 31 July 2015 review of submission by Addinwiki


Addinwiki (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Addinwiki - the draft does not currently demonstrate that the subject is notable in terms of the criteria for organizations. The basic problem is that there are no independent reliable sources such as mainstream press or magazine articles written and published by people who have no direct connection or involvement with the subject. Some of the "External links" are actually such sources, so please use them as references. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Categorizing AfC submissions

Off-topic from WT:MED: IMO there are too many semi-active wikiprojects on very specific topics to generate that much buy-in, and you'd be better off with a small number of general categories along the lines of Category:AfD debates, with one category assigned by the author at the time of submission. Not sure if AfC has already considered and rejected that approach for other reasons (maybe the submitters are too unreliable to trust with a list of 10 categories to pick from) - but I'd be a lot more likely to occasionally look at a hypothetical Category:Science, technology, and medicine AfC submissions than to dig through an undifferentiated list of 4000. Having reviewers apply wikiproject tags is a good start, but it's an extra person's worth of effort and risks missing willing reviewers because, e.g., someone is watching the microbiology drafts but not the MCB or medicine ones. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis, Please post your idea to WT:WikiProject Articles for creation, as I think it deserves fuller consideration by a broader audience and I'm just about to go to bed, it's almost pumpkin time at my end. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

13:16:27, 1 August 2015 review of submission by Richardtaittingergallery


Hi, I listed the Wall Street Journal as a source, which I consider reliable. Would another source make it better?

Richardtaittingergallery (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Richardtaittingergallery, yes the WSJ is generally a good source, but be careful of relying too much on interviews. We're looking for what multiple independent outsiders have to say about the gallery, the owner's opinion of himself and his property does not help to establish Notability. Though interviews and the gallery's own publications can be used for uncontroversial basic facts. Art magazines could be a good source if you can find relevant articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:John Blay

Thanks for your suggestions, I have now resubmitted the article Joyful Stone (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Joyful Stone I took just a quick look, it seems you've made good progress. We'll see what the next reviewer says. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Timothy Lann

Hello, Could you please walk me through why you rejected our page Draft: Timothy Lann? Also, how do you add pictures to the article? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeDxFellows7 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi TeDxFellows7, have you read the guide pages linked in the review (pink box at the top of the draft page) yet? If not, please do so and come back to me with specific questions if you need further clarification. At this point all I can tell you is what has already been posted in the review. Please don't bother with pictures yet, work on getting the text in an acceptable state first. One does not decorate a house that is only half built. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

13:46:32, 7 August 2015 review of submission by Jassy pal


Hi Dodger67, thanks for reviewing the page so quickly. Would you help me by pointing in me in the right direction in terms of the what comes across as 'advertising'? Is it the section on Aims - it talks about the amounts etc. offered by CWRT? My thinking was that this is relevant and important so that readers understand the kind of organisation CWRT is and its scale. I think there are plenty of mentions from various government and media sources so I think notability is good -but let me know what you think and I'll look at the page again. Thanks. WhatWouldBilboDo (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi WhatWouldBilboDo It's written very much like a company brochure, the text seems to be aimed at informing (potential) customers, rather than the disinterested outside observer's view. Try this thought experiment: What would a historian in 2257 want to know about the organisation, long after it has dissapeared? That's the information you keep. Kill all the marketing-speak and anthing that won't matter ten years from now. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. That though experiment approach sounds good. Will get on it.
WhatWouldBilboDo (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Patrick F. Matre

Hi. You left a note at Patrick F. Matre. I found the all caps "DO NOT" a bit bitey, and without signing, he probably wouldn't know how to respond. He has CIR issues and may not be able to constructively edit, but that is not the point. Also, the caution itself seems inappropriate. Lots of people make drafts at their userpage. I am not aware of any policy or guideline that says it is not permitted. Users are just encouraged to use their sandbox or draftspace. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak - I'll get back to you about this soon. Roger (Dodger67) (talk)
Hi Anna Frodesiak - Yes I did make a mistake with the "DO NOT", sorry. The problem with creating a draft on the main user page is technical rather than legalistic. Such a draft shares the User's personal Talk page, thus messages addressed to the user personally appear on the same page as Talk page matter related to the draft itself. When the draft is moved by someone who is not aware of the issue (or using the AFC review script), the User Talk page will be moved along with it - that will result in messages to a user appearing on the Talk page of an article - which is self-evidently absolutely unacceptable. I'm afraid the WP:User pages guideline is inadequate as it discusses "user pages" or "user space" in the collective sense and does not explicitly make an adequate distinction between the actual main user page and its sub-pages. In many cases seen at AFC naive users try to create and submit articles about themselves (WP:NOTRESUME violations) which, if done on the main user page are also technically violations of WP:FAKEARTICLE. (Sorry for taking so long to respond!) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply myself. I was out of town. I understand what you are saying. Thanks for getting back to me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Moving someone's sandbox to draftspace

Hi again. Sorry to bother you. Is there some new policy I do not know about? Why move a sandbox to a draftspace? Why not just tag it? And if you do, as you did here, why not let them know or welcome them or something? You just did it and moved on. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak It's standard practice to move sandbox drafts to Draft-space when it has been submitted to AFC for review. I am busy reviewing that draft now. The move leaves a redirect behind so finding it should not be a problem. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I still find moving sandboxes to draft space quite unnecessary. If simply tagged, the six month clock starts ticking, so they don't get left in oblivious there. Anyhow, it's not a big deal either way. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
@Anna Frodesiak, you can take the matter up at AFC if you wish, I'm just following the established standard procedure. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi again. I won't bother raising the issue. I just asked because I don't see any reason to spend the time. It doesn't seem to make any difference. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually there are some definite advantages, Wikiproject tags can't be used in User-space. There is also a current discussion about improving reviews by attracting reviewers with subject-specific experience through sorting and categorising drafts by topic - which also cannot be done in userspace. You're a very experienced editor so your input may actually be useful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I didn't know we add wikiproject tags to drafts. Okay, so there's that. I'm very happy to hear about the sorting thing. I've pushed for that a few times at AfC, but it got no traction. Can you diff me? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
@Anna Frodesiak, the latest, and imho the most workable proposal so far, is WT:WikiProject Articles for creation#Categorizing AfC submissions?, but it still needs some refinement. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you kindly. I just posted some links there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Electric motor efficiency: user: Brennige has not been accepted

Brennige

Dear Roger, you just declined the page: electric motor efficiency on my user page. I just want to inform you, that I have already send a copy right permission to the address: [email protected] where we declare that I'm the owner of this article. This article about - electric motor efficiency - EU regulations of ecodesign of electrical motors is published at the CAPIEL web site and the team of autors are identical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brennige (talk • contribs) 13:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brennige, you can ask the admin who deleted it RHaworth, if he is willing to return User:Brennige/sandbox/Electric motor Efficiency to your sandbox so that you can further improve it. However, it is very rare for texts taken from other websites to ever be acceptable for Wikipedia. Such texts are usually written for promotional or instructional purposes which means that the tone does not fit well with Wikipedia's requirements. Thus there is probably quite a bit of work ahead for you to rewrite the source text in appropriate encyclopedic style - unless there are other factors mitigating against acceptance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

06:53:55, 10 August 2015 review of submission by Cheshiredave


We went to very great lengths to write an impartial bio of Mimi Silbert with many sources to back up the statements in the bio. The statements about Dr. Silbert are factual and would not be out of place in a journalistic article about her. Furthermore, none of these sources comes from the Delancey website. Almost all of them come from top news sources such as the New York Times, LA Times, major ABC and CBS programs, etc. Hours and hours have been spent creating this. Please give more detail as to what exactly is objectionable, and please feel free to edit as you see fit to get this article to your satisfaction. The bottom line is that Mimi Silbert is a major figure in rehabilitation with tons of national recognition, and she deserves better than a summary rejection such as this.

Cheshiredave (talk) 06:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cheshiredave It seems to me that you might not have fully understood the decline reason or the linked pages of explanation and guidelines included in it. The decline has nothing to do with the sources you cited, neither does it say anything at all about Ms. Silbert herself - she may very well be worthy of praise and adulation but Wikipedia is not the right venue for such hagiography. Wikipedia is not a news site, it is an encyclopedia, thus the journalistic style is exactly the problem - Wikipedia wants only the cold hard facts, stated plainly. Unfortunately I do not have sufficient time to spend on this draft, but you can get excellent advice from the WP:Teahouse where experienced editors specialize in helping new contributors. Hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
@Roger (Dodger67) I have reedited and resubmitted, rearranging copy and cutting out pretty much anything that might be considered commentary rather than fact, except where the commentary seems vital and is backed up with sources. I hope this meets with greater success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheshiredave (talk • contribs) 22:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Harry W. Braun III

Hello Dodger67.

I hope this is the proper space to communicate with you about your speedy deletion of my entire Harry W. Braun III article, which contained 60 references and many more links to other Wikipedia articles. You state that the article was too self serving, but I have no idea of which parts of the article you are referring to.

If you read my article, you are aware that I am a Democratic presidential candidate that has registered with the Federal Elections Commission, as well as the senior scientist of an international hydrogen scientific and engineering society, I only deal in verifiable facts in the research that I have been doing for the past 40 years, but you deleted everything.

Is it self-serving to refer to published reports of my past congressional campaigns? When I documented the chemical contamination of every man, woman and child worldwide, or shifting from toxic oil to clean hydrogen, or the fact that the sixth mass extinction event in the Earth's 4-billion-year old history that is now entering its final exponential stages, is that self-serving? Given you deleted everything in my 10,000 word Article, does that mean the all of the information in the Article that was written cited was self-serving?

Could you please help me understand why my entire article was deleted, which effectively puts an end to my presidential campaign.

Sincerely, Harry Braun If you are able to give me a call, my number is (770) 905-7000 Harry W Braun III (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Harry W Braun III, I merely proposed that deletion should be considered, the admin who actually deleted it is Jimfbleak, you're welcome to contact him about the decision. The reason I proposed deletion is that Wikipedia does not do promotion which includes political campaigning.
Comment: If your "entire presidential campaign" really consists of a single article on Wikipedia I have to wonder whether you're actually real or a joker. I'm not American and have only a very superficial interest in US domestic politics. One thing I do know is that Presidential campaigns are multi-million dollar operations run by large teams of professionals, a candidate attempting to write their own campaign article on Wikipedia simply doesn't fit the pattern. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Roger (Dodger67). Harry W Braun III, if you are genuine, also read this and this. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a platform to promote yourself or your views. If you would like a more detailed explanation, let me know on my talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, Roger - nice seeing your name pop up again - it's been a long time (re:The Wikipedia page Large Group Capacitation has been changed on 14 August 2015 by Dodger67). Thanks for the edit. I have now done 4 wiki:en and 3 wiki:es articles but I have still a lot to learn. So, trust ol' H to give me a hand again with article wiki:en #5. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC))

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dodger67/Archive_10&oldid=685644747"