User talk:Dodger67/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Obscenity

We do not routinely suppress isolated obscenity, depraved instances can be deleted. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining the deletion policy to the poster of this request - WP:Help desk#Please delete this. I tagged it just to help the OP. Thanks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Kelapstick/AfC Issues

I am pretty well done editing for the evening, if you want to have a crack at a few more of the reviews at User:Kelapstick/AfC Issues please do so, I will resume in the morning. Cheers, --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It's bedtime for me too... Goodnight! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Not bed, Beer! I will be meeting up with a bunch of your countrymen down at the pub in a couple hours. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Revert of Axial fan

Hi Dodger67, sorry if you thought my judgement was out. I felt the article lacked context, was poorly sourced and overly like a technical manual (hence choosing WP:NOT). I was also concerned that one of the sources – a book – didn't quote page references. You're right, there are many technical articles on Wiki so perhaps I could have chosen a more specific decline reason, such as WP:V. Libby norman (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Libby, sorry to tread on your toes like that - I've just looked at the way I worded it, apologies! A decline for WP:NOT is a particularly difficult one, because the "not a scientific journal/textbook" criterion is very hard to call if you're not a subject expert. The engineering, physics, chemistry and similar areas of WP are actually full of articles such as that draft, loaded with graphs and formulas - so to outright reject a draft per NOT in such a case is IMHO rather unfair.
The way I interpret a "NOT" rejection it means: "do not write this article, we don't want an article about this here on WP" which is true of spam, resumés, etc but very harsh for highly technical subjects. I intend raising this issue for a general discussion soon. Apologies again for my rather harsh tone. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
No worries at all. I think I'd been persuaded by the phrase 'not a technical manual', without really thinking that through. I'm guessing the phrase means that the latest user manual for a Dyson vacuum or Electrolux fridge model is not appropriate for Wiki, whereas something about the scientific/technical operation of a generic type of fan/fridge/vacuum could be relevant if notable from an engineering or scientific perspective and properly sourced. I tend to steer clear of anything with graphs and formulas, but I picked up on this one because the lead ref appeared to be plugging a book without actually quoting any verifiable material from it. I should have just stuck to refs as my refusal. It will be helpful to perhaps clarify the wording on technical manuals within WP:NOT. Thanks. Libby norman (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Barry Hilton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Lyric Theatre
Paramount Group (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Top Gear

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

Thanks for your help on the Promescent article. Much appreciated. Enjoy your falafel !! DataTalks (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

About your earlier unexplained removal of content

Revert, explain in edit summary, move on, relax... There's no need to hold an inquisition for every edit. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Rakofsky

I'll accept the reversion based on the idea that other new editors may find the response bitey, *NOT* because this person should be extended the same courtesy.Naraht (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually he should be extended the same courtesy, nobody knows all our rules right from their first edit. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
He tried that argument in court in a murder case. He then "sued the internet" when people (mostly other lawyers) commented on that.Naraht (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Women and children first

Regarding this - I was thinking about disadvantaged, "weaker" or minority groups who would be given priority in a disaster. Still too tentative an association for you? Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The "Women and children first" tradition, or "mantra" of sinking ships has, as far as I can tell, never been extended to "women, children and cripples/invalids/disabled passengers first". The Disability and disasters article (which I mostly wrote btw) deals primarily with disaster management and planning, so, yes imho, the link is rather tenuous (if it exists at all outside of wishful thinking). If you believe we should open this topic to broader discussion I'd suggest that WT:WikiProject Disability is a suitable venue. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

afc

Perhaps you didn't notice that Breathing Space Scotland is a copyvio of their web site. Anything that looks like it is written in the style of a press release, usually is a copyvio, though it may be an internal page not searchable by Google. In look at afcs, after missing quite a few myself and being told about it, I've learned it's the first thing to think of. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Ouch! I missed that! However speedying the entire article is a bit harsh, take a look at the duplication detector report - it's only five or six substantial phrases that are really problematic. Identical strings of five or six words are very hard to avoid particularly if three or four of the words are an organisation's name. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Problem is, that in these cases, the rest was probably copied from elsewhere also. And the tone would be problematic even if it wasn't copied. But yes, if I had the time it could be rewritten--that's always an alternative. So I think you do have a point there, and I'll just stubbify, because, quite frankly, I feel bad removing information like this. DGG ( talk ) 06:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
For an obvious COI writer the tone is actually not that bad, there's a lot worse out there. I agree that stubbing is probably the best solution. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Please use english

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the User talk:Spekkommissie ‎ article, but since this is the English Wikipedia, we cannot accept text in other languages. However, if this is an original article, perhaps you would like to translate it into English.

If you want to contribute in a foreign language, your contributions are more than welcome at a Wikipedia in that language (find it in the list of Wikipedias). If you wish to have an article from a foreign-language Wikipedia translated into English, make a request at Wikipedia:Translation.

You may also enjoy becoming a part of Wikipedia's effort to coordinate across different languages.

For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! Toddst1 (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This matter is currently the subject of an ANI case, please do not comment on it here. The ANI report is here. My post in Afrikaans to User talk:Spekkommissie was a good faith attempt to communicate with the editor in the language he/she used. The page concerned is a user talk page, not an article. The gist of my post was to tell the user about the existence of the Afrikaans Wikipedia and to suggest that he/she might be more comfortable editing there. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Todd, Roger, the matter is handled with an indef block. FWIW, Roger's Afrikaans response was fine in my book given the circumstances--Spek's comments were not: they were vile, tasteless, racist trolling, and combined with this despicable edit the conclusion is clear. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Resolved
Thanks! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Roger, I think I got it all; please check to make sure. Happy days to you, and it's been a pleasure meeting you. It led me to make a few edits here and there (to Verwoerd's article, for instance) and I learned quite a few things about history (in a sideways-manner, my own history as well) along the way. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
That's brilliant thanks! I made it more complicated by first simply deleting it as nonsense, then undeleting when I decided to take it to ANI. Yes it is very surprising what we learn just by editing WP. Thanks for all your help. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Lydia_Bailey

Thank you for all the wonderful edits to my article. I am unsure what the next step is ... ;) - K Karen9093 (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The article is now in mainspace at Lydia Bailey (printer). The link you posted above is now just a Redirect to it's proper location. The next step is to start another article if you like. We definitely need more articles reflecting women's history, so if that's your interest, there's your challenge. You might be interested in joining WP:WikiProject Women's History. Roger (Dodger67) (talk)

Thanks! I will definitely join that group. Do I need to disambiguate from the film Lydia Bailey? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karen9093 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The disambiguation has already been done - the article is at Lydia Bailey (printer). What you are seeing at the AfC draft page is just a redirect from before the move - please ignore it and in future link directly to Lydia Bailey (printer). Once you get involved in WikiProjects it opens up a whole "universe" of behind the scenes stuff that people who only read or edit articles hardly ever see anything of. Have fun!

BTW how about putting something on your user page? Who is Karen9093? Why is she here? What is she interested in? Take a look at mine and some other editor's, you might pick up some ideas of what to put on it. Just don't post anything too personal, keep your true identity to yourself. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Roger - I will go put a little bit about myself on my page right now. Do we not want to change the current Lydia Bailey page to "Lydia Bailey (film)"? As it stands, if one searches for "Lydia Bailey" one only gets this result and not my entry ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karen9093 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lyceum of the Philippines University-Laguna

Howdy Sir! I'm the author of your newly-reviewed article. With the issues behind it and as you commented on it, I already put reliable sources and references about the information I wrote on the article. I really need its approval, as soon as possible. Please review my article and edit it again and I'm really hoping that you'll accept my article already. Thank you very much sir!

Have a good day. 112.207.91.173 (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If you believe you have addressed the issues my review pointed out please resubmit it - someone will review it again in due course. It is generally not good for the same reviewer to review a draft repeatedly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, thanks for your response. I'm really waiting for its approval because it would be helpful for us, students to get more information about our university. I hope there will be a new reviewer, as soon as possible. Thank you. 112.207.91.173 (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.207.5.47 (talk)

All these AfCs

I noticed all the sandbox submissions on AfC about five minutes ago and saw that you had marked some of them for speedy deletion. First, do you know what is going on? Second, should they still be "declined?" The AFCHS doesn't work on sandbox pages, so I have to do it manually. Thanks, TheOneSean [ U | T | C ] 11:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC) PS. please leave me TB if you reply here.

Take a look at WT:WikiProject Articles for creation#Backlog just increased where this topic has also just come up. We should discuss it there so that others can also participate. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. TheOneSean [ U | T | C ] 11:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Breathing Space Scotland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Choose Life (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Tea

Wikipedians also recommend biscuits with tea.

Sophus Bie (talk) has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Not sure why that Crouton fellow decided to fixate on you at the Help desk this morning, but it seemed quite bothersome, so here's a warm cup of tea to make up for it. Sophus Bie (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Could you please point out the problems with the reference given and example of acceptable references for Dr. Meadors. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointer22 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

What page is this about? Please give a link. A general guide can be found at WP:Referencing for beginners -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry

I am the person that has been trolling on Wikipedia and on your talkpage. I want to say sorry for being a childish idiot and I will stop from now on. I guess I just need to find something better to do. And I apologise for making you feel vunerable and for using inapropiate language aswell. I wish you all the best. I have been sockpuppeting from Technoquat and Spekommissie. Thank You. --Echoreems (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

Thanks for fixing my brain fart typo at Life of a Craphead‎. I was so focused on merging the citations inline and completely failed to proofread my own text. Whpq (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
It's a pleasure, you should (rather not) see my horrendous typo rate! I sometimes go back three or even four times to fix my typos in a short post of just a couple of lines. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Stub tag

Please take care not to waste other editors' time by adding {{stub}} to an article which already has a specific stub template, as you did here. Thanks. PamD 13:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Ivor Ichikowitz

Hi Roger. Photographer Michael Meyersfeld has granted free use of the following image of Ivor Ichikowitz
The necessary permissions for this image have been emailed by Meyersfeld to WP:OTRS. I think this is a much better quality image of Ichikowitz than the one currently featured on the article. Would be good to hear your thoughts. Thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks better than the current one but think its a bit "busy" and cluttered - it would need to be cropped quite drastically. The current photo is unfortunately too small to crop down nicely, maybe this new one would be better. I'm not really an expert at imagees so I'd leave it to you to experiment a bit with it. Generally we prefer a straight head and shoulders "mugshot" portrait for the Infobox. BTW I think it's a pity he's got a women's magazine on the desk - if it was a brochure for Ahrlac or an armoured vehicle it would be more relevant. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. Is it best for me to reupload a cropped version of the new image? Vivj2012 (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how different versions of the same image are handled - rather ask at the Help desk. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Gaelic games

As you are already familiar with this new Portal, please consider reviewing the submissions in this list. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:32, 2 June 2013‎ (UTC)

I saw your message on my talk page and replied there. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Photography reply

Hello, Dodger67. Greetings from the Photography workshop. A reply has been made to your request. You may view the reply here.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}

-- Kevjonesin (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC).


You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Photography reply}} template.

About Submission declined on 20 April 2013

Hi Dodger! Thank you for your edits. School of Business and Management of Technology of BSU - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/School_of_Business_and_Management_of_Technology_of_BSU I need your help! We have scanned rear information from very old U.S. newspapers about our School of Business and Management of Technology of BSU. No one can find even similar information in the Internet. So, could you tell me may I post such information in Wikipedia? They say that I can't... cause in this case I'll breach copyright. Is it true? Also I’d like to ask you another question. Can we post links to Russian language information here? And is it helps us to exit to the main wikipedia space?

Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbmt (talk • contribs) 14:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC) sbmt —Preceding undated comment added 14:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You can certainly cite the old newspaper articles, the age of the source does not matter. You cannot post the actual image of the scanned articles anywhere on Wikipedia and you cannot cite a website that contains such scanned copies - that would be a copyright violation. Sources in other languages are also acceptable, as long as they are reliable sources such as newspapers. It would surely be almost impossible to find sources about this subject in English. Hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Review - Muhlenberg Greene Architects

Thank you for your recent review of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Muhlenberg_Greene_Architects article I submitted for review. I may need some advice annotating and verifying its credibility. The main reason for this article is to clarify the frequently confused relationship between Muhlenberg Greene Architects (1920 - Present) and Muhlenberg Brothers (1893 - 1965). Because they both operated simultaneously in Reading, Pennsylvania at one point, and because the original owners of both firms were related, it is commonly, and incorrectly, assumed the firms merged around 1965. While Muhlenberg Brothers was started earlier, Muhlenberg Greene Architects actually has a longer (and arguably more significant) history in Reading, PA. There are many projects incorrectly attributed to either firm, and the only reason I can see for only listing Muhlenberg Brothers on Wikipedia is that they no longer exist. Unfortunately, many projects are attributed to Muhlenberg Brothers after 1965, and these are all Muhlenberg Greene projects (under former names and incorporations). At very least, it is important to trace the history of Muhlenberg Greene Architects, under it's many former names, in order to disambiguate it from Muhlenberg Brothers.

One of the main issues I'm coming up against is a conflict of interest. We hold most of the documents verifying credibility in our office, since we are the same corporation begun in 1920, and they are in paper or digital format. Also, one of the Owners, Mr. Lawrence Greene, from the form of corporation in 1965, Muhlenberg-Greene-Veres, still works at Muhlenberg Greene Architects, Ltd. This would lend itself to us writing the article, as we would have the most information on the topic. Unfortunately, we do not know survivors that can verify the history of Muhlenberg Brothers, but we do know for certain it is not still in existence, and in fact ended its operations in 1965.

As far as the historical significance of Muhlenberg Greene Architects, they have actually worked on far more (and more significant) buildings in Reading, Pennsylvania alone than has Muhlenberg Brothers. The other avenue I could take would be to put all of this historical information into the Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg article, since he founded the original firm, Frederick A. Muhlenberg, Architect. The drawback to this is that there were several people by the name Frederick Muhlenberg (disambiguation).

My questions are many, but in general:

  • Should I continue to craft and cite this article?
  • Can I cite news articles, of which we possess the paper copy?
  • Can I cite people, such as Lawrence A. Greene, and how do I go about that?
  • Do you feel Muhlenberg Greene Architects has as much, if not more, merit in being a Wikipedia article as Muhlenberg Brothers?
  • Should I author this article, despite working for the current form of the organization?

Thank you for your help and review, as I am learning to navigate Wikipedia! LvanS (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll take your specific questions in turn
  • Should I continue to craft and cite this article?
If you take due note of the conflict of interest guidelines it shouldn't present an insurmountable a problem.
  • Can I cite news articles which we possess the paper copy of?
Yes please do cite newspaper articles - they are exactly the type of reliable sources we need to establish notability. The Cite news template is probably the easiest way to reference a newspaper article - you basically copy the "form" into the article at the point you want to insert the reference then fill in as many of it's fields as you can. Unpublished documents (from the company's own files) cannot be used as they are not verifiable.
  • Do you feel Muhlenberg Greene Architects has as much, if not more, merit in being a Wikipedia article as Muhlenberg Brothers?
I have no opinion on this - each article stands or falls based on its own merits.
  • Should I author this article, despite working for the current form of the organization?
Same answer as for the first question.
To obviate the confusion between the two companies you can add a hatnote to the top of each article explaining the relationship between them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


We have been able to contact the living relatives of the founder of Muhlenberg Greene Architects, Frederick A. Muhlenberg. Is it ever acceptable to reference the stories of living decedents? I am going to assume this is not allowed because it is not verifiable or published. Thank you for your response! LvanS (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Correct, only published material is verifiable. If you can arrange for a newspaper or magazine to do the interview and publish it... ;) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Re the Teahouse post

Roger (Dodger67), thank you for your response to my Teahouse query about my students' submitted articles. One I think is quite good - is an article about VIDA, the literary organization that has recently received some notoriety for The Count, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raskolnikov2/sandbox. The second one still needs some work, but it is one of the requested articles from the WP:Feminism project; it is Feminist Stripping, and can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brittanym918/sandbox . Thanks for anything you can do to advance the process. (The other students worked on stub articles in the WP: Feminism project and articles flagged as 'needing attention'.)
E. Kissling (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I need to congratulate you on working with the existing WikiProject. We sometimes see school/college projects have an unsatisfactory experience and when we ask a few questions we find that they worked like "ninjas" - doing their writing entirely alone and then leaving before anyone notices they were here, scared to interact with the established editors and systems.
You might find this interesting - http://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/toofew-feminist-people-of-color-wikipedia-edit-a-thon-on-friday-11am-3pm-est/47265 - I wrote a rather long comment (which nobody seems to have noticed). Even though it was an edit-a-thon rather than a class project I think some of the lessons are relevant. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your help, Roger. My students will be delighted.

This is the second term I've had my Women's Studies capstone class work on the WP:Feminism project, and while Sarah Stierch has been wonderful, and I've gotten some support from a WP listserv - although I forgot to join it this term! - the WP ambassadors aren't available because my school is on the quarter system rather than semesters. But I've been muddling through with the online tutorials and WP resources. I'll check the article you've linked and look for your comment -- I've found many such articles helpful, too, but I admit, I seldom read very far into the comment threads on CHE. They sometimes get nasty -- not a good reflection on my profession!
E. Kissling (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It's quite funny that in recent months I've been involved with an increasing number of articles related to feminism, even though it isn't one of my "declared interests". Some I got onto through AfC and others through the intersection between feminism and disability issues. I've intersected with Sarah Stierch a few times, she strikes me as a very competent Wikipedian. BTW I want to do just a few more tweaks to the strippers article but one of the tools I need is out of action. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Question about photos

Hello Dodger! Our School of Business has different photos of our students and their lectors. All of the photos were made by ourselves. For instance, students with their diplomas, lectors with students and so on. Look, please http://www.sbmt.bsu.by/ibmt.html?cp=6&gl=10&ga=108&gp=1687 So, tell me please, may I post them in Wikipedia? (I ask you about this question, because in Russian Wikipedia there are a lot of bans). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbmt (talk • contribs) 9:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Photo use and copyright issues on WP can be very complicated, beyond my ability to answer. A post at the WP:Help desk would find the people who know the rules and procedures. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

helpdesk

The question about jimbo has been asked half a dozen times by trolls over the past few days, FYI. They're getting cu-blocked. — The Potato Hose 17:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

epihealthnet

Dear Dodger67, You have declined the epihealthnet article due to lack of sources. Can you explain what kind of sources there are needed for an article about a scientific work program? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulblankEN (talk • contribs) 13:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Quite simply, sources that discuss it and are independent of it. See WP:42. I see it has only just begun so it may simply be premature to have an article about it. Once it produces articles and makes the news, there will be sources. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Gippie Kingdom Review

Hello Dodger67, thank you for reviewing my page at Gippie's Kingdom. This is my first time creating a Wikipedia article and I have been trying to follow guidelines as best as possible. Currently I have made changes such as trying to set an encyclopedia tone by removing any possible peacock terminology and I have changed my infobox. I am however still confused about my sources being problematic as these are the established newspapers in my country, the Bahamas. If I can get some further clarification I would be most grateful. Travonpatton (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The sources you have used so far are good ones, no problem with them, the problem is that you've only referenced three times in the entire article so far. The bare minimum we would expect to see is at least one reference for every paragraph. I can add "cite needed " tags in a few places if you think it would help you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Dodger67, thank you for replying to me and I would very much like a bit of help concerning where I should cite. In addition, regarding the names of the cast and crew of the production, the only source may be the production's website. I would like to know if that would be regarded as a reliable source. Thank you once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travonpatton (talk • contribs) 08:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Jopie Fourie

Hello Roger. Good seeing you again. Quick question on the Jopie Fourie submission. I am not totally clear on the reasons for your decline. I agree with the Peacockery. My other guess could be sources. A couple of things on the sources listed and why I have decided not to add more. As you probably know Hermann Gioliomee is one of the leading historians in South Africa. Most of the others sources supports what he has said in those references. Cf. Readers Digest History of South Africa and some newspapers clippings from the time. I didn't feel it was necessary to duplicate. You can also compare the Afrikaans version of the article written a couple of years ago to see that the article in English is totally stripped from some sentimentally on what could have been said. In the end I opted for a clear and reasonably accurate reflection using Giliomee as the guide. I can try and source Gilliomee's original sources, but I am not sure that is necessary for a stub class article. I don't want to drop into original research here. Let me know your thoughts and I will improve the article. Go well. ShiningWolf (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Gilomee is a great source, but relying on a single source inevitably introduces bias. Citing a few other sources would be good and also simply increase the number of refs, only two is a bit thin for that length of article. You've listed De Wet JM as a reference but haven't cited it anywhere in the text. Keep in mind that the average en.WP reader is an American who barely knows where Africa is, so a bit more detail would be good. Is anything known about his life outside of boer war veteran, ACF officer and rebel? What was his civilian occupation, was he married, what was his education, etc? If you think it would help I could add a few tags where I believe improvements are needed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I will add a couple of resources. You will see that some of his history as boer war veteran and family life is from the de Wet reference. In my research it seems that almost everything we know about Fourie is from the de Wet reference. I however feel that de Wet is not a 100% credible reference. If you look at the Afrikaans article, which is a copy and paste from de Wet, you will see it drips with Afrikaner Nationalism etc. Personally I don't want my name to go with that deep Afrikaner propaganda simply because I don't know if it is true. Not that I have anything against it, it just needs to be balanced. So I will add more references, and maybe a bit of his personal life where I have a feeling that it is credible. I think when the article is released to the wider community there can be a much better debate around these issues. I spent a fair bit of time going through primary sources and one can see from the start that Fourie was a highly polarising and emotional figure in the Afrikaner history. Which is not great for a Wikipedia article as there is potential for controversy. You will see even the SA History site seem to have quoted from the Afrikaans version. That is the last thing I want to happen - if we put too much contentious or propaganda-ish type of details in and it slowly becomes part of received wisdom.
So let me add a couple of references, and maybe a bit of detail. I really don't want to add too much. Let me know if you agree. ShiningWolf (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I look forward to seeing what you come up with, putting a bit more detail into the article would be good. In terms of a "Legacy" section you could perhaps say something about his "legend" being controversial and divisive in Afrikaner politics of much of the 20th century - even I have bad memories of the bullies at school blaming me (as a "rooinek") for murdering Jopie Fourie - and that as in the 1970s-1980s! (Boarding school with a small minority of English speakers was nothing like the "Spud" stories!) Keep in mind that there will be a different reviewer next time - I've now become too involved in the draft to review it again. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I added the legacy section and improved the sources. If you want, have a look and as always feel free to make some changes. I will re-submit sometime during the week. ShiningWolf (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Eland cost

I seem to be encountering a problem when trying to provide the source for the unit cost of a fully-functional Eland Mk7 armoured car. The site in question, which claims that individual ex-SANDF Elands are being sold to national governments at $300,000 a vehicle (figure is apparently given in USD), is on Wikipedia's spam blacklist. Does this discount the article as a viable source altogether, or should I appeal to the whitelist?

Thanks!

--Katangais (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually the current second-hand selling price has nothing to do with the original manufacturing cost, so it is completely irrelevant. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Social Price

I am satisfied that Borgew (talk · contribs) is Seymour H. Fine, Ph.D. Columbia University, Rutgers professor emeritus of marketing, website. Hence Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Social Price was not so much a copyright violation as a reuse of themes which Seymour has been trotting out for the last thirty or more years (the copyvio source you found dates from 1981). Perhaps you would like to comment at user talk:Borgew in the light of this info. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Gippie's Kingdom Reply

Hello Dodger67, thank you for replying to me regarding my page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Gippie%27s_Kingdom. I would like a bit of help concerning where I should cite. In addition, regarding the names of the cast and crew of the production, the only source may be the production's website. I would like to know if that would be regarded as a reliable source. Thank you once again. Travonpatton (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for taking so long to get back to you. Yes the show's website is a good source for cast and crew - uncontroversial information may be cited from self published sources. You should also add a few WP:Wikilinks into the text to link to other relevant articles such as the broadcast company, countries and territories where it is broadcast, the most notable people, etc. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

South African Economy

Hey Rodger. Im sorry im not very familiar with your naming conventions etc etc. Please just change the EDB status from 35th to 39th as per Wikipedia ref given in notes point 3. The info on the SA page is wrong as per Wikipedia itself. Sory man im new to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike257257 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem Mike, I'll follow it up and keep you updated. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 Fixed I copied the same reference that is used for the same information in the Ease of doing business index article. Take a look at how I did it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thank you for helping ! Bloom Cheryl (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jopie (Josef Johannes) Fourie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Union Defence Force (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move of Anglo-African to British in Africa

Hi Roger, please can you add your position to Talk:Anglo-African#Proposed move to British in Africa. Helen (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Helen (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
That would nicely cover the old bowls club "aunties", that I knew as a child, with their "blue-rinse" hairdos who used to prattle on about about "home" (in England) even though they immigrated to SA forty years before (after falling in love with and marrying a SA pilot serving in the RAF during WW2!) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
My mother only said it was cold (and it is, I nearly froze to death last time I was there). :) Here's another dilemma: What do you call the British diaspora in Africa that now live in the UK? Helen (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Submitted article on chemical compound RU58841

Submitted article on chemical compound RU58841
Hi there South African friend.

You rejected my article on RU58841. This is my first Wikipedia article and I have written it on the compound that I am synthesizing for my PhD in Chemistry. This is a chemistry article and I am not selling anything. None on the references in this article refer to anything I've published, only things I have read. I do plan to publish my synthesis in a peer reviewed journal in organic chemistry and this process will be easier when the reviewer can view the short but sweet Wikipedia article on the compound. I assure you I am completely neutral. I don't suffer from baldness and don't use this or any other anti-baldness compound. I am from Australia, born in 1983, I am white, male and my interests include fragrance chemistry and reading about history.

The article may not be perfect as I submitted, but I thought I would be able to edit later and that other people would help me make it better. I tried to make it better and figured out how to include hyperlinks to other sections of Wikipedia, however I was not able to figure out how to upload the chemdraw image of the compound.

To be clear I am an expert in this field and don't sell anything. Please approve the article or explain to me more thoroughly how I can have it approved.

Matthew Leonard, Melbourne. Mjlphd (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Basically everything after the second sentence looks quite promotional - it even tells readers where to get the stuff and how to use it. However even if the "advertising" wasn't there it would stiil have to be turned down. Wikipedia does not publish original research, basically you've got it backwards - Wikipedia is a tertiary source - our articles are sourced from the peer reviewed journal articles. Once your PhD is published and other people start citing it and the compound starts being used by other researchers it might be sufficiently notable for an article, but not right now. Take a look at Wikipedia:Expert editors and Wikipedia:Wikipedia editing for research scientists. The subject specialists at WP:WikiProject Chemistry would be able to help you with the intricacies of writing about the subject. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

This is absolute crap. You are not an expert in this field or you would know that there is no original research in my submission. If you don't understand a topic, either ask questions about it or refer it to someone who understands chemistry.

There are many Wikipedia articles on similar compounds, for example nilutamide.

I don't give a stuff about selling this compound. The research and results are out there and there is no Wikipedia page so when I tell people about my PhD work, they ask why I don't create one using the references I've read and the expertise I've developed. I haven't 'got it backwards'. After I publish my original synthesis in the public domain, I can add it to the article.

Take another look at the article and see that I have included references that other people have cited it already, for example the following two articles are strong enough alone:

T. Battmann, A. Bonfils, C. Branche, J. Humbert, F. Goubet, G. Teutsch, D. Philibert, RU58841, A new specific topical antiandrogen: A Candidate of choice for the treatment of acne, androgenetic alopecia and hirsutism. Journal of Steriod Biochem Molecular biology, Vol 48, No 1, p55-60, 1994. B. De Brouwer, C. Tetelin, T. Leroy, A. Bonfils, D. Van Neste, A controlled study of the effects of RU58841, a non-steroidal antiandrogen, on human hair production by balding scalp grafts maintained on testosterone conditioned nude mice. British Journal of Dermatology, 137, p 699-702, 1997.

The other websites I included on hairsite etcetera with users comments are merely complimentary.

You've got it backwards with your very dismissive attitude. The article will never be perfect to begin with. It must be created first and then well shaped by other users to make a top quality entry.

How about explaining to me how to upload the chemdraw image so that people can visually see that this article is about a single compound and not a product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjlphd (talk • contribs) 15:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to consult with WP:WikiProject Chemistry, for one they whould know about Chemdraw. Nobody expects a new article to be perfect, but the whole point of AfC is to get it to a state where it won't be immediately nominated for deletion as soon as it is placed in article space. Defending a flawed article by comparing it to other flawed articles is not a valid argument, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you don't care about selling the stuff then simply remove the advertorial content. Two or three lines properly sourced content makes a far superior article to one with three lines of good content followed by ten lines of advertorial. Have you read WP:Expert editors and WP:Wikipedia editing for research scientists? BTW I've done my part of reviewing the draft, I won't be doing another review of it. The same reviewer almost never reviews a draft more than once, this is so that different points of view are taken into consideration. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help!

Hello - thank you for reviewing my addition. How can I improve it? I am so confused - but I can verify everything! Thank you again for your help1!! :) Dawnaleeheising actress (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You have a list of sources on your draft, that's good. However you need to use them in the article text - please read Referencing for beginners which explains how to create inline footnotes. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops

Rollback isn't made for touch screens. Apologies and self-reverted :) Have a nice day and all.. ~Charmlet -talk- 13:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed the rollback link from my watchlist for exactly that reason - too many accidents while on my phone. To do it you add this to your common.css page:
.mw-special-Watchlist .mw-rollback-link {display: none;}
Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The Destiny Program article

Hi,

Thank you for having reviewed my article about The Destiny Program. Still, I don't understand why the article has not been accepted. I've read the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics and the band meets more than one criteria. Could you explain it to me please ?

Regards,

Andaouzek

I have asked other reviewers to take another look at it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.

Another Stream article

I don't understand why the article was declined despite being signed with a label. Having mainstream success in Japan and touring with some of the biggest metal bands in Japan. It's associate act with literally all the same members (Imperial circus dead decadence) which is far less popular already has a Wikipedia entry. It does not make any sense to not include both and have the articles linked.

I have asked other reviewers to take another look at it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

okay. Thank you. Please keep me posted.

Royal Azel Decline

Decline of Royal Azel

Hello Dodger67, I am new ( not the best excuse or reason) but this submission appears to be the way to talk to you. You declined my article submission Royal Azel. Can you provide the following to me: 1. You indicated all that you found was "disparaging" as to Royal Azel. Could you provide the link to this disparaging information, I have done a lot of research and not found anything disparaging. 2. Royal Azel is a commonly used, identification and cited for sugilite, and is indicated in all searches of foreign wiki and many other websites. 3. I could not find any marketing or sales comments/promotion or marketing in my article, but ..... you did cite this as part reason for the decline. 4. I respectfully submit that I research many gemstones and gemological articles on WikiP. When I composed this article, I thought that it was deemed correct to cite only verifiable sources such as the GIA and the Smithsonian Museum. As I mentioned there are many articles in history, currently on WikiP, related to gemstones, where a name is commonly used but not the actual scientific name. Also when the children go to the Natural History Museum at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC, they can go to the Hall of Gems and "see" Royal Azel Identified and on display...right near to the Hope Diamond. The identification card reads Royal Azel, with a minor reference to sugilite, in a much smaller font and sub location.

I read over Wiki Tanzanite for many reasons, the similarities to Royal Azel/sugilite are there, by that I mean, Tanzanite is a brand name created by Tiffany Jeweler, it is commonly used concerning the gem mineral Zoisite. More importantly, educating the public on the history of this mineral and gemstone is important facts to know. Just like Royal Azel and Sugilite. The world of gemstones is fraught with mis-information and fraud, with many publications/sources citing Royal Azel, along with the Gemological Institute of America and the Smithsonian museum which are using this gemstone, "moniker". It is comparable to 'Tanzanite" for its function, historical value and explanation surrounding the history of Zoisite. I thought when people and children visits the Smithsonian Museum and see this mineral being cited, first and foremost, as Royal Azel, there is a necessity to include a seperate article from sugilite.... as is in the example of Tanzanite which is seperate from zoisite, the real name and mineral. I can send you a photo of the current Smithsonian museum exhibit for Royal Azel. The only mention of a private entity in my submission is, I.Kurgan, and I should have mentioned that this business entity is defunct for over 20 years, no longer in business, so this article does not serve any "marketing" purpose for them/it or others. I intended to upload many other historical references to Royal Azel in academic news publications, as well as TV shows. Any help on this article to qualify would advance my learning curve as a Wikipedian. Thank you for your time on this Nextedit (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Nextedit (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the main problem is that many of the claims are not actually supported by the references. The Smithsonian Institution reference does not contain the words "Royal Azel" at all. If the label on the exhibit does then that is what you need to cite instead of a web page that doesn't. The "Modern Jeweler Magazine" article says that attempts to market it under various brands - including "Royal Azel" - have failed. The Gems & Gemology article contains only one passing mention of "Royal Azel". Please add the other references you have available (that do directly support the claims) before resubmitting it. The article could also specifically mention that it is a defunct brand name. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

AfC G11

I do not think Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shastri Shri Bharatbhai Kantilal Rajgor was promotional enough to be a candidate for G11, and I removed the speedy tag and declined it instead for lack of references to show notability.It's little promotional, but not more so than many BLPs. Had it been an article, it would not have been either G7 or G11, but a BLP Prod, which of course does not apply to AfCs . It certainly didn't need blanking. You could in principle take this to MfD, but I think all it needs is to watch it doesn't make it into mainspace.

AfCs are NOINDEX, which means they do not show up in google. Purely promotional AfCs certainly need to be deleted, and I've deleted hundreds. But it's considerably harder to check them when you've blanked them first, because I have to go back into the history. If they're clear G11s, and most of the ones you have tagged G11 are, they will be deleted within a day in any case, usually within a few hours. They'll be quicker if they're not blanked, unless they are truly disgustingly promotional.

Some admins may possibly differ, but if you want to help *me* get rid of them, just tag--I check speedy for such articles every few hours if I'm at the computer, which is about 10 hours a day. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I also do not understand your tagging of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sreenesh Shashidharan: Revision historyIt was a blank submission, and should have been declined as such. There is no need to put a blank tag on it, and no reason to delete it unless it's been here over 6 months. A user may well go back and actually write the material. I think here it may just have been a slip of the mouse, in picking the wrong item from a list. DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for catching my slips, the backlog drive is getting to me so I'm done for the day. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 09:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

AfC sandbox

Hi Dodger, what are you trying to do with that page? ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 09:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

See WT:Articles for creation#Is speedy deletion the new normal? - It's the sandbox for testing the AFC Helper script, you don't need to decline it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

thank you

Article was rightfully deleted; no use in belaboring the point any further.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you for your time. I hope you are having a good day here on Wikipedia!

I am new to Wikipedia, obviously, can you tell me why my article's references are being labeled "references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability" and what "was "rescued" off the G13 pile" means?

I read the Wikipedia rules regarding Football Association notability and looked around at other published footy articles and my article's references more than follow "guidelines for sports persons and athletes"...

Here's what I read:

1) "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league" are considered notable.

2) my subject appeared in a fully professional league that is listed in Wikipedia's list of fully professional leagues:

"See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues#Men.27s_leagues_2 USA – Major League Soccer [17]; North American Soccer League [18] (inaugural season in 2011); USL Professional Division [87]. (USSF Division 2 Professional League, USL First Division and USL Second Division [88], and North American Soccer League [89] were also fully pro leagues, but are now defunct).

I also have a current/very recent news article from one of the top sports news agencies in Brazil, so what's the problem here???

Thanks again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jordan_Older


You started working on a draft that was abandonned about a year ago (such drafts are normally deleted under the "G13 deletion criterion" - take a look at the dates of the oldest review templates. Adding your edits to an old abandonned draft is a bad idea because it leads you to repeat the same problems that caused the original writer to give up.
The long discussion above the actual article is really very messy - it is severely distracting and really not the proper way to discuss the draft with other editors. IMHO the best thing you could do is to start totally from scratch with a new article. Also take a look at articles about similar people - but only ones with A-class or Good Article ratings. Using a bad article as a "pattern" for a new article is unfortunately a very common problem. Look at how good articles about football players are structured and try to copy that type of layout and content. Hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jordan_Older
Thanks for the quick reply. Why does any of this matter if Wikipeida's own rules for notability are satisfied and the references are from reliable 3rd party news sources and they match the statements in the article almost word for word?
WP:Notability is not the only requirement for articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the guidance. From what I've read, and I think I've read all the requirements, this reference (linked below) qualifies. It's far more than most of the other Football articles have. If not then what, specifically is wrong with it?
http://www.futebolinterior.com.br/news/259995+Ex-jogador_vira_empresario_e_comeca_a_ganhar_espaco_no_futebol (Portuguese language - use translator)
I can't read Portuguese and using a machine translation is never acceptable, only the original language, optionally supplemented by a verified translation done by a competent person is acceptable. (BTW please remove the "use translator" notes from your references too.) Please use the Help desk to ask for help from someone who can read Portuguese. I'm going to bed soon, good luck! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
So what do I have to do to get you to approve the article? 1) translate the article(s) into English? Where do I post the translation? I read Portuguese, or does it have to be an official Wikipedia editor doing the translation? 2) any more steps besides the translation? It satisfies all Wikipedia requirements that I have read.
You do not need to translate it, but if you really want to you can add a directly relevant brief translated quote to the citation. I'm going to be frank with you, I'm not your personal wiki-coach, I have other stuff to do here before I go to bed - so please use the Help desk I linked in my previous post, that's why it exists. (BTW when writing on Talk pages please count the indents and add only one more than the previous post in a conversation.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips. I thought that satisfying your objections would be the fastest way to get the article approved since I've read many Football player articles and this article has more references and better references and more notability than them. Could you at least tell me exactly why you said "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability" I've added many references that were not in the article originally and I've read all the Wikipedia guidelines that I could find and my references seem to satisfy them. Thanks for all the help. I appreciate it!


I just read that your statement about the language of sources must be in the same language is not 100% true, corroberating your request for a translated quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N says clearly "and they are not required to be in English" more on this can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NONENG#Non-English_sources
I did say providing a translation is optional if you wish, I also said you must cite the original source in the original language. I'm off to bed - PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE use the Help Desk and stop picking on me! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


I'm not picking on you. I'm new here and this is my first article. But you said "using a machine translation is never acceptable, only the original language" when Wikipedia clearly states the opposite at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N and at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NONENG#Non-English_sources. And you keep saying that you are going to bed but keep answering me. I'm only trying to see the reason why you didn't approve my article. I think if you deny an article you should give a reason other than circular logic. I'm trying my best here and appreciate your time and help. Could you tell me the specific reason why you denied it?
(talk page stalker) In general, the article was terribly written and seemed like a bunch of promotion, lacking verifiable sources and such. It was actually deleted as a hoax, that is, a giant waste of time. This is kind of funny--tells you what kind of jerk it is. Mindy Dirt (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you for the help. :-)

You fixed the Boko Haram dead link for me. (From Help Desk July 4 2013) I looked over the page's code and see how it should be. Thanks, I'm learning.

Tagus 01:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to United Nations Development Programme may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Inner City Press<ref>http://www.innercitypress.com/unhq062806.html</ref> and then by The New Vision],<ref>http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/13/506557</ref> UNDP halted its disarmament programmes in the [

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Referencing - Getting European Business on-line article.

I'm unsure why the database of the European Commission for European projects is not considered a reliable source? All of the information on the page submitted can be verified there. I only made this a general reference because it applies to the whole of the text. (Ingotian) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingotian (talk • contribs) 13:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

We need WP:Independent references to prove notability, sources not written by the organisation itself - news and business magazine articles is a good place to search. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

My submission of article on Csk

Many thanks for your note, and I appreciate that the original was too specialist. This is my first attempt at a new entry and I was trying to clarify the confused entry for Src. I see someone else has made a protein entry for Csk today. How do I abandon my attempt? Dont see a 'delete' button.

David

Cowburn (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

To have it deleted you put {{db-user}} at the top of the page, it will then be deleted by an administrator. WP:WikiProject Biochemistry is where the subject specialist hang out, they might have some advice for you. A simple rule of thumb (someone told me six years ago when I started here) when writing most Wikipedia articles, try to aim it at a "beginner" level - think of the reader as a first year college student and you're writing their first lecture on the particular subject. (It doesn't work for highly technical subjects but generally it's quite effective. Another tip is to use links to other related articles quite liberally.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks, I will take your advice! David Cowburn (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Am I crazy to be considering volunteering for adminship?

Dear Talk Page Stalkers

What do you guys think of the idea of me putting my hand up to become an admin?

I'm not as active in WikiProjects as I used to be. My involvement with articles has also reduced to mostly routine wikignome work. I'm doing more "off mainspace" things these days (Help Desk, AfD, AfC Reviewing, etc.) and I think this may renew and expand my interest in WP. 

------1------2------3------4------5------6------7------8------9------10------
You're nuts!---Are you sure?---Umm ok---Why not?---Go for it---You'd be great!

My current feeling about the idea is around a 6.5 on the above scale. I'd like some input from people who have interacted with me often enough to be watching this page. Push my "score" up or down to help me decide. Roger (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Go for it - you will be fantastic at it. You have the knowledge of WP and the way you do with people is ideal for an admin. Gbawden (talk) 07:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Go for it. You will do well. I'm harsh on admins and only count a few as being trustingly in my corner. I was an accidental tourist here today and although I showed up with my fur raised, I was treated kindly. All the best Fylbecatulous talk 17:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  • As someone who has been working with you over at AfC (one of the more drudgery-filled sections of WP), you have shown remarkable stamina, maturity, and capacity for large quantities of high quality work. That being said, adminship is... a big responsibility. If you feel you have the time to do it, go for it. My vote is a 10, but it's yours that matters. theonesean 03:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Working with the new editing system

Sorry for the inadvertent damage done to the page. Thank you for restoring it.

There was no intent, so I don't consider myself a vandal, just someone frustrated by the editing tools. I have work with a number of content management systems, and this is one of the most difficult to use. A suggestion: Create a side-by-side system for comparing edits to previews of changes. Scrolling up and down is time-consuming at best and potentially -- as my experience shows -- at worst.

Hugoott (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Hugoott

I have no experience of the new system, it isn't supported by my browser IE9. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

souriau

Souriau Wiki English version declination removal request
Dear Dodger67,

I found that my article is declined by you.

Wiki already published our french version page

Please have a look in to this page http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Souriau_%28entreprise%29

I just did an English conversion of the same page publish wiki page in English.

It is a genuine submission.

Could you please help me in this regard. 

Unnisouriau (talk) 11:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


The English wikipedia has strict rules about Notability, Reliable Sources, Verifiability and Advertising. The draft you submitted fails all those rules. To pass you need to base the article text on what independent sources say about this company. The company's own writing is by definition always biased so cannot be used to prove that the article deserves to exist. I'm sorry I cannot read French but it doesn't really matter because the article must pass the English Wikipedia's standards. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

EidosMedia article submission

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/EidosMedia

Thanks for your observations. I've made a number of changes.

Any further suggestions gratefully received.

DSeeB (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a good improvement. I tweaked the intro a bit - it doesn't get a section heading, it comes direcly after the article title which is created when the page is moved into the encyclopedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Do you have any other suggestions for improvement? Should I re-submit the article? DSeeB (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Myristica swamps

Dear Dodger67, I created an article on Myristica swamps. You reviewed it and rejected it. The article is on a very specialized subject on natural vegetation type. I am an authority in this, there have only been two major works on these, these are the references I quoted. The references I quoted are very pertinent and verifiable. I am afraid you rejected it without understanding the topic or its importance. How can you take such rude decisions ? 

Wikipedia is a cooperative venture, your actions must be constructive.

This is almost my first article, I am not very familiar with the procedures. I am not even sure whether this is the way to respond. If you happen to see this please inform me what I have to do to make the article acceptable. nairpv — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nairpv (talk • contribs) 12:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Please cite the original publications, no a pdf copy hosted on a "random" website. Please give full bibliographic details in the reference. The only claims you actually did reference from the sources is that various people have studied these swamps - that in itself does not make the swamps notable. Please give actual details of the studies, what important things did the studies find? Basically your draft only proves that these swamps exist, but mere existence is not enough, the article must explain why they are important. I think you might find discussing the article with experienced subject specialists at WP:WikiProject Ecology to be useful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, the comments are useful. I shall work on it and resubmit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nairpv (talk • contribs) 02:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Roderich von Mojsisovics

Hello ,

I recently tried to write a short article on mojsisovics, but was unfortunately declined. Can anyone please explain what is the reason.

ThanksAustriancomposers (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC) Austriancomposers (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Basically your draft doesn't explain why this person is important, it just says he was a composer who lived in Graz, etc... Please use the letters and other material you mention to add some more content to the article - mentioning sources without using them is basically useless. We need to be told why this guy matters. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
actually, giving his positions & compositions shows his importance; further, its shown by the references. That's what GNG is about. But some information should be added, and I've commented on the editor's talk p. (You might want to refer people with articles on this subject to Wikiproject Classical music--they are very knowledgable about their articles, and have high expectations for them, which they will explain.) Anyone with an article about them in Grove is notable; it's the principle subject encyclopedia in the field. DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Channels Design

Hey,

Cute as it is to be warned that I'll be blocked for declining a CSD as an administrator, if you could let me know where I've gone wrong, I'd be more than happy to delete the damn thing. Please look before you warn. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

How about looking at the source that has been copied - http://www.channelsdesign.com/about.swf - most of the text in the draft is a very close paraphrase. A proper edit summary explaing that you are declining the speedy and not just some random nobody reverting me for no reason, would also be useful. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I just don't see it. Is it in the The Story section? It's a very short article. Does the fact that the sentences contain information written in the supplied source constitute a copyright infringement? What about the text in the Telegraph and The Design Junction, and is also written rather similarly, and contains similar facts. Does it count as a copyright infringement if all of the sources provide the same information, written in a similar manner, and the article has phrased it differently still? Help a girl out.

Should have put in a proper edit summary though. Sorry about that. I still think a quick look would've been good though. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Most importantly, is it beyond saving? Or would a quick tweak make the paraphrasing go away? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right, it could be fixed. At AfC the "old hands" teach the new reviewers to be very strict about copyvio. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Young Musicians Symphony Orchestra

Good morning Roger You declined my article today, I have now insert some references such as articles written in the past years about the organization I am writing about.

Please have a look if now it is acceptable.

Thank you very much

best regards

Andrea Astrokyactus (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Andrea, the best advice I could give you ight now is to take a really good look at Referencing for beginners and try to find a variety of sources. Mainstream newspapers and similar media (BBC etc), together with music industry publications, are the "first prize" when it comes to sourcing articles such as this. BTW Add a few relevant links to other articles such as Julian Lloyd Webber Nigel Kennedy, Yehudi Menuhin etc, by putting double square brackets around the words. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Google cultural institute

Hello! Apologies if this isn't the right place to post this. You declined my article, and I was wondering how to make it better. (I've added a few more references at your suggestion to further show the notability of the topic, but wasn't sure if this was what you were looking for, since I'm quite new to this.) Thanks in advance for your help! Craftyanthropologist (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

That is looking much better but you need to find neutral sources that are not connected to Google or any of their "client" institutions. Mainstream news media reports (but not press releases by any of the directly involved parties) are the "first prize". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Done! Let me know if this looks ready to post. Craftyanthropologist (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

On the right track with the New York Times, CNET and the Museums Journal - those are exactly the type of sources the article needs. Just one style tip - remove the spaces between multiple references - so that the footnote numbers are unspaced and also put the periods and commas before the reference, not after - see WP:REFPUNC. Also make the reference urls directly readable by removing the square brackets. Fix this and you'll probably be ready to resubmit it - I've done the first few for you so you can see how. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed and resubmitted - thanks! :) Craftyanthropologist (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Vithal Venkatesh Kamath

This is from the user Svp nikhil creator of[[1]].I have made corrections which u recommended. Added 8 links and 4 references. Deleted citations of blogs ,added News paper articles as much as I Have opportunity to fetch on Internet.Uploaded 2 photoes. Please can u tell me the reasons why u declined.Svpnikhil (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:Dodger67, I've made further changes to the above referenced page. Kindly review it. Svpnikhil (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't review it again - the same person should not review a draft repeatedly. Someone else will review it soon. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Some reading for you

Hi Roger. I see you have expressed an interest in eventually becoming an admin. Two pages I am sure your would find extremely useful are user:Kudpung/RfA criteria, and WP:Advice for RfA candidates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Paperboat

Hi Dodger, could I have an explanation why you reviewed the above article despite me having marked it as under review few hours ago? ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually "a few hours ago" is the explanation - don't mark a draft as under review and then leave it for a few hours. If you can't finish the review within a few minutes remove the "under review" tag so that someone else can do it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
When there is no backlog drive, I see people leave it there for days. A few hours is insignificant. Anyway, I couldn't review it that's why I placed the tag, since I couldn't move the article. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I feel that marking something as under review and then not actually doing the review promptly is unfair to the editor waiting for their draft to be reviewed, if someone else is willing and able to review it sooner then they should not be denied the opportunity. I don't think the backlog drive as such is a significant factor, ot at least it shouldn't be, as the quality of reviews should not be reduced just because we're having a drive. That would mean we are not treating all submissions according to the same standards. Perhaps we should have a wider discussion about this on the AfC Talk page. - Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Although it's a drive, I have been doing my best in the reviews, but I still get some negative feedback though. :( ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I've made a few mistakes too - I almost passed a copyvio yesterday! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
For copyvios, I usually rely on MadmanBot, or I would not know it is. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

DIVINO

Hello,

sorry to bother you but i wanted to kno why you declined my DIVINO page and what should i do to make it be submitted? thanks for your time and for your help :)

kind regards

divinoeloise

Please see Referencing for beginners. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Question on my article

Re: Solset Eco Inc., how can I make it acceptable?-DANO- (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

By rewriting it in neutral factual language and finding and then properly referencing acceptable WP:Independent and WP:Reliable sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

HI please tell me the reason

Hi Dodger67

Please tell me the reasons and areas where i should work on for improving the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.73.138.250 (talk) 08:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

What page? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Asking for acceptance

MR. Dodger67 Suggest me what can I do for ur acceptance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svpnikhil (talk • contribs) 10:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Follow the instructions and advice already given to you by various reviewers. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I have fixed the inline referencing and a few other problems for you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

afc

I & another ed. have commented that your reason for rejection of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robin mcnair is not correct. Please read the discussion at the help desk DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I need to mention that for those items in the last few days where I did not comment, I think you've given the right answers. I came here only because someone asked me about one of these articles. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks - see my post at the help page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

A Plastic Rose entry

Hi Roger, cheers for taking the time to read the entry. I've re-read it and it is a very "matter of fact" article. I'm not sure how I can make it more matter of fact without reverting to just bullet points throughout.

Please advise. Rory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Di Di Mau (talk • contribs) 17:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem lies more in the structure of the article than the content as such - the "canned" decline templates don't always fit perfectly, sorry. Subdividing into logical sections would certainly help - start with an intro that briefly summarises the whole article - be sure to include the main claim to notability (per WP:NMUSIC). Then sections covering various themes such as "Members", "History", "Notable gigs", "Discography", "Critical reception", etc. I hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, can you help me revise or rewrite the article I recently submitted

Hi,

I recently submitted an article , the title is 'Patchy Particle'. And it was rejected because it looks like essay.

Could you please create this file, or rewrite this article?

you can use the references I provided in that article.

And I am not good at this.

The article link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Patchy_Particle

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColloidMaterial (talk • contribs) 00:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the best option would be to ask the folks at WP:WikiProject Chemistry or WP:WikiProject Physics for help. Although I have a basic understanding of both subject areas I'm by no means a subject specialist, in fact I'm not even sure which WikiProject is the most apropriate for this topic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand how this works

I created an article for a game I created. I own it! I gave links to the website where the game can clearly be viewed. If I am rejected due to the layout of the article than how do I style it better. As far as reliable sources go, who better reliable is it if I created it and am marketing it. I even have it on Kickstarter if you want to look. If I am not reliable source then how do I find a reliable source, would you be a reliable source for me? I really don't understand! I also don't understand if I am writing to you correctly regarding you declining my article. If this continues I might as well not put an article here since it's so confusing to get anything done! Signed EdNolan Card Counting Game

See WP:Reliable source and WP:Notability. Bascally you are not a reliable source precisely because you are promoting it. I can't be a reliable source because I know nothing about it except what you have already written. Notability means that other people, who are specifically not at all involved in promoting it, have written extensively about it. Has the game been written about in magazines or other media? You also really need to read the Conflict of interest guideline. You can also get expert help at WP:WikiProject Games. I hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like I just wasted a few hours of my time then. I guess I just need to wait for someone else to write about it then. Thanks for your time. Thanks for the better explanation, I can now walk away from wiki and do something more productive for the game then. Please delete my account here, thanks!


Hi Roger, I understand wiki policy but I was sure reproduced material - with acknowledgement - is safer than perjury? I've seen copyright material on wiki before - eg pictures? Ok I will have a go at drafting an article but can you show me how to list the person so he is on the search database as Arthur Campbell MBE? i'd prefer to type in rich type not html. Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenlyon1 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dodger67/Archive_4&oldid=1148048433"