User talk:Dodger67/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Reference improvements - are they acceptable?

Hello,

Thank you for reviewing my AFC. After reading your comments and trying to understand the reason it was not approved, I've made several adjustments to the article. In your reasoning for disapproving the article, it was noted that references needed to be improved. I believe I've got the right formatting for references now and I've included more, which should improve my article's credibility. Would you please take a look at the article now (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:VT_M%C3%84K) when you have a moment? I understand you are busy and cannot reply immediately.

I would also like help understanding why similar articles have been approved, which do not have significant references, or any at all. Why is it that while I'm trying to create something by the rules and standards, other articles exist that should be rejected and deleted? A perfect example of a very similar subject is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presagis. I understand that wiki is trying to keep information credible. But I do not understand how my article can keep getting rejected while articles with no credible references still exist. Do I need to delete articles that do not have any references? Can I add references to them to improve them?

I'm new to wiki and contributing, so please forgive my ignorance.

I appreciate your help in getting my article approved with credible content.

SimSoftRules (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I see that you've answered some other users questions. Is it possible for you to see the improvements I've made on my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:VT_M%C3%84K ? Thanks for your help, I appreciate it. SimSoftRules (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi SimSoftRules, sorry I'm only responding now, somehow I missed this post. It looks like your referencing has indeed improved. I'm not sure why you say your draft "keeps getting rejected" when as far as I can see, it has been reviewed only once so far.

The fact that there are other articles with problems is not relevant to your article's approval. Most articles on Wikipedia have never been through a review process at all so finding the problems and fixing them is a never-ending process, one that you are definitely welcome to help with. I see the unreferenced on you found has already been tagged for the problem.

Getting back to your draft, some of the sections have no or very few references. Where did you find the lists of Customers and Standards? The Products section is also unsourced. If you add references fot these sections your draft will probably be accepted at itS next review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Dodger67 - Thank you very much for your help. I've made the changes you have suggested. So now every section of the article has some sort of credible reference. Can you please look at the article one last time to see if there are any other improvements I may make? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:VT_M%C3%84K Thank you very much for your help and time. SimSoftRules (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

title redirect

Thank's a lot for the cleanup at Yakub Khan Mehboob Khan. I have left this msg at the Talk page of the article too. My request is: Can the article have a Title Redirect to Yakub (actor)? I don't know how to do that. Thanks again. Kaayay (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kaayay - I have already created the redirect Yakub (actor). Thanks for the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Physically integrated dance

Hi Dodger, I'm trying to diffuse cat:dance and wondering if you can help me. Can you take a look at Category:Dance and see if there's a suitable subcat for physically integrated dance? Thanks. Lambtron (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lambtron, I fixed it. Category:Physically integrated dance is already a subcategory of Category:Dance culture, which I believe is the best fit. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Trial of Oscar Pistorius

You recently contributed at Talk:Trial of Oscar Pistorius.

Can I ask you to look at this Talk:Trial_of_Oscar_Pistorius#Neutrality_.22Progress_of_trial.22_section querying the neutrality of the section "Progress of the Trial" and let me know 1 if you agree/disagree that it's biased and needs fixing 2 whether you propose to make any contributing edits to fix.

I've suggested May 5, when trial resumes, should be a target date to get things fixed. In my view two things at least are needed:

• A balancing edit to record that expert witness for the prosecution testified that Reeva Steenkamp would have had time to scream and that it would have been abnormal for her not to.

• A balancing edit for Pistorius' apology. Perhaps recording Reeva Steenkamp's mother's response in the press following?

An alternative (which I prefer) would be to strike the edit I originally reverted, so that the concluding paragraphs would look like this:

On 28 March, the trial was postponed until 7 April as one of the assessors fell ill. On 7 April, Pistorius began testifying in his own defence at the trial. The cross examination of Pistorius lasted for five days, and ended on April 15th.

Please reply here (I've watchlisted your page).Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I think your proposed edits are quite reasonable, however I have no further interest in editing the article. Per WP:BOLD and WP:SOFIXIT you are welcome to go ahead and make the changes you wish. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I've copied my suggestions to the Talk page. I'll wait until May 5 when the trial resumes before intervening myself. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

AFC pages you have under review

You have one or more pages in Category:Pending AfC submissions being reviewed now with your name on them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)