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)

Italian wolf article ready

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Italian_wolf

Thanks for your assistance. Kind regards Mariomassone (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

MPAC Page for Creation

Hi. I am making the following changes on the MPAC page for creation:
- I replaced the source using a blog to that of an actual news article.
- No direct reference on who built the 1st 3 MPACs as the Philippine Navy refused to divulge them, but speculations are that it was "Lung Teh Shipbuilding", hence I am using the following phrase, "In 2009, the Philippine Navy ordered the first batch of 3 ships from a Taiwanese company whose identity was never revealed up to now. However, speculations point out that the manufacturer might be the Taiwanese company "Lung Teh Shipbuilding Co. Ltd."
- Rhk111 (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Threat Matrix submission

Thx for the approval. Can we s/assesment/assessment/ in the title of the article? Mimooh (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Threat_Matrix_%28fire_service%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimooh (talk • contribs) 13:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mimooh - I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. I think you want the article moved to a different title - is "Threat assessment matrix" correct? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, originally I was asking for substituting the misspelled 'assesment' into 'assessment' in the title. However, since the term is specific to firefighting only and we have an occasion to change it, I propose Threat Matrix (firefighting) or Threat Matrix (firefighting risk assessment) Mimooh (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mimooh - I think we might need more expert help with this. The use of parenthetical words or phrases in page titles is governed by the WP:Disambiguation guidelines - I'm not sure they should be used at all in this case as there is no disambiguation involved. Are we certain that the this type of matrix is in fact used only by fire services? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, we may get rid of parenthetical part completely. And yes, we are certain that this particular Threat Matrix applies only to firefighting. Once such matrices become applied to other domains, we can have the article adjusted. Mimooh (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mimooh - How about "Firefighting threat assessment matrix"? It is concise and specific - as the WP:Article title guideline requires. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I endorse Mimooh's suggested title "Firefighting threat assessment matrix". "Threat matrix" sounds like a generic term and "WP:IAR - don't confuse the readers" trumps WP:Primary topic and WP:Article names. Would one of you do the honors of either boldly moving this or opening a renaming-discussion at Talk:Threat Matrix (risk assesment)? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mimooh and davidwr - Done, it is now at Firefighting threat assessment matrix. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Evidence of severe bias in editing

Roger - you know how to deal with these matters - can you please take a look on my talk page User talk:Farawayman#POV editing at a post submitted by User:Rui Gabriel Correia. He certainly points out some valid POV edits! Your assistance and advice would be appreciated. Farawayman (talk) 00:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dodger67. Please see comments by the editor here. Regards. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Farawayman @Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia - I will take a good long look at it later today - from the many links it seems to be quite a complex issue. I can give an opinion but I cannot do anything substantive about the problem as I am not an admin. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Farawayman @Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia - I'm not seeing anything screamingly blatant - sufficient to require a block. One person's "regime" (an inherently negative word) is another person's "government" (no value judgment). IMHO some of those articles do lean rather a bit too much towards a "noble natives/rebels/communists versus evil colonists/imperialists/capitalists" POV - so at least some of the edits are justifiable as an attempt to balance the article towards NPOV. However when taken as a whole it is clear that the editor does show their own bias - whether that is sanctionable I'm not sure - requesting opinions from admins via ANI might be the way to go. Where sourced statements were changed the cited source should be checked - if that is not possible then one should revert to whatever the person who originally added the sourced statement wrote - AGF requires that we presume that the editor who cited the source can actually read. Content disputes should go through the usual dispute resolution processes. As for sockpuppetry - I'd prefer to leave that to a proper investigation by admins who have the necessary tools and access to the relevant data. (I'm going to be away from my computer for the next few days, so I will unfortunately not be able to participate in any further actions relating to this issue until at least the weekend. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Full citation for Morillo article

Morillo, Stephen; Kagay, Donald J., Editor; Villalon, L. J. Andrew, Editor (May 6, 1999). The 'Age of Cavalry' Revisited (PDF) (hardcover). Boydell Press. p. 202. ISBN 0851156452. ISBN 978-0851156453. Retrieved May 3, 2014. {{cite book}}: |first2= has generic name (help); |work= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Note that I tried to integrate him into this multivolume work, and he produced a chapter. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the way I formatted it is clearer - drawing a sharper distinction between the book and chapter titles as well as the chapter author and the book editors. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Resubmission of Prestonpans article about Scottish Barony

Hey there... back on April 4 you rejected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Scottish_feudal_barony_of_Preston_(Prestonpans) and then on April 10 we resubmitted it with additional references. Any chance you could have a quick look and see if it's ready for approval? As you already reviewed this it should be fast... the only change was the addition of more references as per your request. Thanks for any help you can offer! David Stambler (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi David Stambler - I think it's almost ready to go - what it really needs is a proper introduction that says "The Barony of Preston is.... (and then briefly define what it is, is it a piece of land, is it a title of nobility, or is it both? The geography is not really clear - where exactly is it? Try to relate it to well known present day cities and landmarks - keep in mind that 99.9% of your readers have never been to Scotland. The bulk of the article is a chronology of the holders of the title, which looks acceptable. What the article desperately needs is WP:Wikilinks that connect it to other articles - I will try to add a few now. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dodger67 - Thanks for your reply... what we hope to do is link to this from the Prestonpans link on this page here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_feudal_barony - I'm working with the current baron who now lives in Vancouver, BC, and he's done all research on this.... So, the way that most users would arrive to this is by first visiting the main Scottish Feudal Barony page, which explains more about the information that you are describing. Make sense? If there is something specific that you want me to do, I'll do it! And thanks for the speedy response... I can see that you are insanely swamped by lots of demanding so-and-so's just like me wanting your time! David Stambler (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@David Stambler - I'm busy adding a bunch of wikilinks and fixing the formatting. I will ping you here when I'm done, then it's over to you to fix the intro as I mentioned above. Linking from other articles should be done once it is in mainspace. BTW I'm wondering about the article title - from what I've read in the article it seems to be Barony of Preston and Prestonpans, is this correct? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dodger67 - Well, you certainly seem to be going over and above to help us out... you must have some royal blood in you, or maybe you are expecting a Wikipedia knighthood or barony! As you are trying to be as descriptive as possible, wouldn't the best title be Scottish Feudal Barony of Preston and Prestonpans - if you remove the Scottish and Feudal doesn't that make it even more generic and run counter to explaining up front to the user what it's all about?David Stambler (talk) 08:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@David Stambler You turn now. I've done the fixing and about as much wikilinking as I could - please check that the links I added go to the correct kings, battles, etc. There are a few WP:Redlinks too - further articles that need to be written! "Wha's like us? Damn few and their a' deid!" My maternal grandmother was a Scot from Dumfries. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

BTW - once the article is up we could ask the Map workshop to do some of their magic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dodger67 - Well, you and I should call it a night, Knight Wikilot.... I will have to turn this over to the latest Baron himself for the final changes, and then will get right back to you. Thank you again for the awesome response time, and for following your heritage....Hopefully the Baron will appreciate your dedication as well! Over and out.... David Stambler (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dodger67 - Well, the Baron has spoken, and gave me a description here, and also a clarification on the name and title of the page - The Barony of Preston and Prestonpans is a Scottish feudal barony in East Lothian. Once a title attached to land ownership, Scottish feudal baronies are deemed properties in their own right and can now be transferred independent of the land. For most of its history it was referred to as the Barony of Preston and Prestonpans, but as of 1830 the names were unified into one free barony, the Barony of Preston. I've added this to the top of the page and hopefully we are good to go! Let me know if this succeeds in hitting the mark, and thanks again!David Stambler (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@David Stambler - Take a look at Barony of Preston and Prestonpans, well done! I have linked the new article in the list at Scottish feudal barony - you might be able to find other relevant articles that could be linked. BTW you'll notice a few WP:Redlinks in the article that are just waiting for someone to write them - if you're interested... ;) If you can find a few relevant out of copyright images (more than 100 years old) that could be added to the article that would certainly help dress up the page a bit. The Barony surely has a coat of arms - if you can find a good example we can ask the WP:Graphics Lab to create a suitable illustration. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dodger67 - Excellent... the baron will be pleased! I've asked him for the coat of arms and any images he might have, and I'll let you know what turns up. Again, many thanks for all your efforts!

Template:Did you know nominations/The 1949 Sun Bowl Controversy, David Showell

Dodger67, I was wondering whether you'd be interested in working on this DYK nomination, since you did some work on it at AfC. There are a few issues that need to be addressed before it can pass, but the nominator, I am One of Many, has not responded in the two weeks since notification, and the talk-page notice has just been archived. These are mostly sourcing issues, which need to be settled before the DYK can pass; however, if they are not addressed, we'll have to reject it at some point, which would be unfortunate. Thank you for your consideration. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset, sorry about not responding on my talk page. I believe both articles were likely the product of a class project. I think they are pretty good articles, but they do a bit more sourcing, but the sources are not easily accessed as you can see from looking at the articles. I'll see what I can do in the next week, but I'm not especially optimistic. I am One of Many (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the response now, I am One of Many. As it's your nomination, if you don't think it can meet the DYK sourcing requirements, then you can withdraw it or see if someone else is willing to take over. Also, if one of the articles can make it but one can't, then it's easy enough to only run the one that is well-sourced: we can even use the same hook, but unbold the article that isn't sufficiently sourced. I'll post on the nomination template that you're working on it, so it doesn't close prematurely. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to check my university library in the next few days to see if I an get access to some of the articles cited. If I can't by this weekend and I can't fix at least one of them, then I will withdraw one or both. I am One of Many (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm begging off here, I know nothing about the subjects(s) except what's written in the articles. I was just the AFC reviewer who aproved the draft and then BOLDly split it into two articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Autosizing images

Hi Roger. FYI I reverted the edit you thanked me for as it did not seem to work. The 150px parameter included overrides personal default image sizes and without it those headshots are huge on my screen (and I don't want all my thumbnails to be tiny). HelenOnline 06:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Helen The thanks was really for putting a stop to the dumbest edit war I've seen in a long time, sorry the solution didn't work. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	No controversy. Nicely done on Great Stirrup Controversy ‎. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but that was actually a really minor job, I've cleaned up much bigger referencing issues than that. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rosalie Muller Wright Pakenham

It does have inline citations. It uses a direct numbered parenthetical numbered format, rather than the normal footnote links, but that is acceptable also. Any clear form of referencing is equally acceptable. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Your request at AFCH-Rewrite

Just a FYI: From what I can tell, Theo likes to put a tag/release number on the thread once it's been accepted for a specific release. As such I removed the tag number at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Rewrite. If you disagree, please feel free to revert my change. Hasteur (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

A fix for that title blacklist problem...

Dear Roger: There's an interesting thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive262#Requested edits about the shortage of new admins this year. Seeing your post at the reviewer help desk made me wonder why you aren't an admin. You are an active and long established editor, with a good record, and you work in areas where the tools would be useful. I notice that you were considering it at one time; are you still? It seems the admin core could use some help and are on the lookout for good candidates. So far, I've just been doing a few odds and ends like deleting G13's and copyvios and comparing deleted versions of articles with new drafts, etc., but I figure that anything I do frees up a more experienced admin for advanced tasks. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@Hi Anne, thanks for the vote of confidence! I will do it - but not right now. I have university exams in a few weeks. Remind me in mid June, when I have a few weeks off - then you're welcome to subject my WP corpus to the RfA inquisition. Meanwhile I'll look for a second from WP:WikiProject Disability regulars. (I'm one of the founders of the project.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Great! I look forward to supporting you. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for 1949 Sun Bowl controversy

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for David Showell

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Please add your voice to the request for reverse of deletion

Please see my note here, regarding the deletion of a simple article on an historically important meteorologist whose work is of continuing interest, and whose name is attached to a "named phenomena" which has an article at Wikipedia, see [1]. I was at the very moment addressing your citation concerns (which belie a lack of experience with the NCAR and with meteorologic citation—NCAR are not self-publications, but gathered, staff-edited compilations of staff scientific work, see below), when this Admin deleted the page out from under me. I ask that this action be reversed, so that this revised page I created can stand. Here following is the revised content. NOTE, PLEASE IGNORE THE FIRST FOUR APPEARING CITATIONS; WIKIPEDIA IS PICKING UP ON CITATIONS FROM ABOVE THAT ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THIS TALK SECTION. Thank you. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Leprof 7272 There is no need for a complicated motivation to get the draft back. A "G13" deletion is a "housekeeping" action done to clear out abandoned drafts - these deletions are reversed on request without debate. See WP:REFUND/G13 to request undeletion. (BTW I removed the copy of the article you pasted here, it's almost never a good idea to do that.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

TY for whatever attention you paid to have this reversed. Article removal was understandable, just needed you to appreciate the work that had gone in, before interruption, to make the submission viable. One cannot afford wasted work. TY again, and best wishes in your editing. Let me know if I might ever be of any (academic, scholarly) assistance, esp. of the scientific variety. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Ultraattenuation

I found the equation Nimur was looking for and added a reference at your question. --Tardis (talk) 05:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Patriarchs

I have responded as nominator to your comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Patriarchal Code with a conditional withdrawal. Your concept is fair. Fiddle Faddle 09:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Mpumalanga/Eastern Transvaal

In reference to this edit - I don't have an issue with the edit, since the former name of the province isn't really relevant to the article. But you might be interested to know that the province was actually established as "Eastern Transvaal" in 1994, and then renamed to "Mpumalanga" in 1995 (Act 44 of 1995). - htonl (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@htonl - What would we do without your knowledge of such details - you realize that we can never allow quit from WP editing! :) Perhaps a mention in the History section would be appropriate? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Native Son (American Band) article

Thank you for your input ...I think it might just be wiser to do an article on the Bass player Bobby Watson...there are many credible sources for this guy and he is the only one in the band that does not have a wiki article...

Appreciate you once again...oh one more thing...would you be kind enough to school me on how to put those reference numbers after the information...you know the ones with the little bubble that pops up...

Have a great night... poekneegurlPoekneegurl (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Good morning Poekneegurl. I'll get onto this in a few hours, just need to run a few errands first. Luckily I'm not working today so I have lots of time. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Poekneegurl, sorry I didn't get around to your issue today. Have you looked at WP:REFB yet? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Franck Vogel

Hi Roger, thanks for your feedback. Since the photographer is not that know outside of France I shortened the text. I wrote the French version and it was accepted https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franck_Vogel Let me know if I need to change something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tama969 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Why does this company deserve a Wikipedia article

RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:CompassQuote_Insurance_Services_LLC Thanks for reviewing my article for submission. It got declined, and you commented that there are half a bazillion insurance companies in the world and asked what makes this one stand out. If you read some of the references, they may help answer your question. The references are secondary sources. They're not the Wall St. Journal, but are major industry publications that are important sources of business news and information to those in the insurance field. Others are local news sources. The editors of these publications--the industry publications are national--thought this business was worth profiling, and in one case, devoting a cover story to. The company is unusual because while there other online insurance companies, almost all (if not all) of the others require contact with an agent in order for the customer to learn the deep details of how various plans work and what they cost. This one has a quoting engine that answers those questions on the website. It's kind of like a Kayak (travel site) for insurance. It has a "pitchless approach" (in the words of a secondary source)because it provides a broad set of information without the sales pressure or upselling common to the industry.

Also, the online business model itself is well outside the norm for the life insurance industry, which mainly relies on traditional cold calling and door-to-door selling. Learning how a successful online insurance business works may not be interesting to you, but it is to the readers of these magazines, some of whom may be thinking of leaving the traditional workspace and starting a company of their own.

The secondary sources explain why this company is worth profiling. They do not answer your other question about whether it is worthy of a Wikipedia article.

You're the judge, and this is my first Wikipedia article, but I'd like to do more, and I'd like to offer an opinion, even though I am new. Wikipedia is not only more up-to-date than a traditional encyclopedia, and it not only offers a broader range of subjects, such as pop culture figures. It also distinguishes itself by offering articles on local topics. For example, I contributed to an article about a former Seattle-area lighthouse that never in a million years would have made it into a traditional encyclopedia. Should it be on Wikipedia? I certainly think so. The information is valuable to the subset of people who see it or go there, or who have in the past. And I think the same is true for businesses that are judged to be important within an industry, as this one is, even if its fame has not spread more than the distance of a lighthouse beacon.

If you think it's possible for me to make changes and resubmit in a format you would accept, please tell me what to do and I'll try to do it. If you think it's hopeless, well, I guess that's useful information about Wikipedia. (JustSpring (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC))

Hi JustSpring - What you need to do is take the explanation of why the company is notable that you have written here (its unique features) and incorporate it into the article. Make it clear how this company is different from the rest of the herd. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Terra Prime is not asphalt

Hi,

Firstly, thanks for the quick review. I am currently working on development of a Prime Coat under University of Texas at Austin and noticed that Wikipedia lacks a lot about prime coats, usage, environmental effects, new developed alternatives or replacements. This was invented recently and noteworthy to be on Wikipedia. It is not an advertisement or so. I am planning to add at least two more articles, one is about the general Prime Coats and another is about MC-30. Please help me to enrich Wikipedia.

I am a newbie here, but trying hard. Please show me the way to get the article approved.

The draft is here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Terra_Prime_%28asphalt%29). This materials are alternative to bitumen based or asphalts materials, and I don't know how the title of the document became Terra Prime (asphalt). But it is Eco-friendly water-based polymer. Abesuzek (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Abesuzek - I've removed the "(asphalt)" from the title for you - It is now at Draft:Terra Prime. I'd recommend that you discuss the article with the folks at WP:WikiProject Engineering, they would be able to give you guidance specifically relevant to the topic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback!

Hi Dodger67, your feedback was really helpful, have taken your points on board and have made another draft attempt. If it's still not right, no dramas - it's all part of the learning experience! Will welcome any further feedback, cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlfieTieu (talk • contribs) 04:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi AlfieTieu - It's looking much better now! You've shown that the subject has media coverage in his own right separately from the group and the additional information also helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh great - thanks for your guidance Dodger67, I'm glad to hear your positive response! I've since resubmitted the page (in late June) but the article appears to still be pending. Do you know if it's likely to be reviewed for creation soon? Or, if there's anything further I can do? Thanks once again.

i am trying to publish a new article but it get refused

my original article was in html only and i don't know what to do to make it compatible with wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzales Cenelia (talk • contribs) 22:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gonzales Cenelia - It's all a learning experience - I've been through many. Now that you've read WP:What Wikipedia is not, you'll hopefully have better luck with your next draft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Edgewater Towers page Draft:Edgewater Towers

Hi Dodger67,

The above page was rejected because it was not supported by reliable sources. I am the Chair of the Service Company of the building and I have a great deal of personal knowledge regarding the building. If you could let me know what facts are not supported by adequate sources, I will try to find a source to support the facts or I will amend the article accordingly.

Thanks, Sym Kohn EdgewaterTowers (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi EdgewaterTowers - You were looking at the wrong page. You had an outdated copy of the draft on your user page - I have replaced it with a link to the correct draft page at Draft:Edgewater Towers. You will find my review comment, together with other information and various useful links, at the top of the draft page. BTW Your username is "illegal". An editor's username may never be similar to that of a company, place or organization. See WP:Username for guidance on how to change your username to something "neutral". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Pallium India page

Hi Roger, thanks for your comments on my page on Pallium India. I have made changes, I would appreciate it greatly if you could take a look at it and let me know if I did it right. Jeenman (talk) 06:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations Jeenman. The changes you made were sufficient to get the article accepted, so what would you like to write about next? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The Spoke Article

Hi there, any help with my submission. I added an additional reference that can show it's origination.

Is there anything I can do to get this up here? I would like to ensure it is correct in this list, and links accordingly as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_student_newspapers_in_Canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qbattersby (talk • contribs) 18:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Qbattersby - You need to actually read the review, it says absolutely nothing about "origination", whatever that means.

You need to prove that someone who has no connection to the college actually cares that the student paper exists. You do this by citing a completely independent publication (meaning one with no connection to the college, such as a national mainstream newspaper or magazine) has written more than just a passing mention about the student newspaper. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The Chelsea Residences

Hi, I've got some questions about your comments regarding the draft of the Chelsea Residences that you've nominated for speedy deletion, and that you've denied the Articles for Creation nomination of. You said "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." Can you point me to which parts you feel that way about? Everything in the lede and in the announcement sections is hard facts. The design section includes some descriptive detail about the features of the building and about the number and size of units available. Is that what is problematic? You also state "Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established." Three sources include two of the three largest national newspapers in the Philippines, neither of which was produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. Is this not sufficient? Thanks. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The article was speedily deleted even though I contested it (not even for the reasons you enumerated), but I'm planning on having it restored to my user space to work on, so I'd still appreciate the feedback. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Contribution has been reviewed and rejected twice...

Hi there Dodger67,

I see you were the last person to review my contribution on Mac in a Sac. It was rejected the first time as I had only referenced the company's website, so pretty understandable. However, I then went to review it and added in 6 new references from Google, bloggers and outdoor websites (third party citations). It has now been rejected again stating the same reasons for rejection. I am now really confused and don't see what else I can add to make this contribution "worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia".

Please help! This is the link to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mac_in_a_Sac

Any advice would be much appreciated. I am new to Wikipedia and am finding it quite difficult to use.

Thanks,

Ashley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashcarden (talk • contribs) 13:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ashcarden, I will go through it with closer attention tomorrow, meanwhile I'd like to suggest you take a good look at WP:IRS. Basically the company's own website, the websites of sellers and personal blogs are all no good for establishing the WP:Notability of the topic. You need to look for articles in mainstream news or magazines. Perhaps there are articles about the company in business news sources, or product reviews in outdoor/hiking/lifestyle magazines. Depending on what sources you find you might be more successful shifting the article's focus from the product to the company. Hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Roger (Dodger67), thanks for the reply. I will be sure to keep this in mind. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashcarden (talk • contribs) 08:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

She should have predicted that, too!

Seems a shame to delete it when we could play with her Fiddle Faddle 16:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Tempting... but you should have declined as a blatant advert. No time for messing around with noobs, and not really ethical either. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I declined it as something else. It was redeemable, with work :) Either way, though, this format was useless. Fiddle Faddle 16:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@User:Timtrent - Sometimes only WP:TNT can fix a draft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Gotta catch 'em all! Fiddle Faddle 10:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Administrate article

Hi Roger,

My article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Administrate_%28software%29 was rejected on the basis that it read more like an advertisement. This could certainly be the case as it's describing "software" made by a "company" of the same name! My problem is two-fold: 1. This is my first article on Wikipedia 2. I'm writing about a commercial entity. So I understand my intent could be viewed as suspect! I am in no way affiliated with this company, but I'm a user of the software and would like to make an entry all the same. So I'd appreciate any specific advice.

Could you please point me to the exact parts that read like an advertisement, that don't seem neutral, or that require more sources? Thanks in advance!

Loriwagoner (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Graeme Codrington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Sun newspaper (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) 08:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

How do I get conflict of interest notation removed?

Still looking for an answer to this. I wrote a Wiki page for musician Eliot Lewis using an account that belonged to Mr. Lewis' tour manager. I don't know Mr. Lewis and am not affiliated with him at all, and only used the account because his tour manager said he'd already entered bio information and discography. Mr. Lewis and his manager were not involved in writing the page, I was not paid for any work, and did all my own research. I'm a writer and editor with more than 20 years of experience in newspapers, magazines, nonprofit and corporate communications, and I understand the importance of neutrality in a vehicle like Wikipedia. Given these circumstances, is there a way to get the conflict of interest notation on the page removed? Could I move the page to my own account? Or can an editor point out specific sentences or information that seems bias and let me either rework or remove it?

Also, I noticed there's a notation on the Eliot Lewis page for "speedy deletion." Is this because of the apparent conflict of interest, or is there another issue with the article?

Thanks for your help!

Righttrack (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Righttrack - I think the best option would be to post a brief explanation of your connection - just as you did here - to the article's Talk page - Talk:Eliot Lewis - then the COI tag can be removed from the article. Just remember when you remove it to state in the edit note that you've explained the situation on the Talk page - "See Talk" is a generally accepted way to do so.

There is no trace in the page history of a Speedy deletion tag ever having been on the page. Hope this helps.

While you're on the topic try to solve the shortage of references problem too, there are entire paragraphs without any citations. The requirement for referencing is particularly strict for articles about living people as real harm can occur if unsourced controversial statements and claims appear in such an article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Smart BASIC

Hello Dodger!

What are the reasons why my article about "smart BASIC" was declined?

Thank you for help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baobabus (talk • contribs) 03:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Baobabus - Have you actually read the review yet - the pink box at the top of the page and the short explanatory note just below the box? It includes links to guides on how to fix the problem. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I see it is stated that "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." My article is about programming language. It is based on documentation inside this application. This documentation is not available online and is not published in a book.

1. What is correct way to reference information relative to application which is available inside application documentation and is not available in external sources? 2. If this information will be published online - will it be enough for proper referencing?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baobabus (talk • contribs) 16:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Baobabus - You actually need third party sources to pass the notability requirement. While you can cite the manual, help files or other documentation included in the software it will not be sufficient to get the article accepted. You need to look for articles in mainstream magazines or reputable webzines that discuss the software in some detail - review articles would be good sources. The folks at WP:WikiProject Software would be able to give you better more specific advice as they know much more about the topic than I do. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Defence Review

Hi. How can I help? You seem to have the structure planned, is there any section you would like me to work on or is there something I can focus on? Gbawden (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Gbawden: Take a look at the Talk page where I've laid out a few "to do" and source ideas. Please feel free to propose changes to the structure if you think it isn't workable. Do whatever you feel like. I'm pretty good at finding sources but I'm not that good at writing article text. Glad to have you on this project! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Gbawden - so what do you think of the draft so far? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks good. You could probably publish it as an article now, rather than wait. Your structure is good. The only suggestion I have is a section highlighting the key recommendations/changes proposed by the review. I will go over the draft and chip in where I can. g Gbawden (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

EU Gateway username

Dear Dodger67, you have written a comment on my talk page regarding a potential non-compliance of my username with Wikipedia's username policy. I have followed the instructions on:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple and submitted a request for a name change. Could you tell please how many days do you think I shall wait until the username change is done? also, can i still make changes and improvements in the article that I created and re-submit it for approval with the current name? thanks for your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EU Gateway (talk • contribs) 10:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@EU Gateway - You can continue editing, when your name change is done all your edits will be allocated to the new name. The change should be done within no more than a day (or two if there is a large backlog). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

notable only for one event

Hi thanks for your comment on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Deepika_Kurup. She is certainly notable for more than 1 event, she has won Young scientist award in 2012 and more recently this month she won the US Stockholm water prize. I have included all references in the article. Pangog200 (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pangog200 - If it's for the same invention it is still covered as one event, rather rewrite the article to be about the invention. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

cheers Roger (Dodger67) - both are related to water purification but they are not the same. the first one uses solar energy and the second one uses a combination of solar and a newly developed compound. the second competition was 2 years after the first one. do you think if it makes sense to make this distinction clear in the article? Pangog200 (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@Pangog200 - Yes make it really clear that there are two inventions and each was recognized with an award. Generally you also need to find good sources that talk about the inventor herself in considerable detail, rather than just the inventions and subsequent recognition. BTW, I'm going to bed now, back in about ten or so hours. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Roger (Dodger67), I have made the changes and corrected some other details as well. I have also added several repted online references (WSJ, Fox news etc). Please let me know if this looks okay. thanks! Pangog200 (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

AfC

Hi Dodge67. I noticed you were active at AfC and I was wondering if you could take a look at a couple articles I have submitted where I have COI on David Williams (Doctor) and Paxata. In the past it's taken over a month to get a reviewer in the queue and my submissions are usually pretty easy. CorporateM (Talk) 14:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi CorporateM, I have accepted the doctor's biography, I trust you are able to do the finishing touches such as categories. BTW if you have a source for his birthplace and current residence please add those details, (and the relevant categories). I'm passing on the other draft as it has no obvious problems but reviewing the finer detail of the subject is a bit outside my comfort zone. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC South African Legion of Military Veterans was accepted

South African Legion of Military Veterans, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Fiddle Faddle 12:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@User:Timtrent, thanks! This is my first G13 rescue, thus I put it up for review rather than pass it directly to mainspace by myself. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. I think you could easily have accepted it on sight, though. You're old enough and ugly enough (like me) to know your onions. Fiddle Faddle 15:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Except that I'm a bit biased in favour of South African Military history subjects, so the second opinion is much appreciated. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)