Jump to content

User talk:Dodger67: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Pogga D (talk | contribs)
122 edits
No edit summary
Pogga D (talk | contribs)
122 edits
No edit summary
Line 601: Line 601:
The second is a technical question about referencing. I copied this from the Introduction to Referencing "Often you will want to use the same source more than once in an article to cite multiple facts. In this case, you can click the clipboard labelled "Named references" in the toolbar, and select a previously added source to re-use."
The second is a technical question about referencing. I copied this from the Introduction to Referencing "Often you will want to use the same source more than once in an article to cite multiple facts. In this case, you can click the clipboard labelled "Named references" in the toolbar, and select a previously added source to re-use."
I can't see the clipboard labelled "Named references" [[User:Pogga D|Pogga D]] ([[User talk:Pogga D|talk]]) 21:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I can't see the clipboard labelled "Named references" [[User:Pogga D|Pogga D]] ([[User talk:Pogga D|talk]]) 21:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Whoops! I can't see how I can change the article title. Does somebody else have to do that for me?[[User:Pogga D|Pogga D]] ([[User talk:Pogga D|talk]]) 21:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:53, 22 November 2016

neolithic carved stone balls

Hi,

I appreciate your crits re my submission. I have I hope attended to them. I am happy that my submission be somehow included in the existing Wiki entry, but I can't find how to this. Wiki remains a very confusing friend. A simple step-by-step set of instructions would be very useful to those of us not really 'into' computereeze. I'd appreciate your further good advice.

Bless,

T (ex Rhodesian).

Further to Dodger: I noted in one your comments that Wiki only includes verifiable material, that is material supported by valid research and by the relevant academic community. I want to suggest that sensible though this demand is, it may exclude material that the academic community finds anathema for reasons(?) of prejudice. I have found that my interest in neolithic metrics is regarded as 'not fashionable' in the archaeological world and woe-betide the career of any academic who is willing to publish or discuss papers and/or research in that area. Certainly I can find no one willing to support publication of my research findings, yet the findings themselves are unarguably correct even if some subsequent discussion about them in contentious. I rather hoped that Wiki would be different and give some space to heretical/ non-conformist/ unorthodox viewpoints. After all a crank is sometimes required to create a revolution. I now know how Galileo may have felt!

Best,

T

09:18:23, 20 September 2016 review of submission by 61.12.45.154


Request on 20:01:08, 20 September 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Davememtn


Information on why article was rejected Hi, thank you for reviewing my article, Draft:George_N._Schlesinger. I was dissapointed that the article was rejected, however appreciate the opportunity to learn how to author an acceptable article.

Is it ok that I keep the sources I have, and just add more sources that are independent and reliable, or would you suggest starting this article from scratch?

Do you have any other suggestions on what updates and/or changes should be done?

I would very much like to author an article about Dr. Schlesinger, who is a well known philosopher.

I appreciate your help,

David Kellerman


Davememtn (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davememtn, look for independent sources (such as magazine, news articles, or possibly critiques by other academics) about Schlesinger and his work, then add material from them. In other respects the article looks pretty good. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, I'm going to work on the article some more. David Kellerman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davememtn (talk • contribs) 18:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:55:43, 23 September 2016 review of submission by Mannyadebayo


Well there's another Link now http://rccgcanada.org/parish-directory/675/the-lords-cedar/

Hi Mannyadebayo, unfortunately it's also not an independent source. You need to find sources such as a mainstream news or magazine articles that contain substantial detail about the subject and are written and published by people who have no direct connection to the church. That excludes press releases and routine announcements. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mannyadebayo you need to also remove the "Beliefs" and "Service times" sections as they are purely promotional. Wikipedia is in any case not interested in the routine day-to-day activities of organisations, rather concentrate on the history of the church as that might make a worthwhile article - provided it is properly sourced. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comair

I made a whole bunch of good copyedits to this article, fixed formatting per Wikipedia's Manualnof Style, cleaned up links, etc. You reverted these edits carelessly. I've restored my last version. If you want to take one accident out, take it out, but don't undo my work. That's just rude, and does not improve Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 18:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Review of Article - Kwong Weng Yap

Dear Dodger67,

Thank you for accepting my previous article on Koh Heng Leun.

While I moved too quickly to put up another piece on Lim Teck Yin, I thought I should have taken some time to improve my edits first so as to develop an entry of higher quality.

So I have tried to spend some time to do up the latest piece on Kwong Weng Yap as well, which can't be moved again because I'm new to Wikipedia.

Hope you can take a look at it.

With much appreciation, Superwifi (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to Paramount Group

Hi Dodget67,

Thank you for offering to review updates to the Paramount Group page. In full disclosure, Paramount Group have asked me to review the page acknowledging all the cultural and credibility nuances of Wikipedia. The exercise is only aimed at bringing relevant objective information to the page and not promotional content. I work for a communications agency FleishmanHillard Fishburn which abide to the Council of Public Relations Firms and Institute for Public Relations guidelines for managing Wikipedia.

I noticed on the talk page you expressed interest in expanding on the company acquisitions. I've listed credible media results of acquisitions for consideration. Please let me know if you would prefer this content in an alternate format.

Acquisition of Nautic http://www.bdlive.co.za/companies/2013/11/07/paramount-acquires-majority-stake-in-nautic-africa http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/paramount-secures-naval-capabilities-through-acquisition-2014-02-21/rep_id:4136 https://www.enca.com/south-africa/world-class-naval-vessels-be-produced-sa

Acquisition of ATE http://www.bdlive.co.za/companies/2013/06/06/paramount-acquires-ate-for-undisclosed-sum http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/topstories/Paramount-Group-Acquires-ATE_79454.html#.V2AHTryPX8s

Acquisition of DCD Mobility factory http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/latest-paramount-acquisition-marks-a-major-consolidation-in-the-sa-defence-industry-2015-04-10 http://www.iol.co.za/business/companies/paramount-buys-leading-armoured-vehicle-maker-1843029 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FHF Christopher Onderstall (talk • contribs) 21:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FHF Christopher Onderstal Those are good sources, also take a good hard look at defence specialist media such as http://www.defenceweb.co.za http://www.africandefence.net http://www.janes.com - they generally report significantly more detail, and also cover stories that don't catch the attention of the general news media, such as export deals and partnerships with companies in Kazakhstan, Jordan, etc. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Chiang Rayleigh Ping-Ying

Hello Dodger, please note that the draft you commented on is a copy of an article that has been recreated multiple times and deleted after this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiang Rayleigh Ping-Ying. the user has been warned for using multiple accounts for promoting the article and to avoid scrutiny. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Crystallizedcarbon, I've hit it with the {{db-g4}} stick, though you could have done so already. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help, I did not want to step over without first talking to you just in case you had some reason I missed to merit its recreation. Best regard. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honor 8

Hi, Dodger67. Thank you for reviewing and moving the Honor 8 draft into the main space. I was wondering if you would be willing to add Honor 8 to the Huawei Honor article and Template:Huawei on my behalf? I think these edits would be helpful to Wikipedia, but I prefer not to make direct edits to articles given my conflict of interest. Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inkian Jason I've done the additions you requested. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thank you so much for your time and assistance. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The future of NPP and AfC - progress

Thank you for joining the The future of NPP and AfC Work Group

There have been been recent discussions and some special task pages have been created. for your attention and input. Please visit the following pages to get up to speed and add your comments, particularly the straw polls and priority lists. Please also add these pages to your watchlist.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ask for help

Hi Dodger67, I am new in WP and my English is very bad. Can you help me to bring my article draft "Harald Specht" in the main space of WP? Thank you very much!!!Mr.Newjers (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC for page patroller qualifications

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article submission

Hello, Dodger67, many thanks for reviewing the article on translation marketing I'm putting together. Could you give me a few pointers as to what kind of sources are required? I've looked at the linked 'Content marketing' article and it follows a similar pattern, with sources for business concepts being a little awkward to come across. It'd be best if I found out now what kind of sources/references are ideal before adding to the submission.

Many thanks.


luxpir (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmission of page for Gayathri Khemadasa

Dear Dodger67,

I authored an article on the Sri Lankan composer Gayathri Khemadasa in Aug 2014. It was subsequently deleted for not satifying one of the list of criteria for notable musicians. Since that time, she has won all the major national awards for her film music for Thanha Rathi Ranga (Derana, SIGNIS and Hiru TV) making her the first female composer to win an award for film music in Sri Lanka[1]. She has also conducted a major perfomance of Prinivan Mangallaya at the Nelum Pokuna Theatre.[2] I would like to resubmit the article by adding the recent information and links and would like to see what you think about this?

References

  1. ^ http://www.sundaytimes.lk/151206/plus/award-for-gayathri-173466.html
  2. ^ http://www.sundaytimes.lk/160814/plus/rebirth-of-pirinivan-mangallaya-204562.html

Many thanks,


DML UK (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)DML UK[reply]

Hi DML UK Music and musicians or film are not really my specialities so I'm not sure whether those awards are sufficient to pass notability standard for music-related subjects. I think you should request assistance at the [[WP:Teahouse}} for advice from someone who is more familiar with that topic area. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

02:55:25, 12 October 2016 review of submission by Mannyadebayo


So a news article is not a notable source?

Hi Mannyadebayo, that news article doesn't even mention the parish in Ontario so it's of no use at all. You need news or other mainstream media sources that contain significant discussion of the specific subject of the article for it to pass the notability criteria for organizations. I think you might do better to try to expand and improve the existing article about the church as a whole, Redeemed Christian Church of God, rather than trying to build an article about just one parish. For example the article doesn't have any explanation of how the church spread outside of Nigeria to have a presence in so many countries. I presume it spread along with expatriate Nigerians who have settled all over the world, but an actual explanation of that process could be a useful addition to the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WMF waiting for our NPP short list

Hi, It's now been three weeks since we created the NPP Work Group and we are hoping for a dynamic push forward for the urgent updates and required improvements to the quality control of new pages.

We now have the attention of the WMF and their development team has made page patrolling a top priority. They are already working hard to address some of the major issues.

The success of this depends on our team being able to keep the developers supplied with the feedback they need - if we relax on this they will move on.

If you have not already done so, please complete your list of 10 preferences here as soon as possible from the list at To do - the WMF is waiting for our shortlist. Please note that No.8 (NOINDEX) has already been addressed.

Thanks for all your help. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Association for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Support - Draft

Thank you for comments re: APOPS draft
The "Controversy" section does not actually show that any controversy exists. It states the subject's position about an issue but fails to demonstrate that the issue is in fact controversial. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I have made edits.
Thank you Mbpippen (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dodger...is there anything else I need to do? I am new at Wiki and do not know the ins and outs...thank you for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbpippen (talk • contribs) 11:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mbpippen there's a whole lot you can do while you wait for the next review (which I'm afraid has a severe backlog currently so it might take as long as a month). If you wish to stay within the same topic area take a look at Uterine prolapse, follow some of the links, particularly those in the large navigation box at the bottom of the page, and see if you can improve any of those articles, even minor edits such as fixing typos are valuable contributions. Do also look at the Talk pages of the articles, you might pick up something there. Be bold in editing, nothing you can do will break the 'pedia, any action can be reverted. Just be mindful of other editors who might respond (positively or negatively) to your edits, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, discussion solves most problems. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ORCP

Hi Dodger, I’ve just been having another look at your entry at WP:ORCP. It may well be time for you to take a serious decision now. Let me know what you think. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung Yes, it's time I took the plunge. I just need to get a chunk of academic work done and dusted before, so that I can give it proper attention. I will have time to do it next month. I think a suitable schedule would be to take the first week or so to get the nomination and initial three answers sorted, launch by about the 10th. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11:42:42, 20 October 2016 review of submission by Paprsky


We would like to assure that this is not an advertising article. We are a company, and needs to listed in Wikipedia as a source of information. Wikipedia is a bank of information & knowledge source and that's the reason we would like to be stated here.

We request you to kindly go through the article and please suggest us how to improve the article.

Paprsky, I'm afraid you are mistaken about the purpose of Wikipedia. It is an encyclopedia, not a marketing medium. Neither is it a catalog of every company that exists. You must read the following policies and guidelines: WP:PROMO, WP:PSCOI, WP:PAID and also the notability standard for companies WP:CORP. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Grammar fix)

thanks for the Grammar fix on Afrikaner nationalism. just wondering are you interested in Afrikaner nationalism. Afrikaner02 (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Afrikaner02 I actually have a long-neglected draft in my sandbox - User:Dodger67/Sandbox/Afrikaner identity politics, if you're interested it would be great if we could work on it together. I have collected a list sources and discuss a few ideas on the talk page too - User talk:Dodger67/Sandbox/Afrikaner identity politics - please read it and respond if you're interested. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:24:28, 24 October 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Kaitlynnemoody


I need help on how I should change up the wording on this article. I have changed it multiple times and do not understand why it keeps getting denied.

Kaitlynnemoody (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPP - Last call for work group comments on stage 1

Hi Dodger67,

The future of NPP and AfC:

To take full advantage of the WMF developer time that has been allocated to this project, we must now quickly submit the short list of our priorities before the end of October, otherwise we may lose the attention of the WMF.
If you have not already done so, please visit the page at Suggested Improvements and select your personal choice of 10 features (excluding the ones the devs are already doing) and list them in your order of priority at Priorities.

Thanks. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

07:08:12, 28 October 2016 review of submission by PierLuigi Gentili



Dear Dodger67 I have submitted a new version of my contribution title "Chemical Artificial Intelligence". I have improved its content by taking into account your comments. Best regards Pier Luigi Gentili

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello Dodger67. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria.

  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator.

information Administrator note You have been grandfathered to this group based on prior patrolling activity - the technical flag for the group will be added to your account after the next software update. You do not need to apply at WP:PERM. 20:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Samuel Neaman Institute page

Hello Dodger67

We added references to everything on the draft for Samuel Neaman Institute, could you explain what is missing?

thank you Samuel Neaman Institute.Neaman (talk) 09:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neaman, the problem of notability still remains because all of the references you have included are from the institute itself or written by people closely associated with the institute. To prove the notability of an organization you need references that were written and published by completely independent sources such as professional journalists writing in mainstream newspapers, or by academics who have no connection with the institute or any of its projects at all. These independent sources must contain substantial detail about the institute and its activities. Basically Wikipedia does not really care what a subject itself or its associates or employees have to say, we really need evidence that at least a few total outsiders actually care enough about the existence of the subject that they would be motivated to publish significant information about it. If the only people who have ever said anything significant about a subject are the people directly involved in it, then it is by definition not a notable subject. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Disability and Wikipedia Visiting Scholars

Hi there. Thanks for offering your support at the WikiProject Disability talk page. Responding to something you said, Visiting Scholars positions almost never require academic qualifications. The basic qualifications are being a user in good standing with the community, with experience improving article quality, and having a shared area of interest with the sponsoring institution. For that reason I'd like to encourage you to apply, too. I think that SFSU is open to working with multiple people, and the experiences the two of you have may be complementary. Even if I'm wrong and they cannot create a second position, the program is such that when an experienced Wikipedian like yourself applies and, for one reason or another, isn't a good fit with the current openings, we work with our connections in higher education to try to form a connection elsewhere. The application is here if it's something you think you might want to do. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about it. Thanks again. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ryan (Wiki Ed), but I'm just far too busy with too many other things to do justice to this project. I'm happy to be a "background" supporter through the WikiProject.
While I have your attention there is something else I hope you might be able to help with. At WikiProject Disablity we have a project (that's been running slowly for quite some time) to create a brief introductory article about "Disability in (Country)" for every country on earth - see this Navbox. I think it may be an ideal project for an undergrad Disability studies class to try to create a large number of such articles. If you look at a few of the existing articles in the Navbox, you'll see that we have established a roughly "standard" pattern for such pages. I know it's more usual for a college professor to arrive at Wiki Ed with a class project idea already worked out, but do you think we could actually do it "backwards" and suggest this idea to the professors? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Ryan (Wiki Ed) - not sure if you've seen this yet. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for the ping, and thanks again for your interest in these projects. I will say that a Visiting Scholars position does not usually require a lot of time. The primary goal is for some of the articles you improve to reach B-class or better over the course of a year. The position itself is typically limited to improving Wikipedia and tracking/discussing/reporting on that work, but for those who want to get more involved with an institution/department/library, it can also be useful for building such a relationship (any other duties, however, would be supplemental to rather than a requirement of the Visiting Scholars position). All that said, I certainly understand feeling too busy to take on any extra project, so again, perhaps sometime in the future. :)
Regarding the class project idea, I'm going to ping Pommette1789, who does incorporate Wikipedia into disability-related classes like this one. She may have an idea for what sort of class the country-specific articles may fit into. I thought it would also just be a good idea to connect you two (assuming you have not previously), given your shared interest in improving disability-related content on Wikipedia. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's great Ryan, creating a decent "country profile" could be done in a few hours, for most countries. IMHO it could be a good intro to research and WP-writing for first-year Bachelors students. I'd be very happy to share ideas with Pommette1789 about such a project. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Submission rejected

Hi There, thanks very much for reviewing the submission - Lumo App - it refers to a newly launched product that has limited information available online. You mentioned that there are no references, as being the issue associated - what type of references will you accept here? I assume references of pages on www.lumoapp.co.uk are still relevant in verifying details? or does it need to come from external sources? for a new product / service, how do you typically achieve this? Or is it better not to have 'references' on the page at all? Thanks, Mark_i3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark i3 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark i3 - References are absolutely essential, without references there can be no article. See the Referencing for beginners guide. The company's own sources can be used for uncontroversial claims, such as release dates, product specifications, etc., but such self published sources are no good at all for supporting the notability of the subject. If no external sources such as news or magazine/e-zine articles about the product exist then the product is simply not notable yet. If you can find independently written and published professional product reviews (not simply user blogs), or news stories about the product's development (but not press releases by the company itself), then we might have an article. Without such sources we have nothing to sustain an article on the English Wikipedia. BTW sources do not need to be online, any form of publication is acceptable - as long as it is at least in theory accessible to our readers. Though of course offline sources are rather strange in terms of a present-day IT product. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Farm Forward

Hello,

I would like to thank you for your review of my draft. I have recently re-submitted the article for review. I revised the text in accordance with revised sources, and it should no longer sound like advertising. I am wondering if you might be able to take a look at it once more. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoutkm (talk • contribs) 17:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18:19:52, 4 November 2016 review of submission by IFyles


Hello. I recently had my article (Paper: Environmental Impacts, Controls and Industry Performance) refused and would like to know how to fix it so it can be publishable. The comment you sent was: "This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner."

In response to the above, I only used what I considered to be secondary and reliable sources - no original research or opinions were included. Occasionally it was necessary to use information put out by the the pulp and paper industry as they are the only ones to collect certain data. I assumed if Wikipedia readers took issue with anything that was written, they would provide information and sources that could rectify the problem. The current 'Environmental Impacts of Paper' article is out of date and incomplete so I thought I was improving the availability of information.

Also, I am not sure what you meant by 'reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article' Does it cover too many subjects? Maybe it is too long-winded?!

I would appreciate your comments. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by IFyles (talk • contribs) 18:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IFyles per the advice at the AFC Help desk by NewYorkActuary you cannot replace an already existing article with a separately written new one, you need to directly edit the existing article at Environmental impact of paper and other relevant articles. However, when you add your material to the existing articles take care not to add unsourced opinion per WP:NOTESSAY. The writer's (your) opinion about the topic should never be discernible in a Wikipedia article. Don't "prompt" readers towards what they should think about the subject, let them make up their own minds. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Samuel Neaman Institute

Hello Dodger67

we are referenced to in another wikipedia page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_tank#Israel, as soon as you will approve the page we can link it to the think tank page. there also at least 3 other references that are not from the Samuel Neaman Institute website: 1. "MAGNET". MAGNET website. 2. Lemarchand, Guillermo A.; Leck, Eran; Tash, April. Mapping research and innovation: in the state of Israel. UNESCO Publishing, 2016. ISBN 9789231001475. 3. Prof. Maital, Shlomo (4 October 2016). "The 5776 mirror: Looking back over the past Jewish year". The Jerusalem Post. do we need more? thank you Samuel Neaman Institute. Neaman (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Golan789 Let us look at those three references:
  1. I'm afraid I cannot give an opinion about the content of http://www.magnet.org.il/ as I cannot read Hebrew. However the statement about the website in the draft implies that the Samuel Neaman Institute (SNI) is actually directly involved with the website - thus it is by definition not an independent source.
  2. The UNESCO publication is described on page ii: "A study prepared for UNESCO by the Samuel Neaman Institute for National Policy Research at the invitation of..." thus it is not an independent source.
  3. The article in The Jerusalem Post says nothing at all about the SNI, the only mention of it is in a footnote: "The writer is senior research fellow at the S. Neaman Institute..." thus even if it did actually say anything about the SNI it is also not an independent source.
The short answer is - there are still no independent sources, and the third one is not a source at all.
You really need to understand what WP:INDEPENDENT really means. An independent source is when a professional journalist is ordered by his editor to "Go find out what this institute is all about, I want your first draft by Monday". It is not something written by a person who has ever worked at the institute or whose wife, father, boss, or any other connected person has ever worked there.
Quite frankly, because it is obvious that you work for the institute yourself, it is almost impossible for you to write an acceptable article about it. It is far easier to write an acceptable article on Wikipedia if you know absolutely nothing about the subject (and have no opinion about it either) before you begin your search for sources. Then you also deliberately avoid sources that are connected to the subject itself. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in an article

I saw you left a message to the draft i submitted today. Thank you for that!

The content in the older draft doesn't need to be incorporate into this draft.

Thank you again :)

Theo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalted (talk • contribs) 11:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Tony Heaton assessment

Greetings and thanks for your input. This article was the result of an editathon, and there has been some email traffic between the course leader, myself and the newby editor. I wrote the following: (sorry to be so gushing!)

Right- I have gone back to the article and added an image and changed a little of the formatting with edit source. Next I researched the assesor Roger (Dodger67) and he has excellent credentials and is a far better writer than me- so with a little personal respect I re-read the article looking for what exactly he meant. A lot is down to personal style and if you read it at one go it looks like a list- giving the impression that a catalog has been transcribed. So that is so easy to correct- and will take out the comment (un-encyclopedic style). It also gives the false impression that there is a POV- paradoxically reinforced by the text being so authoritative and strong. Alerted to a potential POV- you notice the abundance of adjectives- like major work, leading practitioner-- You share one of my failings- starting every sentence eith a subordinate clause or phrase (Germanism) rather than just jumping in with the main idea first. I don't agree about references- they are normally fine. Whether therearetoo many exhibitions listed is arguable but they do need to focused, and in fact Wikipedia prefers prose to lists, so some lists can be compressed into a couple of paragraphs without losing any data. Performance lists do need a written source- not unsurmountable. Leave a comment to say you are looking. I am going to copy this email to Roger (Dodger67) and ask him if this advice is on the right lines.

Is this on track? The newbies had been encouraged to use VE which added a new element to the mix! We are very keen to work with this organisation Disability Arts- particularly as they are initiating and directing their own training. ClemRutter (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ClemRutter Your advice looks very sensible, you've explained the issues well. I particularly like what you say about adjectives. My feeling is that if an adjective doesn't have a strong justification it's better to remove it - let the readers make up their own minds about how "important" or "brilliant" the subject is. The line between hagiography and biography can be very thin, particularly when the subject really is objectively "important" or "good". Using simple declaritive sentences help to reinforce a neutral tone.
BTW please tell the Disability Arts organisation about WP:WikiProject Disability, it's a useful venue to connect with other interested editors and discuss ideas about further projects and articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

08:01:22, 10 November 2016 review of submission by Duskrider


Unfortunately sources for this event are scarce. Some of the information are either covered by one TV network or in Punjabi newspapers. ♠DuskRider♠ 19:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Duskrider, you haven't actually referenced any Punjabi newspapers yet. If you can't find sources in English please use whatever you do find, in any language. If necessary we can find a reviewer who can read the language(s) of the sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added some references from the event, they have pictures on them. ♠DuskRider♠ 19:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding explanation of the word east indian

--Tiven gonsalves 03:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC) Dear sir the Term east indian has many meanings and I have given the Term east indians in the article which clearly explains the meaning of the word so there is no confusion over the word — Preceding signed comment added by Tiven2240 (talk • contribs)

For more information about my draft Tu Maza Jeev see the films section in the main article east indians (to verify my article) Tiven gonsalves 03:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Tiven2240: Unfortunately it is not quite clear what it means - you have linked to the article East Indians which is fine, but a Wikipedia article cannot be used to verify information in Wikipedia, and in any case the section "Films" in that article is also very unclear and mostly looks like promotion for this particular film. Does "East Indians" in your draft refer to the language, which is a dialect of Marathi according to one of the sources (and also this source which you have not addd to the draft), not all the Marathi-Konkani languages as claimed in the East Indians article? Or does "East Indians film" refer to the cultural setting - which seems likely, but again it is not sourced? Or is it both language and culture (those are of course closely related, but not the same thing)? "First of its kind" seems to be used as a promotional buzz word in the sources, there is no real explanation of it, and so it remains confusing to the readers. --bonadea contributions talk 10:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear sir to make the topic clear I think the best way is to make a Wikipedia disambiguation page. To make u clear about East indians it is a culture as well as language of the people of Mumbai (India). I am sure that the article East Indians does not clearly explains the film as it focuses on overall concept not the film on which I tend to produce on Wikipedia.As I am not too good in making Wikipedia pages do assist me in making disambiguation page. --Tiven gonsalves 07:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiven2240 (talk • contribs)
Hi Tiven2240 the page you're looking for is at East India (disambiguation). -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So sir there is nomore doubt in the article and I think it should be added in main space Tiven gonsalves 07:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiven2240 (talk • contribs)

Request on 05:11:47, 11 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Realpen pencil


please can i send you my content to help me out with new wikipedia creation?


Realpen pencil (talk) 05:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Realpen pencil, the draft was deleted because it was advertising. You will have to ask the admin who deleted it, RHaworth, to assist if possible. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17:36:38, 13 November 2016 review of submission by Jonathan A. Coles


Thankyou for the speed of your response. However, 'Animal reflectors' is definitely a subject of its own. Land's review on animal reflectors has been cited 313 times. Animal coloration is different from reflexion in both its structures and its purposes. I will put in a link to tapetum, but fish scales and elasmobranch tapeta are very similar, and so need to be in the same article. I propose links from 'Tapetum' and 'Animal coloration' and 'Photonic crystal' to 'Animal reflectors'. I am also working on getting copyright permission for more interesting figures. Best Regards 

       Jonathan A. Coles (Jonathan [no A.] Coles is a different person.)
Hi Jonathan A. Coles I look forward to watching the article develop. At the moment it looks like separate bits thrown together, but if you're confident you can pull it together into a single coherent topic, go for it! A tip you might find useful is to write the lead last. After you've got the body of the article basically complete, you compose the lead, much like an academic article's abstract. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17:43:45, 13 November 2016 review of submission by Jonathan A. Coles


Dear Dodger67, 

           About 'Animal reflectors', again, I first tried to edit 'Photonic crystal' with a section on natural photonic

crystals, but this did not fit with the tone and arrangement of that entry. Nor would it suffice to edit 'Tapeta'. 

                           Jonathan A. Coles

Request on 13:53:21, 14 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by E rosen


Hi, I am not sure why my submission page for the Lurie Institute for Disability Policy keeps getting rejected. Could you please help me figure out how to best edit in order to publish this page? Thank you.

E rosen (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi E rosen the problem is the lack of independent sources. You need to find sources that are written by people who have no connection at all to the institute or even the university as a whole, that discusses the institute itself in significant detail. Look for mainstream news sources, magazine articles and similar sources. Nothing that is written or published by the institute or the university, or any of its employees, agents, representatives, sponsors, beneficiaries, friends or relatives, contributes to the notability of the institute. Basically if the only people who even care that the institute exists are the people who work there, it is simply not a notable organization. It's only when complete strangers have written about something that it meets the notability standard. All I could find through a quick Google search was a few "sound bites" from institute spokespeople in news articles about the issue of care for disabled adult children of aging parents and other social security policy issues - nothing about the institute itself.
If you cannot find sufficient independent sources you might still be able to add a section about the institute to the article about the Heller School for Social Policy and Management because then it would not need to demonstrate independent notability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Draft:Jonathan Rosenblum

Dear Dodger67,

Thanks for reaching out re. my submission --- the feedback is pretty clear, and should be easy to remedy. I realize creating my first submission on a person is likely to be given additional scrutiny, as is appropriate.

One question I have is how to best deal with disambiguation for entries on living persons? In this case the person that I am writing about (Jonathan Rosenblum, a seattle-based organizer and social justice activist) is starkly different than the Jonathan Rosenblum currently listed in wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Rosenblum). Clarification and disambiguation between these two individuals is important as their perspectives and careers are definitely different.

As full disclosure, I am a friend and colleague of the Seattle-based Jonathan Rosenblum and see value in getting his entry into Wikipedia done well and objectively. Happy to get any advice or suggestions from you or the wider wiki community. (oh, and also, would it be better to put this thread onto the draft page that I am trying to submit?)

Cpsarason (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cpsarason, firstly disambiguation is not a problem - the accepting reviewer will see to it. While the page is in Draft-space disambiguation is of no consequence at all.
The real problem you have it that Rosenblum is identified as the author of all the sources you have referenced. Wikipedia does not actually care what article subjects have to say about themselves. Neither do writings by friends, relatives, associates, employers, employees, agents, representatives or any other connected person, carry much weight. Notability, as defined in the English Wikipedia policy depends on there being sufficient sources, written and published by disinterested observers (such as journalists or academics), that contain sufficient information about the subject to sustain an article. Sources by the subject or connected people can be used to add uncontroversial detail, but only after sufficient independent sources have established the subject's notability. So, go forth and search for mainstream news media or magazine articles that discuss Rosenblum and his activities in significant depth and detail. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:14:52, 15 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Neha.duggal


I have tried to write about a new eCommerce. It is almost similar to pages that already exist related to different eCommerce companies. Why is it declined?

I have now edited it completely. Is it good now?

Neha.duggal (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norbert Stachel

Hi, my name is Norbert Stachel. I'm a veteran saxophonist and woodwind player, composer, and arranger. I'm an established professional musician, and there is clear documentation of me recording, performing, and touring with many extremely famous artists during my career as what is referred to as a "sideman" in the music business. Some names to mention are Boz Scaggs, Roger Waters, Tower Of Power, Tito Puente, Celia Cruz, Dream Theater, Prince, Freddie Hubbard, Aerosmith, Zigaboo Modeliste, Sheila E, Roy Hargrove, Andrew Hill, Don Cherry, and many many more. I'm looking for writers to write articles about me (Norbert Stachel), my flutist wife Karen Stachel, and our music group LehCats.

You can look up my name on Wikipedia, as well as google me for reliable sources like allmusic.com.

Some links to verify what I'm talking about:

http://www.allmusic.com/artist/norbert-stachel-mn0001311378/credits

http://norbertstachel.com

http://lehcats.com/home https://twitter.com/nstachel

https://https://www.facebook.com/LehCatsMusic/

https://https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4yTUAd7OiWmlqskZmzJO-49GjTcmX_9d

I can't deal with the aggravation of trying to figure out how to write articles myself, and it goes against Wikipedia guidelines anyway.

Please Help Me!!! Norbert Stachel 08:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LehCatsTrebron (talk • contribs)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi Dodger67,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12:31:19, 16 November 2016 review of submission by Auchiries

. Thanks for your comments. Could you possibly give me some examples of where I need to add citations? This is all new to me. Many thanks. Auchiries (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
my user in article Shankarwar R Rohit (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No idea why I'm getting this. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huawei Honor article

Greetings! Since you implemented my Huawei Honor 8 article at AfC, I thought I would give you a heads up that I submitted an edit request to implement and expanded and updated Huawei Honor article, too. If you are interested, you can view my edit request at Talk:Huawei Honor. Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:24:39, 17 November 2016 review of submission by Martinjbrand


I suggest a re-review as 655 Park Avenue objectively meets the notability standard as outlined in the Golden Rule, which is "Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic.".

Below is evidence of SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE in RELIABLE SOURCES that are INDEPENDENT OF THE TOPIC

As noted, in https://www.cityrealty.com/nyc/park-fifth-ave-79th-st/655-park-avenue/review/7914, Andrew Alpern "devotes an entire chapter in his fine book, "Historic Manhattan Apartment Houses," (Dover Publications Inc., 1996), to the "Battle for Suitable Scale at 655 Avenue." This chapter, which is referenced in the draft article, is a five page essay on the history of the building in a book by a notable authority on historic buildings of New York.

The building has multipage sections devoted entirely to it in other books, for example there is a section in each of "Manhattan Classic: New York's Finest Prewar Apartments" by Geoffrey Lynch (https://www.amazon.com/Manhattan-Classic-Finest-Prewar-Apartments/dp/161689167X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1479395064&sr=8-1&keywords=manhattan+classic), or " The New York Apartment Houses of Rosario Candela and James Carpenter' https://www.amazon.com/Apartment-Houses-Rosario-Candela-Carpenter/dp/0926494201/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1479395209&sr=8-1&keywords=candela+carpenter

The New York times features a nearly 1000 word article on the history of the building, http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/22/realestate/streetscapes-655-park-avenue-letting-the-sunlight-in.html. This article is also referenced in the draft.

There are also of course multiple articles on the web that have detailed discussions on the building.

So does this meet the test for significant coverage? Yes - you have multiple sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. Not: passing mentions, directory listings, or any old thing that happens to have the topic's name in it. The sources are clearly independent of the topic (books by experts on New York building history, the most revered news paper in the world), and they are considered reliable.

Beyond the golden rule, I would note that the sister buildings 620 Park Avenue or 625 Park Avenue, by the same architect, across the street, from he same time period, are included in Wikipedia. There is no reasonable argument to make that those buildings are more notable but 655 Park is somehow not (they are actually less notable as they have a less unusual architectural history). So if there is a desire to be consistent, it would also argue to clearly include 655 Park Avenue.

I will resubmit, making the reference to the Alpern book more prominent.

I would appreciate your kind reconsideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinjbrand (talk • contribs) 15:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martinjbrand, that looks pretty good. Clear referencing citing strong sources is certainly useful. When you reference a book, do not cite amazon.com (or any other retailer) cite the book itself not the bookstore, and remember to include page numbers. The {{cite book}} template is a good easy way to do it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dodger67, I have edited the resubmission to use the {{cite book}} template. Appreciate your help, thank you for your guidance!

User group: New Page Reviewr

Hello Dodger67.

Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed.

New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:In Transit

Roger,

Good afternoon. Regarding the rejection for my newest entry IN TRANSIT which will open on Broadway within the next few weeks, I'm a bit confused as to reliable sources for IBDB.com as well as PLaybill.com are reliable sources and I did cite my entries. I added the production's own website. Should I wait until the show opens and then use The New York Times as a reliable source? Please advise.

Drew Sachs§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Sachs (talk • contribs) 20:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew Sachs, do you have any sources that discuss the 2004 and 2010 productions? As soon as you have sources more substantial than routine listings or announcements, and particularly if you can find mainstream critical reviews, then the draft can be accepted. You seem to be concentrating on the upcoming season, but the previous productions are what actually make the play already notable. I found a few reviews of the 2010 production - http://variety.com/2010/legit/news/in-transit-1117943794/ and http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/theater/reviews/06intransit.html With a bit more digging you might find sources about the 2004 festival production too. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roger,

I'm still a bit confused. I've cited Playbill.com that verifies the 2010 production. In addition, Wikipedia has an entry that verifies the 2004 production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Musical_Theatre_Festival . The fact that you found a source in "Variety" that verifies the information should be enough, yet you've stating to me, "With a bit more digging you might find sources about the 2004 festival production too." At this point, this is feeling a bit more academic, when all I'm trying to do is document a production with reliable sources to enhance the website. I'm not sure I'm willing to put that much more energy into a short article about a new musical, that's already been cited. So, if the article isn't up to your standards you can delete at this point. Respectfully, Drew Sachs

Andrew Sachs (talk) 02:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Drew Sachs[reply]

05:13:14, 21 November 2016 review of submission by 103.255.4.18


Hello sir i request you to please review the article as it is not any sort of advertisement or any other it is a very good company in Pakistan they do very good rojects people love them for their work.Pakistan first mass transit Metro Bus and Train are projects of Habib Construction.please make sure to open my article

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dodger67. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Annette Elizabeth Clark

I hope I'm putting this in the correct place. If not, please tell me where to write it.

I have a number of questions to ask you. The first is about Conflict of Interest. The page on CoI says one shouldn't write about family. I am Elizabeth Clark's great niece and I have the copyright to her work, it was passed on to me by the previous copyright holder by means pf a 'Deed of Gift'. As a consequence I also hold her archive.

I absolutely understand the need for more citations and many I can provide. Indeed I have been through the British Newspaper Archive (BNA)from 1912 to 1951 which provided a number references to her. And the BBC sound archive shows how she herself was telling her stories on children's programmes 1924-25 (sadly no recordings though). Many other things I can clear up on this front. Except sadly the ES article which she used in publicity material and omitted the year although she did include the day and month cannot be found in the BNA; the ES archives are absent for the period I think it was published 1912-1915. I have written to the BNA to ask if they know anything about the absence of these back copies.

Other matters clearly need resolution like what appear to be my opinions on her work, but I think the first thing we must resolve is the matter of possible Conflict of Interest.

There is a renewed interest in her work in the UK and in Germany; there have been three new publications of her stories this year. A number of people have urged me to write this entry in Wikipaedia. Nobody else is going to provide it. It would seem retrograde if we can't find some way of including it.Pogga D (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pogga D, first rule of referencing - if a source is not available to the public in a library or archive collection, it cannot be used. So it may be necessary to trim some of the detail currently in the draft if it is not verifiable. Have you considered donating your documents to a library, archive or university? As far as filtering COI, one tip is to avoid adjectives as far as possible - if it's not really necessary, kill it. I'd be happy to assist you further, so if you need more advice, you now know where to find me. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It'll be a few days before I get it all done, I'll contact you if I need more help. Can I show you again before requesting another review?Pogga D (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. BTW is she better known as Elizabeth Clarke or Annette Elizabeth Clarke? It seems that at least as far as her books are concerned she dropped her first name. If that is the case we should change the article title (but not the intro, as that is supposed to state the subject's full name). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi She's much better known as Elizabeth Clark (no 'e' on the end of Clark). Her 'trade' name was definitely 'Elizabeth Clark'.I'll change the article title now. I will presumably have to put an entry in a disambiguation page when the time comes.

I've a couple of questions. The first is about letters in my possession, and not available to the public. I guess you're saying that they can't be used. Is that correct?

The second is a technical question about referencing. I copied this from the Introduction to Referencing "Often you will want to use the same source more than once in an article to cite multiple facts. In this case, you can click the clipboard labelled "Named references" in the toolbar, and select a previously added source to re-use." I can't see the clipboard labelled "Named references" Pogga D (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC) Whoops! I can't see how I can change the article title. Does somebody else have to do that for me?Pogga D (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dodger67&oldid=751020564"