Jump to content

User talk:Dodger67

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CFamal2014 (talk | contribs) at 17:19, 2 September 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Aubrey Jacobs

Hi Roger. Could you please advise what is the appropriate action for this largely unsourced orphan article? The only source that seems to work is a primary source. I picked it up as the creator posted some other original research which has been tagged once as unsourced and removed twice by other editors. HelenOnline 14:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Helen, I took just a quick look at it, I think just take it to AFD as a non-notable bio. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks, I hope I did it correctly (created and listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aubrey Jacobs and notified the creator). HelenOnline 09:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation / Alan Amory

Dear Reviewer After your comments in January 2014, I added proof that Alan Amory is an esteemed researcher. I did resubmit the article then, but also did it again on 1 July 2014. Can you please let me know if I need to add anything else and if the article is still to be reviewed again? Thank you Kind regards Retha Bosman Rethabosman (talk) 07:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Retha, I have restored the review history and submitted it for another review. You should take a look at the WP:PROF guidelines for the notability of academics. I see your draft is lacking independent references about Amory - has any mainstream news media, magazine or journal ever written about him? If you need further assistance I'm sure the members of WP:WikiProject South Africa would be willing to help you. I'm going to be travellling during the next day or two - from the chilly Free State to the icy Karoo! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Roger

Thank you for the response. Do I understand correctly that the article is still going to be reviewed anyway?

Enjoy the Karoo - it is my favourite place. Kind regards Retha Rethabosman (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Retha, Yes I submitted it for another review on your behalf, in one of your previous edits you somehow managed to delete all the existing review templates, I put them back and resubmitted it. I found a brief bio of Amory, from a source outside of UJ - http://www.aace.org/conf/edmedia/speakers/archived/amory.htm - hope it's useful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Roger Thanks for all your help - much appreciated. Kind regards Retha Rethabosman (talk) 09:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15:13:33, 7 July 2014 review of submission by Davidroxdel0

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

The Author of the alternative investments book, Stephen Todd Walker, has been informed about this Wikipedia page and has given his consent for me to publish this page about him.

Davidroxdel0 (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davidroxdel0, the subject's consent is not neccessary. The rules governing biographies of living people requires that only previously published information may be included in such articles thus privacy issues are avoided. I see you have written a lead as I suggested in the review I did. If you're happy with the text please resubmit it - the blue button in the pink previous review template. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disability style guide

I am very grateful to you for creating the style guide draft, directing my attention to it, and for all the work done on it. I just want to give you a heads-up that an admin has recently proposed possibly issuing me a 6-month ban. The reasons are pretty silly, but just in case it actually happens, I want to ask you to please continue the work without me, as there aren't many others doing so. If it's still not in a presentable state after 6 months, I'll be happy to start working again. Muffinator (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Muffinator, I've been busy with university exams and then family committments, and an AFC backlog drive. It's on my to-do list when I get back into my normal routine, hopefully by this weekend. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, Thanks for your comments on the above mentioned page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:IQTELL) Can you please me a bit further.

This is web, iOS and Android app. It is covered and mentioned by leading tech bloggers. There are usually no other references or citations for similar apps.

I noticed other pages, (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_(application)) which have been approved with similar citations; this is just one example.

Thanks for your help, and really looking forward to your help.

Sjf1977 (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11:11:42, 8 July 2014 review of submission by Sjf1977


Hope you can help. The post is indented to provide facts about the apps capabilities and functionality.

I have read the guidelines and seems to have noticed similar wiki pages from other apps. Hope you can help me as I'd like to edit the article but having re-read it several times, not sure what to remove and what language to change to make it more factual.

thanks for your help Sjf1977 (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leaflet For Wikiproject Disability At Wikimania 2014

Hi,
You asked on the Wikimania Project Leaflets talk page regarding the next step. First of all, the deadline for leaflet submissions was 1st July. That said, the leaflets have not gone to print yet. As such I can confirm that your leaflet will still show up at Wikipedia.
What happens next is that our designers will go and design the leaflet. After it is designed, the copy will be signed off and the leaflet will be taken to print.
Hope that helps. Adikhajuria (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Adikhajuria, thanks. I didn't notice any mention of a deadline, hope it will get included anyway. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that it will be included. They are going to be taking the leaflets to the printers on Monday 14th July. Adikhajuria (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Adikhajuria, We're a small project and this opportunity to recruit new members is much appreciated. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Alan Amory page

Thanks, Roger, I am working on finding some newspaper articles on him. I will let you know if I need more help. Enjoy the Karoo. Rethabosman (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Who are these people and how is any of this relevant to a South African based company?"

The content and corresponding citation clearly state who "these people" are and the relevance to Nandos is readily apparent. I will also post this to the Talk page. Thanks.--Soulparadox (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at the article talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interview request.

Hi Roger,

I'm looking to interview someone from WikiProject Disability for an article on joereddington.com similar to this one: http://joereddington.com/2574/2014/03/05/ian-thompson/ (or even the slightly more unusual http://joereddington.com/2378/2014/02/19/interview-tuppy-owens-specialist-in-sex-and-disability/) - and you are the obvious candidate by talk page contributions alone. Would you be willing to be interviewed?

J (if you could reply via joe@joereddington.com that would make my life much easier :) )

06:29:20, 17 July 2014 review of submission by Jonkmanskas


The author discussed in my article was a well-known and respected person in South Africa and Europe. Her books have been (and are still) read by many (I'm talking about thousands) in many countries. It would appear that there is a renewed interest in her books, locally as well as internationally (as you can see on Google and other websites). There are also renewed plans to reissue some of her books. I realise Google is a cheap thrill and I did not expect that those links would serve as references. However, please guide me on how to provide the references that Wikipedia requires. I have most of the books that De Ferrieres wrote and I have contact with her family who inherited all her possessions and photos + consent to place images on Wikipedia. I gathered most of the information in my article from her autobiography (titled Al bruis die Jordaan) which she published after her return from Europe. All the facts and statements come from her autobiography and from discussions I had with persons who were children at the time when she became well-known. I can assure Wikipedia that this is a relevant topic that will be appreciated by the public. Currently, there is nothing on the internet about the author, only her books. Concerning citing the books, indeed, I will do that, but am confused by the template that pops up in the editing document when citing a book. There are no guidelines as to what information is required in the boxes. Is there somewhere where I can gain info on that matter? Or, since you are South African, is there perhaps a way in which I may contact you so that we could discuss the procedure?

Jonkmanskas (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonkmanskas To cite a book use the "Cite book" option and fill in as much of the information as you can. It will end up looking like this: {{cite book |last= (author's surname)|first= (author's first name) |date= (publication date, usually the same as the copyright date, but not if it's a reprint) |title= |url= (only if it is an online book) |location= (city where it was published) |publisher= |page= (the page you're referencing) |isbn= (if it has one)}}. If you don't have a bit of information leave it blank, someone might be able to add it in future. By the way, ISBN only came into use during the 1970s so earlier publications won't have them.
You can use her autobiography for the basic facts about her life. You can't use it for opinions about her or her work. The autobiography is also not usable to prove that she is notable - for that you need completely independent sources that discuss her and her work in some depth - look for magazine or news articles or books by other authors that discuss her and her work. This is the main barrier your draft still needs to get over.
You cannot use anything that was personally told to you by anyone - all information in Wikipedia articles must be from previously published sources - interviews with her family and associates are completely useless - sorry. In fact it is actually a problem that you even know those people at all, because now you have knowledge that cannot be used, which complicates your writing. But we can overcome this, I can help you to "filter" your writing as I know absolutely nothing about de Ferrières, so I can go through the text closely and ask you questions such as "who said that?", "where did you find that?", "how do you know this?". This way we might be able to produce an acceptable article. However if your only published sources about her are the books she wrote then we're in trouble - so go look for those news or magazine articles - her relatives might even have kept cuttings.
Another problem in the current draft is the many claims that she or her work was "important" or "great" etc. All such opinions must be from third party independent published sources. Your own opinion of her is irrelevant, you must write neutrally and factually.
I'm afraid this is quite a challenge, are you up for it? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

06:49:46, 17 July 2014 review of submission by Jonkmanskas


Further to my previous message to the reviewer. I received the following message from Wikipedia <no-reply-notifications@wikipedia.org> QUOTE: 120.192.249.31 left a message on your talk page in "Hello". Due to your use of open proxies to insert hate speech into articles, your local law enforcement has been notified and criminal charges will be file... UNQUOTE I have not used any hate speech and suspect that this message is a hoax. However, I am concerned that the content of my article has been altered by hackers, thereby rendering it unsuitable.


Jonkmanskas (talk) 06:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The message from 120.192.249.31 has been confirmed as a hoax and the IP has been blocked, so nothing to worry about. I checked the history of your draft article - only you, myself and other reviewers familiar to me, have edited the page, so no problem there either. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

No problem at all, I have been cleaning up the article and the exact status of the flag only became clear towards the end. Quite interesting actually. HelenOnline 13:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16:13:18, 19 July 2014 review of submission by 174.48.96.148


174.48.96.148 (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] 

Hi there,

My article for creation for Geoffrey C. Smith was recently declined. Can you perhaps provide any insight as to what the issue may be so that I can make any prompt corrections that need to be completed? Any input would be much appreciated!

Read the review at the top of the Draft page and follow the links provided. You need to use proper inline citations because your draft is about a living person. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14:55:35, 21 July 2014 review of submission by Tayetaye

I was wondering if you'd be able/willing to rereview this page and give any feedback or tips for betterment. Thanks.

Tayetaye (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tayetaye, do you have a question or request for me? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AIRCA

Hi, I had sent you earlier an e-mail using the link on the left. But here it is again: Thanks again for your offer to help. You are most welcome to change whatever you like! I was also surprised why not more farming stuff is on wiki, but I guess some of us are not very IT savvy and afraid of the work involved in getting something out there.

Best regards from Nairobi and thanks again, Marita

Just checked my email - got it! Nairobi - I'm jeasous! Wish I could get there, it's horribly cold right now in South Africa and I hate cold weather! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nairobi 15 Celsius this morning and a grey and miserable day. Coast is warmer but has a few security problem nowadays... You should come visit one day - saw on your page that you may have limited mobility, but there is a few lodges etc that cater for tourist with different needs. My husband and I were seriously thinking of opening a safari business in that niche, and one day we may still do it.

Hi! I have not even understood how this talk page business works, and have posted the following answer on mine, but am not sure whether you get notified when I write on mine, so here again: Good morning, thanks for your message. I'm afraid there is nothing (yet) in the mainstream news. The only AIRCA references that I have which are not by any of my members is the one from FAO and the one from GFAR (Global Forum for Agriculture Research). The one on Sci Dev is probably indeed the copy of a press release of one of our members. Another one I found is from Papua New Guinea http://www.nari.org.pg/node/228 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marita Dieling (talk • contribs) 07:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

22:15:05, 24 July 2014 review of submission by JeremyMalies


Re article about 'Traka plc' - have removed the 'multiple vague assertions' which the reviewer highlighted in the previous draft. Have increased number of citations to reputable trade journals that support the statements being made. Have shortened article generally. Am mentioning fewer employees by name. I hope the article now reads much less like an advert. JeremyMalies (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC) JeremyMalies (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)JeremyMalies[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks thanks thanks for all your help! Much appreciated. Marita Dieling (talk) 09:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'd like to give you a little advice, now that the article is "launched" - you need to take a step back and let it develop as other editors find sources and change the content accordingly. Neither you personally nor AIRCA have a right to control the article content, see WP:OWN. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for promotion. If you have some spare time you might like to take a look at WP:WikiProject Agriculture and join in the general editing a little distance away from the AIRCA article. (BTW, I've just created a redirect for the acronym so that it links to the article.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

09:52:32, 28 July 2014 review of submission by CFamal2014


Hi Dodger67, my article was rejected, however I already made alterations according to your comment. So, I'm kindly requesting a review, since I really would like to see this article included in the wikipedia. If anything else needs to be changed, please let know, and I'll do it. Thank you so much, 'cause I am new in Wikipedia and am finding it a little difficult to use. CFamal2014 09:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CFamal2014 (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CFamal2014 - You have not actually fixed the problem. The issue is that the draft has no independent reliable sources such as articles in mainstream news or magazines, or the scientific literature. All the references you currently have are from companies and institutions that are directly involved in the project. Wikipedia needs to see that someone who has no connection to the subject at all (such as a journalist or academic) has written about it in significant detail. You could look for articles about the project in engineering or transport technology magazines or academic journals - perhaps business news sources may also have some useful articles. You can get more specialist advice from WP:WikiProject Engineering or WP:WikiProject Transport - someone there might know of good sources for the article.
When you have added references from such sources please resubmit the draft for another review - use the blue button in the pink review box at the top of the page. (I fixed the box for you - a starting bracket was accidentally deleted which "broke" the template.) Hope this helps Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again! Thanks for your answer...I'll check if there's something about this project on independent sources, and then I'll make the new alterations. Thanks again for your help (I really have a lot to learn in wikipedia!) :) CFamal2014 11:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.23.102.92 (talk) [reply]

From Nitinkirloskar_forbesmarshall

Hi Dodger67... Our article was declined by you sometime back. Based on the suggestions received by many experts from wikipedia chat forum, we have made all the changes & have got comments from one of them that the article now looks fine. Can you please review this & accept it, so that it can be made live. Nitinkirloskar forbesmarshall (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nitinkirloskar forbesmarshall - I would prefer not review it again. It is better that a different reviewer does the next review, so that the draft does not become distorted by the opinions and biases of a single reviewer returning to it multiple times. It is correctly submitted so someone will review it in due course. (BTW, please post new topics to the bottom of talk pages, as they run in chronological order.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

13:20:16, 28 July 2014 review of submission by JayareUK


Hello Dodger67. Thanks for your very quick review - I only submitted on Wednesday. I understand your point and it is something I thought about during drafting. There are alternative titles but 'SkyWrap' appealed to me because it is short and likely to be the search term used by someone looking for information on the subject. SkyWrap is a brand name but like nylon, hoover, kleenex and so on, the name has come to represent the product. Other possible titles: 'Wrapped cable' is not specific to the technology; 'wrapped cables on overhead power lines' or 'wrapped fibre optic cables on overhead power lines' are very long-winded and would not be used as a search term; 'OPAC' or 'Optical Attached Cable' is the best generic description of the technology but is almost entirely unused outside a few individuals and unlikely to be used as a search term. 'Wrap-on cables', 'helically-applied cables', 'GWWOP', 'attached cables' are all names that are used here and there but not with the regularity of SkyWrap.

I would prefer to stick with 'SkyWrap' but if you insist then I think it would have to become 'wrapped cables on overhead power lines'. Is this going to meet your requirement? JayareUK (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JayareUK, I think it may be useful for you to discuss the issue with other editors who have experience in the subject area over at WP:WikiProject Telecommunications, they might be able to help resolve the article title and scope problem. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFC reminder

I happened to see that you declined an AFC over ref formatting in 2013. That's practically ancient history, but I thought I'd take a minute to say that's technically not a reason for declining submissions just in case you hadn't already come to this conclusion since then (and maybe just a little bit in the hope that any talk page stalkers would also learn this  ;-). If you're interested, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#General standards and invalid reasons for declining a submission for details. Otherwise, no worries: it was a long time ago. Happy editing, WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed a long time and many thousands of reviews ago. I certainly hope the quality of my reviewing has improved since then. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

05:43:00, 29 July 2014 review of submission by Template:REVISION USER


Drdornadulasundarram (talk) 05:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14:27:00, 29 July 2014 review of submission by Gerald A Wiggins


Gerald A Wiggins (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I would like to know if this article is any better than the one that was created..What can I do to make it more acceptable?

Gerald A. Wiggins (born April 8, 1967 in Harlem, New York. An is an American music executive, entrepreneur, and film producer.


Biography

Gerald Anthony Wiggins was born in Harlem, New York to Gertrude Wiggins. Gerald new from a young age that music was what he wanted to do with his life. Wiggins is the youngest of six children. He attended middle school and high school in Harlem New York Until attending Columbia University in New York, NY in 1987. In New York Wiggins worked as a security officer to pay tuition while attended classes at the prestigious school. Wiggins began his music conquest in the early 1990's as a manager and promoter for the famous Sweet Waters venue for it's record industry night in New York working alongside mentor Gene Lewis.

Wiggins cites the universal sounds of Motown as his main influence. Wiggins was once quoted saying "Music saved my life, it gave me something to work towards". Wiggins has been influenced by such acts as Micheal Jackson, The Beatles, Paul McCartney, Marvin Gaye and Barry Gordy. While attending Columbia University Wiggins soon there after realized that music was what he wanted to do. Soon after with close friends Wiggins formed the group the "Funk Children" putting out the record "El Kaboki".


True Life Entertainment Inc.

Soon After Gerald realized that there was more to music then just putting out records. As a product of Harlem Wiggins knew there was more, thus inspiring the creation of True Life Entertainment Inc. A company founded by Wiggins and business partner "Edmund Packhaber". In the Spring if 2006 True Life Entertainment Released the title "Secret Ellington". Secrets was a project developed on the unreleased material of Jazz Legend and Icon "Duke Ellington".


Wiggins Music Group Distribution Inc.

In 2006 Wiggins Co-Founded Wiggins Media Group Worldwide, (WMGW) Inc. Wiggins's Production and Distribution credits include releases from artists such as The Jazz Crusaders, Duke Ellington, Grover Washington Jr., Bishop David G. Evans and Legendary hip hop artists Just Ice, KRS-1, and Keith Murray, as well as being Executive Producer for releases from Rock and Roll Hall of Fame members Ben E. King, Martha Reeves, and Solomon Burke.


The text above has no references, the version at Gerald A Wiggins also has no references. Without references it will never be acceptable - see Referencing for beginners for guidance. You also need to read WP:Autobiography, WP:Notability and WP:COI before continuing. If after reading these guides and policies you decide to go ahead, and after you have added suitable references, please submit the page for review by placing the code:{{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

07:49:21, 30 July 2014 review of submission by Jonkmanskas


Thank you Dodger67 for directing me on how to properly process the reference templates. I hope that they are now correct. I would appreciate any further assistance from you with regard to my article. I would also like to point out that most of the facts contained in my article are sourced from the author's autobiography titled Al bruis die Jordaan. The book is not yet listed in the OCLC records, however, I am in contact with their London office whose staff is currently in the process of including the book in their listings. Strangely, the book does not bear an ISBN number as it was written prior to ISBN numbering.

Jonkmanskas (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonkmanskas: - I see you've made a few changes to some of the citations, but you have not touched the really big problem yet - "Francois van Oudtshoorn" is not the author of those books and news articles - you did correct a few but then somehow you reversed the correction. ISBN only became common in the late 1970s, older books will not have them, so just leave it out of the reference. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doger67. This is why I mentioned the confusion locked in the cite and reference templates. Really, they're not user friendly. I'm sure I'm not the only one grappling with working out what goes where. When is it the name of the author (the subject in the article) and when is it the name of the person who cites the book, website or journal? What if the name of the writer of the news item in the website, journal or news item is not mentioned? I've now replaced the the name Francois van Oudtshoorn in all the cites and references, but am not sure whether I did the right thing or not. I left those spaces blank where I did not have the name of the journalist or writer who created the news items and journals, etc.

Jonkmanskas (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Jonkmanskas (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Jonkmanskas - If the news article or website page has no named author then just leave it out - as long as the article title, newspaper name, date and page number, is in the cite a reader can find it. The person who cites the book or news article is User:Jonkmanskas - as you are the writer of the Wikipedia page. You as the Wikipedia writer are never mentioned in the article's references - you are "cited" by the page history - just click on the "View history" tab of any page and you will see all the edits credited to whichever users did them.
Don't let the fact that your article is about an author confuse you - if you were writing about dog food you would never have a reference that calls "dog food" the author. The "history of dog food" book would have a named author but the government regulations and standards document for manufacturing dog food, or the supermarket group's website page that contains dog food sales statistics, will probably not have a named author so none will be included when citing such a source.
Of course when you are citing something that Sannie herself wrote (e.g. her autobiography) you would cite her as the author of the reference - but that's because she wrote the book you are referencing, it has nothing as such to do with the fact that the article is about her. Hope this helps Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

08:21:22, 31 July 2014 review of submission by British Wireless


Hi Roger, I presume that you are the person who reviewed my article, although this is not clear. Where do I find your review comments? Sorry, I am new to all this and am finding it a bit confusing. I could really do with your help to get it into shape and would value some assistance. British Wireless (talk) 08:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi British Wireless, the reviewis in the pink box at the top of the draft article Draft:British Wireless for the Blind Fund. Basically you need to find sources written by independent commentators (people who have no involvement with the subject - such as mainstream press journalists or historians) who have written in some depth about the fund and its activities in reliable published sources - such as mainstream newspapers, commercial or academic publishers - not vanity press or self publication, blogs, etc. There are links in the pink box to various guidelines and help pages. You might also ask WP:WikiProject Radio for some help or advice, that's where the editors with subject-specific experience hang out. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Roger, Have found your original comments now and together with the additional comments I now know what I need to do! 82.153.172.38 (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11:24:38, 31 July 2014 review of submission by Jonkmanskas


Hi Dodger67, my gut feel tells me my draft article is now hunky dory, but then I could be wrong. I replaced the two newspaper article cites, as well as two book cites. Please check if it is now correct. I'd hate my proposed article to be rejected in the end. I appreciate you guidance.

Oh, and by the way, congratulations with the AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar award.

Jonkmanskas (talk) 11:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Jonkmanskas (talk) 11:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC) 41.208.214.124 (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonkmanskas - you need to sprinkle many more references throughout the text, there are entire paragraphs without any cites. I presume most of the text was sourced from the autobiography, you should cite it at least at the end of each paragraph where it is the only source, while also citing other sources everywhere you used them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for You!

The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar

Congratulations, Dodger67! You're receiving the The Articles for Creation Barnstar because you got more than 175 points during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive in June 2014! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! (t) Josve05a (c) 23:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Dodger67. You have new messages at WP:RX.
Message added 08:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I am responding to your request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#I need help with a draft about a Tactical Data Link system. I think that the article (User:Dodger67/Sandbox/Link-ZA) is fine. Well done! Rather than developing it further just copy it across main space and then others can add any additional information or rebalance it etc once it is live. Instead you could "Submit your draft for review!" but I have never done so.

It would keep the muppets quieter if once it is live you put a link to it into a couple of other articles and also add a couple of categories at the bottom of the new article.

I will mention three point all of them trivial. If you publish it as is I would want to change the sentence:

"Because South Africa was not able to acquire the NATO standard Link-16 system an indigenous system was developed"

You are assuming that the reader will fill in the dots and that the "Link-ZA" is the system developed without explicitly stating so. Also I would start the sentence with "South Africa developed the Link-ZA, because ..." rather than starting the sentence with "Because". But [sic] that is a very minor point. The second one is why not write out the dates in the citations DAY MONTH YEAR or MONTH DAY, YEAR rather than using the ISO format? The third is that if you place all your "More promising sources" temporarily into ref tag pairs and run http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/view/Reflinks over them it will auto format them for you (use the interactive option). Once formatted you can then add them to "Further Reading" or "External links" section -- as they would be formatted inside {{cite web}} I would place them under "Further Reading", these resource may be of use to others who follow and want to develop the article further, although they will probably get culled down to fewer than you have listed.

Let me know if I can be of any assistance with this page or with anything else by placing a message on my talk page. -- PBS (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:PBS - Thanks, but you've misunderstood my request. I'm no newbie, I have logged over 40,000 edits and started about 30 articles on a wide variety of topics over the last seven years. I can write proper citations, add categories, wikilinks, infoboxes, etc, in my sleep. What I need help with is someone who has some understanding of the technicalities of tactical data links and can thus parse and paraphrase the sources in a meaningful way. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did misunderstand you (and I was puzzled your request because I could see you had a long history of edits). Because of the complications with edit history and copyright, I think you are better to put it into article space and then get others to edit it to add in more details. I think that the article as is is muppet proof as so it can be launched as a stub. -- PBS (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

06:10:34, 4 August 2014 review of submission by Jonkmanskas


Hi Dodger67, thanks for spending so much time on my draft article on JC de Ferrieres. I only read your message of 17 July now (don't know why I haven't before), hence, just a brief reassurance that I don't know the De Ferrieres from a bar of soap, nor anyone else who may be related to or acquainted with her family. I did manage to trace the grand daughter and grandson who promised to provide photographs, but they haven't come to the party as yet. The only sources from which I was able to extract information are the author's books, the websites, the news articles, the University of Johannesburg and the Pinsterboodskapper journals, and a few senior citizens who attended her Sunday school classes and read her books. No doubt, she was a highly respected person and, personally, judging from the admiration I picked up, I do believe that JC de Ferrieres is/was a notable personality that deserves a space in Wikipedia. I managed to get most of her books and have them in my possession. I know of several people that read her books and it's come to my attention that her books are still in demand in several countries. Concerning your remarks in your message of 17 July, thanks for offering to help me to get this article off the ground. I am open to any suggestions that you may have. I will continue to prompt the "powers that be" at the AFM for more news material and photographs which I can always add at a later stage, if necessary. So, as for your offer, I am ready. Pray tell [excuse the pun] what more I need to do. Brgds


Jonkmanskas (talk) 06:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC) Jonkmanskas (talk) 06:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonkmanskas: I think it's basically ready, so let's see what happens at the next AFC review. Because I've become so involved with it I can no longer do any formal reviews as my neutrality is compromised. In any case multiple opinions are preferred, rather than having just one reviewer, as their personal biases may unduly influence the article content, this can particularly be a problem with articles on politics, religion and sport. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

06:37:46, 4 August 2014 review of submission by HolyRebuked


I listed the reasons why I am notable. Firstly, the amount of music I have released warrants a wikipedia entry which is verifiable and by a third party (BMI) [1]. Unfortunately, the sources that would allow me the citations required are either private or are updated frequently. My BMI is registered under my legal name, as I am transgender (which was NOT relevant to the page, due to the Wikipedia guidelines regarding gender identity). These sources include radio setlists, rights management organizations, and publications on twitter are ones that I do not own and have little access to (with the exception of BMI). I have worked to alleviate this lack of citation and have changed my citations as follows:

-Adding BMI Repertoire search results (citation listed in above paragraph) (one of the recommended citations per "Music") -Adding third party news citations (archival)(fact checking would require clicking my link; Satisfies #1 main heading, #5 "Other" heading) -Adding citation for radio airplay (I will be contacting the radio station to inquire regarding the availability of archival set lists for citation) -Adding ReverbNation Charting citations (will correct once it updates my city back to Lincoln) (satisfies #7 main heading) -Deleting some content on my submission (Self inflation) -Adding Singles section to discography and website citation. ( I'm not trying to make your life more difficult, it is just new and I fully plan on keeping this page up to date once it has been approved either by myself or a via a representative.)

Also I did review the criteria for music notability[2]. Again. I would like to point out that I did, of course, review the criteria, made absolutely sure I met said criteria, and debated long and hard on whether a Wikipedia page was right for me before I even began the process of creating one. Also, as I state above, the third party publication proves that I meet criteria number five under the "Other" criteria, the ReverbNation charting provides proof I meet criteria number seven for the main heading, and the first criteria by way of third party publication (due to the frequency of my inclusion which is more than three times per month, generally.). I have been number one in my specific genre (Dubstep, which is one of the categories I have categorized my listing under) for a considerable amount of time. I also continue to hold the charting spot in spite of having moved (i.e. I am number one in dubstep not only in my CITY but in my STATE).

Thank you for re-reviewing my article submission. Have a pleasant day.

References

  1. ^ http://repertoire.bmi.com/writer.asp?fromrow=1&torow=25&keyname=CALADRIUS%20JACE%20ANDREW&querytype=WriterID&keyid=550284837&page=1&blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&affiliation=BMI&cae=703138283. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MUSIC. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

HolyRebuked (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HolyRebuked (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:HolyRebuked - The changes you've made look good. Let's wait and see what the next reviewer thinks. It won't be me, at AFC multiple opinions are preferred. If a single reviewer keeps coming back to the same draft the reviewer's personal biases may end up affecting the content of the draft. BTW have you read WP:PSCOI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY yet? They contain some good advice for an editor in your situation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

07:45:52, 4 August 2014 review of submission by HolyRebuked


Thanks for those! I know there is a CoI involved here. I actually requested feedback before I really started writing the article. Unfortunately, none was forthcoming. Considering you brought up CoI and Autobiographical Wikipedia entries, might you have a POV or feedback about my article? I really did intend it to be impartial and as the articles you shared say, feedback is golden. I don't want the article and all that citing being wasted due to impartiality.

My point with the article was to allow other people (without a firm background in music composition) to have a reference as to the elements of my music as well as insight into my on going career from a unbiased point of view. I have been a musician since I was 15 (I'm nearly 30 now) and in that time I have never been a notable one (until lately. About April of this year actually.) I fully expect many many edits to this article. I hope there are edits to maintain accuracy. I hope that someone takes the time to do the research, cite their sources, and correct my mistakes. I created this draft because I am a big fan of informational availability and I figure maybe someone has seen an article or something that I haven't that could be cited and added to this.

[A funny little anecdote about the article regarding COI and Autobiographical content actually:

I was and am fully intending to update it should I ever get into trouble legally or if an album goes gold (if someone doesn't do it first [please, by all means, do it. I'd actually prefer someone else do it because of the natural predilection towards bias!{also I really hope my music doesn't go gold because likely that will mean I've sold out}]) regardless of how it makes me look. (Facts are facts. I value Wikipedia greatly and read articles nearly every week for pure entertainment.)

Might not be funny to you but I find it hilarious.]

HolyRebuked (talk) 07:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HolyRebuked (talk) 07:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time has passed...

Roger, are you still thinking of applying to be an admin? I wasn't sure from your reply last time I asked whether you wanted me to put your name forward or not; you mention asking someone else. I haven't had much experience at RfA, but I will be glad to do it if you don't have someone else in mind; it's your call. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anne I'm definitely still interested, just not this week. I'm hideously busy with university work - no time for the RFA inquisition! There's some space in my schedule later this month. If you could prepare a nomination for 17 August that would fit perfectly. I'm not going to bother with a second nominator, unless you think it's essential. Thanks for remembering this. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine - it will give me time to figure out how to do it. While I'm no longer involved in formal education, I remember how hectic it could be at times. I had a period like that last year when I offered to be the editor of a 250 page syllabus for a three day conference for 600 people, and then somehow ended up being the conference chair and then in charge of the food as well! —Anne Delong (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anne, can we postpone to the 20th - I'll be away from home 17-19 August. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What? You have a life outside of Wikipedia? Hmmm... —Anne Delong (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Roger, I have been working on your nomination. It's here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dodger67. The page format looks a little strange, so I have asked for help to make sure it's the way it should be. You can start answering the questions; if there is any problem with the format I will fix it before transclusion. It's a good thing you asked for a delay; on the 17th I might have found the total lack of internet access at the Bluegrass festival somewhat of a problem. Let me know when you are ready to go. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I got the formatting problem fixed. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Anne, please take a look at my first draft answers and critique them before we "go live" with the inquisition. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Roger (Dodger67), I've been sleeping... I have a couple of suggestions, and you can do what you want with them. (1) We are disagreeing about the number of article that you have created. I was using this data. For consistency's sake, one of us should change (2) I was going to say something about your statement about adding POV, which is a loaded acronym, but I see that you have changed it to 'voices'. Other neutral yet descriptive words might be 'aspects', 'dimensions', 'elements'. (3) I think you should be more specific about how admin tools could help with Wikignome activities; after reading the WP:Wikignome article, I can't think of anything. However, as a new admin, there are a couple of things that come to mind, and if you think you would do these you may want to include them: it's handy to be able to see deleted versions of articles and to restore deleted pages when participating at AfC, AfD and G13 refund. One last thing - you mention "observing" how to do administrative tasks - you may or may not want to add something about asking for advice from experienced admins. That's all I see; feel free to ignore if my suggestions don't 'fit'. I was going to take issue with your spelling of 'nett', but it seems it's in the dictionary even though I've never seen it spelled that way before. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Anne - responding to your points: (1) I used the list I maintain on my user page - "about 40" created articles seems to be ok - the xtools list credits me with two more than my own list. (2) changed (3) thanks for this, I don't actually know what's in the admin toolbox so your experience is helpful. (The "net/nett" difference is simply ENGVAR.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Roger, is it good to go? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anne, yes I'm ready. It's early evening here so I'll be able to stay on top of further questions for the next 5 or 6 hours before I go to bed. AIUI the initial flurry of activity after "launch" is quite critical for success. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as you can see, I finally got it going - sorry for the messy start - would you believe I at one time wrote software professionally? Do you want a {{RfX-notice|a}} on your user page? You seem to be off to a good start. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unident Anne - I was just about to ask you if it is acceptable to mention it on my user page. Thanks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robbie Glover

You declined this one - I tweaked it a bit and found some more refs to add - is there anything in particular that you don't like? I don't want to just keeping guessing, tweaking, and submitting. Thanks for your time. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Ronhjones - I took a quick look before going off to bed... I noticed a few relatively minor issues: You refer to the subject by his first name. The style guide for biographies (WP:MOSBIO) requires that after the initial introduction when the full name is stated, subsequent mentions should use the surname only. It's the formal style that an encyclopedia requires. The references you've added look good except for one noticeable error. You have one newspaper reference that doesn't mention the article title, it also has a URL with a "note" that the article is not available on the website - in that case the URL is pointless, take it out and also the accessdate which is only relevant for website references (use the {{Cite news}} template). Fixing these minor issues will "polish up" the draft quite nicely. It looks to me like the draft should have a fairly good chance of being accepted at the next review - but don't hold me to it, I'm tired and off to bed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that - I'll start editing. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

22:08:12, 6 August 2014 review of submission by Csboes


Csboes (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first article and I am very confused about references and citations and I am not even sure how to use this talk page. 

I think I may ask just one question at a time.

Are links to other Wikipedia Articles considered to be references? Csboes (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Csboes - No Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything, because people just like you and me wrote it. Also excluded are: Facebook; Twitter and similar social media; personal emails; "I was there"; "my dad/boss/cousin/roommate/guy-on-the-street-corner told me", most blogs (the exception is if the author is a well known expert on the subject - "Einstein blogging about relativity - acceptable", "Einstein writing about tax law - not acceptable", "Some guy writing about relativity - not acceptable"); any other wiki; readers comments on otherwise reliable websites such as news media; any website where content can be added or edited by random readers without first being approved by editors; most self-published books. See WP:Identifying reliable sources for further guidance and if you are unsure about a specific source you can get advice at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pluvinergy

I am the author of Pluvinergy and so am not allowed to post the article. Thanks for looking at it though. It would be good if someone posted something to the effect of the article. People like the simplicity, and quality control of Wikipedia. It is a better source than a web page dedicated to the subject. I made some contributions to improve the references to updraft and downdraft engine concepts, but much more is needed, especially the Vortex engine page. These technologies are poorly understood because they are not correctly represented by their proponents. The material offered is more promotional than analytical. Pluvinergy was written with the specific objective of not falling in love with, and being rigidly dedicated to any idea. This is what happens when people patent an idea. They become emotionally unable to accept criticism. A book is different, in that it is an argument open to counter-arguments. That is valuable for a new technology. The content on those subjects in Wikipedia seems to be directly or indirectly from such sources and needs a lot of correction. That is why it would be good to look at Pluvinergy, it shows the weaknesses of each concept. Downdraft engines create a terrible amount of humidity, and a large river of brine. The updraft is too expensive, and too much of a target for malevolent attack, or natural catastrophe. The Vortex concept is incomplete, incorrect, and way under-scale, for what it claims to be able to do. As I have time I will make the case for each of these arguments on those pages, it will add credibility to the claims the technologies make, even though it seems to degrade them. In the meantime perhaps there is a way to get someone to understand and post something on Pluvinergy. PluviAl (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry PluviAl, but I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Maybe your comment should be posted on a relevant article talk page, or perhaps WP:WikiProject Engineering could help you, or maybe WP:WikiProject Physics is more suitable, I'm not sure. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16:13:34, 8 August 2014 review of submission by GeoffreySmithGalleries


GeoffreySmithGalleries (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The initial problem with my article for submission was formatting regarding the citation section and the tone of neutrality throughout the article. The aforementioned issues have since been resolved, and the article has been submitted for review. Review of my article and (hopeful) subsequent approval would be greatly appreciated!

Hi GeoffreySmithGalleries - I see you've got the reference formatting right, but I'm afraid the tone is still far from neutral - you need to kill most of the adjectives.
Here's an example from your draft: "Encouraged by his success, Smith fully committed himself to his artistic work, and uniquely traveled the country for several years in a camper-van, selling his bronzes while establishing a name for himself."
I would rewrite it like this: "Smith took up art fulltime and traveled the country for several years in a camper-van, selling his bronzes while establishing his reputation."
See how I have stripped out everything that looks like the writer's (your) opinion. All opinions in Wikipedia articles must be explicitly cited to the person who expressed it, and preferably written as a direct quote. Only the published opinions of qualified commentators actually matter - in this case reputable art critics. We as Wikipedia writers should try not to introduce our opinions because to readers they end up looking like Wikipedia's opinions. As a matter of policy, Wikipedia itself never has an opinion at all about anything. BTW, I will not be doing the next review - we try to avoid having the same reviewer repeatedly dealing with a draft - because that may result in the reviewer's own biases being introduced into the article. Having different reviewers helps to even out such biases. I hope you find all this useful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, in your second reference the title of the magazine article is missing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping

See my comment at Draft:James Owen Lowe, I don't think this person is notable enough for a wikipedia article, I think it's puff piece advertising. I appreciate you pinging WP:EQUINE and hope my input was helpful (full disclosure: I know the Arabian breed rather well, there are a couple dozen people more well-known in the industry than this person and none of them have WP articles, though a couple might qualify.) Montanabw(talk) 07:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Montanabw Thanks for commenting. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected article about Krüss GmbH

Hi Dodger67 Thank you very much for your great contribution to Wikipedia and for reviewing my article about Krüss GmbH, which you have declined, unfortunately. The submitted article was a translation of the German article which was accepted in April 2014, so I saw no problems in translating them.

I see your point that it may appear like a commercial article, so, after your critique, I have changed and basically shortened the article. Since I had no public external sources for the current range of products and for further activities of the company as education programs etc., I deleted the concerning paragraphs.

As for the references used, I'd like to tell you that the two references of Krüss family members are not marketing material. Gerhard and Hugo Krüss were scientists, the reference is to a book they published 120 years ago. An article about Gerhard Krüss was already on the English Wikipedia before I started writing; I translated that one to German. The also quoted Andres Krüss wrote a chronicle of the history of the company and the Krüss family which is closely linked to the history of Hamburg. It is not more marketing material than Henry Ford's memoirs would be when writing about Ford.

Concerning relevance: I have not found clear relevance rules and regulations for articles about companies in the English Wikipedia. For the original article, I had checked the German Wikipedia rules for relevance which I had followed, stating that the company is the world market leader in its sector (with an external reference). The German relevance rules also say that there may be other reasons that make a company significant. I found it relevant and quite unique that the company's history goes back to 1796 and that it is family-owned since then. I don't think that there are many companies to which that applies.

I hope I could improve the article and make clear why I find the subject relevant; and I hope you do too when having read this.

Best regards, Frommsen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frommsen (talk • contribs) 12:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Frommsen - I took just a quick look, the improvements you've made look good. By the way the notability rules for companies are at WP:CORP. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to thank you for reviewing and editing the page I submitted for Lion's Heart. I have been editing pages and trying to learn how Wikipedia works in more detail- hands on guidance through seeing a page edited has made that much easier. I appreciate the time and effort! Absolutelyang (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Absolutelyang - The article still needs quite a bit of work, much of the content is unsourced, it needs many more references. Basically any statement or claim that can be disputed must be backed up by a reference. You can use the organization's own website or publications for "routine" information such as names of people involved, dates, etc. but anything controversial such as claims of recognition should be referenced to independent sources - use the actual content of the news articles you mention near the end to improve the article. Telling the world that a news article about the organization exists is not that interesting - you should tell us what the news article actually said about the organization. If the article discusses the organization's activities then you should use that article as a source for writing about those activities.
Please take care when you're writing not to use promotional language, maintain a neutral point of view and report just the dry facts - avoid unnecessary adjectives. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Golgatha and the Red Heifer

Please see comment here Draft_talk:Golgotha_and_the_Red_Heifer Jpacobb (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

rejected Megaseodrive/Naginskiy

Hi Roger!

As main source I use kremlin.ru - it's official site of President of Russia. Doesn't it reliable source? I understand worry about my username, but I can sure you it's not what you think. :) Also this article almost translate of the article in russian wiki.

Thank you.

Megaseodrive (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)megaseodrive[reply]

Hi Megaseodrive - the problem with the sources you have used is that they are not WP:Independent. The draft is about a senior government official and all your sources are from the government - you need to find sources that have no connection at all to the government, such as newspaper or other independent media articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Roger! I addes 3 more sources from newspapers, hope this can help. Megaseodrive (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nelly Kaplan

I have closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nelly Kaplan as "merge to Nelly Kaplan". Are you volunteering to do the merge? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnCD - I'm afraid I made a rather horrible mess of the last time I tried to do such a merge so I have asked for a volunteer at WT:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help#A draft sent to MFD needs to be merged. I'm a bit "once burned twice shy" of doing such merges. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hi Roger. Just in case the information is useful in the future, an "h-index" can be found on an academic's Google Scholar report. A person with an h-index of 10 has at least ten articles which have been cited ten times. Here's one for a young fellow just starting out: [1] (non-notable at present) and for an established, well cited professor:[2] and for a leader in his field: [3]. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anne, one of the truly great things about WP is that one learns something new every day. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whisperback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 09:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whisperback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 10:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay...

Hi Roger. in this archived discussion, you can read my question and the answer I received. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whisperback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 11:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

illegitimi non carborundum

If you don't recognize the pseudo Latin meaning, Google it. This too will pass, and one day soon you will find yourself laughing about these seven days. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirtlawyer1 - Is it really pseudo-Latin? I thought it's actually "proper" Latin. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per ardua ad astra Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Dodger67. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
@Dirtlawyer1 - I have not received the mail yet - I've checked my spam folder too, perhaps you should resend it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Roger, is your current email address r****c*****@g****.com? If not, you need to update your preferences -- I got a bounce-back message from the Wikimedia email server. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dirtlawyer1 - Yes that address is correct and active, the last movement on it was just over 30 minutes ago, so it's working. Now that you have my address you can mail me directly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For Your Information

Just a heads up. On June 19th, you accepted the submission of Technical Illusions. Virtually unchanged since its acceptance, it's currently being considered for deletion. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I'll sit this one out and just watch from the sidelines. I don't have a dog in that fight and the arguments, excluding the emotional appeals and bruised egos of course (see my comment on ego in the next topic below), seem quite close. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Hi, I was in the "oppose" column this time, but just wanted to let you know that I certainly hope to see you back in 6-12 months and am rather confident I'll be in the other column then! Good luck! --Randykitty (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Myself, I think 3 months would probably do, but there's been some opposition to doing that in the past, so suggest 6, and I probably will be willing to co-sponsor. I do hope to work with you successfully--there's at least 2 people I've strongly opposed in the past who are now close WP colleagues. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Six months strikes me as about right. Don't nominate anything for deletion, just participate at AfD and be sure to examine the way things close and why. Many people think that blocking buttons are the most sensitive administrative tool, but it's actually the article deletion button, in my view. Thanks for all your efforts at WP and keep at it — you're an outstanding administrative candidate, but there's that one issue to resolve first: really grasping AfD. best, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anne Delong, Kudpung, DGG, Randykitty, Carrite, Dirtlawyer1 (and anyone else who might be interested) - I've !voted on a few AFDs since yesterday, how am I doing so far?
Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You withdrawn RFA, and the note was really pleasing. DGG is correct again that you should try for adminship after 3 months - 6 months. You know you are a valuable member of en.wiki. Best of luck ! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Letting you know, ping only works when you have signed your message at the same time. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the existing signature and replaced it with a fresh "four tildes" - the timestamp now is later than your first reply above. That should have worked, but even if it didn't it's not a big deal. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember, these aren't "votes," they're "opinions" — and the main thing isn't whether a person is right or wrong, it's rather the rationale behind the decision. I'll offer my perspective on the above by chiming in on the debates and I'd encourage others to do likewise. Carrite (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Carrite- I suppose you probably missed the "!" prepended to the word "vote" - it's a "negating" symbol that apparently comes from some or other programming language - "!vote" (read as "not vote" because voting is evil) is a widely used "shorthand" way to refer to an opinion posted to a poll here on WP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You bowed out of your RfA very gracefully and the community will respect you even more for that. So don't worry - even the highly respected admin who did the actual close did not succeed on their first run. I look forward to seeing you run again but preferably not before 6 months. All the best, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I saw that my replies to the last few questions had no effect on the !voting trend I realized that holding on until the scheduled end would be pointless (and perhaps even pointy) so "switching off the life support" was clearly the best thing to do. I'm going to be far too busy over the next six months anyway to run another RfA. I'm in the thick of the final semester of my BA in Communication Science - if all goes well I graduate at the end of the year and thereafter I want to start on a post-grad diploma course in Disability Studies. In spite of the concerns I communicated privately to you Kudpung, it turned out to be a positive experience for me (so you can toss that mail in the trash). I try to leave my ego on the coatrack at the door when entering WP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - seeing as I have the attention of a few highly experienced Wikipedians here - I noticed that both "Communication Science" and "Disability Studies" are redirects to titles with the second word in lower case. As the phrases are the actual names of academic disciplines should the article titles not be as I wrote them - both words with capital initials? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Communism

It's already discussed within the article body. That section I deleted is just completely redundant. Seeing the intro and then a section right after the intro which says everything the intro says. Which, incidentally, is still discussed twice later on in the article. For example, the policy about war communism is explained in the History section, whereas the "higher phase" of communism is explained in the "Marxist communism" section, etc etc etc... Zozs (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Dyson

Hi. My first new submission was for American architect Arthur Dyson. Previously I have only edited existing articles. I think I know now what happened. I made a mistake by misunderstanding the article creation process. I copied the code out of my sandbox so I could start working on another article, and put the code in an article for creation. Subsequently, apparently, the sandbox article was reviewed by Linuxxx25 and because there was not any Dyson code there the submission was declined. Is there anyway for me to rescue this situation, or should I just wait for someone to review the draft, if it still exists? Sorry for the confusion. This has been a learning curve for me in more ways than one. Many thanks for your time.Bragdonite (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@.Bragdonite You don't have to do anything at all. The draft about Arthur Dyson is perfectly fine where it is - waiting for review. If you want to use your sandbox page for something new, just delete the now irrelevant review message before you begin - or I can delete it for you if you're unsure of doing it yourself. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Northern Celestial Hemisphere
added links pointing to Hemisphere, Context, Terrestrial and Projection

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

17:18:32, 02 September 2014 review of submission by CFamal2014


Hi Dodger67..my article was declined by you sometime ago. Unfortunately I was not able to return to this issue, but now I would like to do it and try to publish my article [ROADMARK]in wikipedia. Thanks for the suggestions, but unfortunately we (consortium) still don't have independent sources concerning this project, since this is recent and so far there are no publishable results or events, and thus no references in news, magazines or even scientific literature....Additionally, I noticed that are two similar projects (Osirys and Epiwork) in wikipedia that don't have independent sources! I would appreciate any further assistance that you could give me regarding to this issue, in order to resubmit my article. Thanks again CFamal2014 (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dodger67&oldid=623885306"