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 Chersiphron (talk | contribs) at 11:08, 28 August 2015 (→Review of submission by Chersiphron 09 August 2015: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Curious coding

Since you seem to be the only one around here who seems to be experienced and has an interest in the history of SA item, I trust you won't mind if I ask you for some insight (if any) re the curious form of citation coding used at SA Republic section. e.g. [1]: 224  which produces two differing sets of reference numbers.

Incidentally, in due course I'm going to trim substantially the Union of SA section -- (aside from all the OR it's convoluted and much much too long / has undue weight.

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Fairbridge was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Hello

Is there a good reason why you're not an admin? --Dweller (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dweller - Been there, done that, didn't get the t-shirt, thanks for asking. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just reviewed that. I loved your honesty and the calmness with which you went through that. I think you would stand an excellent chance of passing this time and if I took a little bit of time to review your contribs, and they stacked up with what I think they'll be like, I'd happily nominate you. --Dweller (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dweller - Anne Delong recently asked me to consider facing the inquisition again, so perhaps I should. However I have not actually done much AFD work as suggested at the failed RFA, I've been far too busy at AFC - which I consider to actually be superior evidence of knowing what constitutes an acceptable article. AFD is simplistic !voting and NPP (also suggested to me at the RFA) is IMHO merely semi-organised tag-bombing that I could do while half asleep. AFC doesn't simply shoot down unacceptable articles, like NPP does, or delete articles that could be fixed, as frequently happens at AFD. AFC actually helps newbies to improve their first attempts into fairly decent articles, thus a productive AFC reviewer demonstrates not only knowlege of what constitutes acceptable content but also shows the ability to guide and assist new editors to become regular Wikipedians. BTW, my CSD record is pretty good IMHO. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I've seen successful RfAs in the past where the candidate has said up front that they are content contributors, they have no real interest in AfD and deletion procedures and would not wish to use the delete button, but would like to, (eg) protect and unprotect or use other admin tools. The fact is, RfA is about whether the community trusts a user. If we'll trust a candidate with block and protect, why wouldn't we trust them not to use delete? --Dweller (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind if I asked DGG to weigh in here? If they could support your nomination, it would be a big help. --Dweller (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller Sure, if he's willing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked. --Dweller (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a look at your current work and at RfA1. You are not making the same errors, and you are doing good work in all respects. Considering my role in AfD1, I think it would be particularly appropriate for me to co-nominate. I rechecked some of the articles you nominated for deletion that were closed as keep, and by our current standards some of them should indeed not be kept--and I've listed a few for deletion by various processes. My advice would be first to participate a little more at some of the less obvious AfDs, and to start commenting at Deletion Review--not as much to prove you know what to do, but to raise visibility with people interested in this area. And then, in a month or two when you know you'll have time clear to deal with the questions, let me know so it can be synchronized. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DGG. I'll let you and Dweller and Anne Delong know when I'm ready to take on the inquisition again.
Sounds perfect. I'm happy you're not rushing - shows your not nuts about collecting hats - and even happier that I've persuaded you to go for it. --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ DGG, Dweller, Anne Delong - I have a very busy week or two (or even three!) ahead, so let's provisionally pencil it in for the last week of July. (I also have a pending GA nomination, there's no telling when that might start.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As an impartial guy, though one who is well aware of your longstanding and well-respected tenure at AfC, I'm happy to put my name as nominator or co-nominator on this. Your CSD log is fine, just one or two AfC submissions declined instead of G11 speedied - big deal. Art jewelry forum isn't a problem either - you couldn't find sources to improve it, other people managed to overhaul the article substantially, and I'm sure had you revisited the AfD you might have swapped your !vote to keep. Actually, it's a good example of article rescue,(quick wave to MelanieN) if you can dig out a few other bad AfD noms, improve them to a keep consensus, that should sort out any naysayers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
thank you Paulhus15 (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Paulhus15, thanks for the barnstar, please could you remind me what I did to deserve it. I can't remember doing anything unusual that intersected with you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you helped me over in the tea room area with my submission question and I appreciate it. It's been awhile since I did anything here so it was great to have your input. thanks again Paulhus15 (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help, thanks again. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Imperial Gift

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Imperial Gift you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomandjerry211 -- Tomandjerry211 (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The article Imperial Gift you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Imperial Gift for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomandjerry211 -- Tomandjerry211 (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
thank you always for your suggestions and input. So appreciated Paulhus15 (talk) 09:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help at Teahouse

Thanks for your help at the Teahouse. I am quite new here.PeterLFlomPhD (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:01:49, 23 July 2015 review of submission by HaastrupA


I have re:written and applied all the changes. It will be appreciated if you can give my article another look.

Many thanks.

HaastrupA (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC){{SAFESUBST:|}}[reply]

00:20:01, 25 July 2015 review of submission by Fodya


Fodya (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Dear Dodger67, I really do not understand the reasons why you've declined the submission about John Borstlap. You've commented" I have done quite a bit of cleaning up of this draft, correcting various layout problems, etc. but it still lacks many references. There are entire paragraphs without a single citation and even more problematic are the direct quotes that are unsourced" How do you mean "references"? Just take a look at the list of Dutch composers at Wikipedia. There are a lot of composers mentioned which don't have half a list of references mentioned on the submission about John Borstlap. So that's why I'll resubmit the draft.[reply]

Hi Fodya - Take a look at the first sentence, it contains two references; one after the word "composer" and the next one after "classical traditions". The information between the <ref> and </ref> codes is a reference. Now look at the "Early career" section - there are no references anywhere in that paragraph. You need to add references that directly support each of the substantive claims in the article, for example which source says he was educated at the Rotterdam conservatory? Find that source and put its details between ref codes after the statement about the conservatory, in the same way it has been done elsewhere. Then do it for every significant claim in the rest of the article. See the Referencing for beginners guide for more detail. If you'd like I can place "citation needed" tags at all the places where I think a reference is required - just let me know if I should do that. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Still I can't understand why you are that critical about this submission. Please look for instance at the Wiki page about other Dutch composers; i.e. Hendrik Andriessen,Louis Andriessen(just two references mentioned!!), Henk Badings, Kees van Baaren, Patrick van Deurzen (there's not a single reference mentioned!!), Douwe Eisenga, Klaas de Vries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fodya (talk • contribs) 09:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fodya - you are more than welcome to resubmit the draft so that a different reviewer will look at it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PROD versus BLPPROD

Hi, sorry, but you're mistaken. The rule for BLPPROD is not the same as for PROD. Once a BLPPROD tag has been posted, it is not permissible to remove it until the issue has been remedied. See WP:BLPPROD. (In the case of Hugo Chinchilla, I see that I may have not noticed that references were already there, in which case removing the BLPPROD was appropriate for that reason, and it was my mistake for not noticing.) If it is removed without the issue being remedied, then it's supposed to be restored. See WP:BLPPROD#Objecting. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@—Largo Plazo Thanks for the info. There seems to be an IP still editing it in Spanish, is that allowed? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's technically allowed. If someone were doing that repeatedly to a page in English even after being warned, I would call it disruptive editing. In this case, practically speaking I don't see any point in worrying about it. Either someone will start translating the article, in which case we can then call the user out on disruptive editing, or else it will disappear, in which case the edits made in the interim won't have mattered. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@—Largo Plazo That makes sense. Well I don't have anything else to add or edit on the page so I'll just be watching what happens to it, out of plain old curiosity. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your "thank you".

@Dodger67: I appreciate your kind "thank you" for my recent Wikipedia edits, and wanted to let you know. --- Professor JR (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Professor JR - I'm just sorry I can't really help you with the "due diligence" check as I am not familiar at all with most of the controversies. I'm South African, our news media doesn't report much detail about the Clintons since they moved out of the White House. I'm sure someone will step forward soon though, the article looks really worthwhile. Checking for possible BLP violations is one of the "prime directives" of the Articles for Creation process; it is in fact the main reason why AFC was instituted. The nature of your draft means it carries a high risk; just one missing or misplaced "alleged" and we could be in hot water! If there's anything else I can help you with, you know where to find me. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dodger67: Thank you very much. I appreciate it, and will review the article with that in mind. --- Professor JR (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 00:32:10, 28 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Puertorican52



Puertorican52 (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Patrick F. Matre

Hi. You left a note at Patrick F. Matre. I found the all caps "DO NOT" a bit bitey, and without signing, he probably wouldn't know how to respond. He has CIR issues and may not be able to constructively edit, but that is not the point. Also, the caution itself seems inappropriate. Lots of people make drafts at their userpage. I am not aware of any policy or guideline that says it is not permitted. Users are just encouraged to use their sandbox or draftspace. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak - I'll get back to you about this soon. Roger (Dodger67) (talk)
Hi Anna Frodesiak - Yes I did make a mistake with the "DO NOT", sorry. The problem with creating a draft on the main user page is technical rather than legalistic. Such a draft shares the User's personal Talk page, thus messages addressed to the user personally appear on the same page as Talk page matter related to the draft itself. When the draft is moved by someone who is not aware of the issue (or using the AFC review script), the User Talk page will be moved along with it - that will result in messages to a user appearing on the Talk page of an article - which is self-evidently absolutely unacceptable. I'm afraid the WP:User pages guideline is inadequate as it discusses "user pages" or "user space" in the collective sense and does not explicitly make an adequate distinction between the actual main user page and its sub-pages. In many cases seen at AFC naive users try to create and submit articles about themselves (WP:NOTRESUME violations) which, if done on the main user page are also technically violations of WP:FAKEARTICLE. (Sorry for taking so long to respond!) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply myself. I was out of town. I understand what you are saying. Thanks for getting back to me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving someone's sandbox to draftspace

Hi again. Sorry to bother you. Is there some new policy I do not know about? Why move a sandbox to a draftspace? Why not just tag it? And if you do, as you did here, why not let them know or welcome them or something? You just did it and moved on. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak It's standard practice to move sandbox drafts to Draft-space when it has been submitted to AFC for review. I am busy reviewing that draft now. The move leaves a redirect behind so finding it should not be a problem. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still find moving sandboxes to draft space quite unnecessary. If simply tagged, the six month clock starts ticking, so they don't get left in oblivious there. Anyhow, it's not a big deal either way. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Anna Frodesiak, you can take the matter up at AFC if you wish, I'm just following the established standard procedure. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I won't bother raising the issue. I just asked because I don't see any reason to spend the time. It doesn't seem to make any difference. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there are some definite advantages, Wikiproject tags can't be used in User-space. There is also a current discussion about improving reviews by attracting reviewers with subject-specific experience through sorting and categorising drafts by topic - which also cannot be done in userspace. You're a very experienced editor so your input may actually be useful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know we add wikiproject tags to drafts. Okay, so there's that. I'm very happy to hear about the sorting thing. I've pushed for that a few times at AfC, but it got no traction. Can you diff me? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Anna Frodesiak, the latest, and imho the most workable proposal so far, is WT:WikiProject Articles for creation#Categorizing AfC submissions?, but it still needs some refinement. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly. I just posted some links there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

09:27:03, 31 July 2015 review of submission by Addinwiki


Addinwiki (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Addinwiki - the draft does not currently demonstrate that the subject is notable in terms of the criteria for organizations. The basic problem is that there are no independent reliable sources such as mainstream press or magazine articles written and published by people who have no direct connection or involvement with the subject. Some of the "External links" are actually such sources, so please use them as references. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing AfC submissions

Off-topic from WT:MED: IMO there are too many semi-active wikiprojects on very specific topics to generate that much buy-in, and you'd be better off with a small number of general categories along the lines of Category:AfD debates, with one category assigned by the author at the time of submission. Not sure if AfC has already considered and rejected that approach for other reasons (maybe the submitters are too unreliable to trust with a list of 10 categories to pick from) - but I'd be a lot more likely to occasionally look at a hypothetical Category:Science, technology, and medicine AfC submissions than to dig through an undifferentiated list of 4000. Having reviewers apply wikiproject tags is a good start, but it's an extra person's worth of effort and risks missing willing reviewers because, e.g., someone is watching the microbiology drafts but not the MCB or medicine ones. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis, Please post your idea to WT:WikiProject Articles for creation, as I think it deserves fuller consideration by a broader audience and I'm just about to go to bed, it's almost pumpkin time at my end. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:16:27, 1 August 2015 review of submission by Richardtaittingergallery


Hi, I listed the Wall Street Journal as a source, which I consider reliable. Would another source make it better?

Richardtaittingergallery (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richardtaittingergallery, yes the WSJ is generally a good source, but be careful of relying too much on interviews. We're looking for what multiple independent outsiders have to say about the gallery, the owner's opinion of himself and his property does not help to establish Notability. Though interviews and the gallery's own publications can be used for uncontroversial basic facts. Art magazines could be a good source if you can find relevant articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Timothy Lann

Hello, Could you please walk me through why you rejected our page Draft: Timothy Lann? Also, how do you add pictures to the article? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeDxFellows7 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TeDxFellows7, have you read the guide pages linked in the review (pink box at the top of the draft page) yet? If not, please do so and come back to me with specific questions if you need further clarification. At this point all I can tell you is what has already been posted in the review. Please don't bother with pictures yet, work on getting the text in an acceptable state first. One does not decorate a house that is only half built. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:John Blay

Thanks for your suggestions, I have now resubmitted the article Joyful Stone (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joyful Stone I took just a quick look, it seems you've made good progress. We'll see what the next reviewer says. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:46:32, 7 August 2015 review of submission by Jassy pal


Hi Dodger67, thanks for reviewing the page so quickly. Would you help me by pointing in me in the right direction in terms of the what comes across as 'advertising'? Is it the section on Aims - it talks about the amounts etc. offered by CWRT? My thinking was that this is relevant and important so that readers understand the kind of organisation CWRT is and its scale. I think there are plenty of mentions from various government and media sources so I think notability is good -but let me know what you think and I'll look at the page again. Thanks. WhatWouldBilboDo (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WhatWouldBilboDo It's written very much like a company brochure, the text seems to be aimed at informing (potential) customers, rather than the disinterested outside observer's view. Try this thought experiment: What would a historian in 2257 want to know about the organisation, long after it has dissapeared? That's the information you keep. Kill all the marketing-speak and anthing that won't matter ten years from now. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks. That though experiment approach sounds good. Will get on it.
WhatWouldBilboDo (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

06:53:55, 10 August 2015 review of submission by Cheshiredave


We went to very great lengths to write an impartial bio of Mimi Silbert with many sources to back up the statements in the bio. The statements about Dr. Silbert are factual and would not be out of place in a journalistic article about her. Furthermore, none of these sources comes from the Delancey website. Almost all of them come from top news sources such as the New York Times, LA Times, major ABC and CBS programs, etc. Hours and hours have been spent creating this. Please give more detail as to what exactly is objectionable, and please feel free to edit as you see fit to get this article to your satisfaction. The bottom line is that Mimi Silbert is a major figure in rehabilitation with tons of national recognition, and she deserves better than a summary rejection such as this.

Cheshiredave (talk) 06:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cheshiredave It seems to me that you might not have fully understood the decline reason or the linked pages of explanation and guidelines included in it. The decline has nothing to do with the sources you cited, neither does it say anything at all about Ms. Silbert herself - she may very well be worthy of praise and adulation but Wikipedia is not the right venue for such hagiography. Wikipedia is not a news site, it is an encyclopedia, thus the journalistic style is exactly the problem - Wikipedia wants only the cold hard facts, stated plainly. Unfortunately I do not have sufficient time to spend on this draft, but you can get excellent advice from the WP:Teahouse where experienced editors specialize in helping new contributors. Hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger (Dodger67) I have reedited and resubmitted, rearranging copy and cutting out pretty much anything that might be considered commentary rather than fact, except where the commentary seems vital and is backed up with sources. I hope this meets with greater success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheshiredave (talk • contribs) 22:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Electric motor efficiency: user: Brennige has not been accepted

Brennige

Dear Roger, you just declined the page: electric motor efficiency on my user page. I just want to inform you, that I have already send a copy right permission to the address: permissions-en@wikimedia.org where we declare that I'm the owner of this article. This article about - electric motor efficiency - EU regulations of ecodesign of electrical motors is published at the CAPIEL web site and the team of autors are identical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brennige (talk • contribs) 13:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brennige, you can ask the admin who deleted it RHaworth, if he is willing to return User:Brennige/sandbox/Electric motor Efficiency to your sandbox so that you can further improve it. However, it is very rare for texts taken from other websites to ever be acceptable for Wikipedia. Such texts are usually written for promotional or instructional purposes which means that the tone does not fit well with Wikipedia's requirements. Thus there is probably quite a bit of work ahead for you to rewrite the source text in appropriate encyclopedic style - unless there are other factors mitigating against acceptance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:56:26, 12 August 2015 review of submission by Eddiepops


Hi, thanks for your feedback on this article (it's my first one, so your assistance was really appreciated). I've added a number of references from some major and independent news sources which I think help to establish the subject's notability. Would appreciate a reconsideration and any other feedback you have. Thanks!

Eddiepops (talk) 10:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eddiepops, the news media references I could check were unfortunately all simply quotes of statements made by representatives of the organisation about environmental issues they are concerned with. Wikipedia's notability standard for organizations needs material that originates from completely independent sources, such as journalists or academics, writing about the organisation itself, not just passing mentions of the organisation in articles about ocean pollution or over-fishing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dodger, I think I understand now what's required. I've found some academic journal sources which I should be able to integrate in. A full media profile piece is a high bar to set for an NGO, one that comparable bodies such as Transport and Environment and Oceana were not able to meet! I just hope the way I have integrated the new references is correct.Eddiepops (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harry W. Braun III

Hello Dodger67.

I hope this is the proper space to communicate with you about your speedy deletion of my entire Harry W. Braun III article, which contained 60 references and many more links to other Wikipedia articles. You state that the article was too self serving, but I have no idea of which parts of the article you are referring to.

If you read my article, you are aware that I am a Democratic presidential candidate that has registered with the Federal Elections Commission, as well as the senior scientist of an international hydrogen scientific and engineering society, I only deal in verifiable facts in the research that I have been doing for the past 40 years, but you deleted everything.

Is it self-serving to refer to published reports of my past congressional campaigns? When I documented the chemical contamination of every man, woman and child worldwide, or shifting from toxic oil to clean hydrogen, or the fact that the sixth mass extinction event in the Earth's 4-billion-year old history that is now entering its final exponential stages, is that self-serving? Given you deleted everything in my 10,000 word Article, does that mean the all of the information in the Article that was written cited was self-serving?

Could you please help me understand why my entire article was deleted, which effectively puts an end to my presidential campaign.

Sincerely, Harry Braun If you are able to give me a call, my number is (770) 905-7000 Harry W Braun III (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry W Braun III, I merely proposed that deletion should be considered, the admin who actually deleted it is Jimfbleak, you're welcome to contact him about the decision. The reason I proposed deletion is that Wikipedia does not do promotion which includes political campaigning.
Comment: If your "entire presidential campaign" really consists of a single article on Wikipedia I have to wonder whether you're actually real or a joker. I'm not American and have only a very superficial interest in US domestic politics. One thing I do know is that Presidential campaigns are multi-million dollar operations run by large teams of professionals, a candidate attempting to write their own campaign article on Wikipedia simply doesn't fit the pattern. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Roger (Dodger67). Harry W Braun III, if you are genuine, also read this and this. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a platform to promote yourself or your views. If you would like a more detailed explanation, let me know on my talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello, Roger - nice seeing your name pop up again - it's been a long time (re:The Wikipedia page Large Group Capacitation has been changed on 14 August 2015 by Dodger67). Thanks for the edit. I have now done 4 wiki:en and 3 wiki:es articles but I have still a lot to learn. So, trust ol' H to give me a hand again with article wiki:en #5. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Draft:45,X/46,XY mosaicism

Maybe clumsily worded, as far as I can see the draft is a fuller version of the article, and there is material here that needs copying across that hasn't been yet. Rankersbo (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rankersbo, I think I might have alerted Wikiproject Genetics at the time, but it's probably a good idea to drop them a note anyway. (Apologies for the prickly tone, will redact right away.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:11:25, 25 August 2015 review of submission by Jue31415

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Dear Editor,

I've made some changes to the page I created for "EU SME Centre", including changing some descriptions and adding a few more links.

Responding to the subject's notability guide, I added links to the EU SME Centre's interview with China's major media China Daily and CCTV in the reference.

Could you please help taking another look of the updated draft again and let me know which parts still need improvement?

Thank you!

Jue

Jue31415 (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jue31415 - The press sources need to be used as actual References, as External links they are quite useless. But as they are interviews they are not really independent sources. The person being interviewed is still someone involved with the Centre or it's work. Look for sources that are INDEPENDENTLY written by actual journalists, not spokespersons, actual NEWS reports, not PR pieces. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

György Buzsáki

Just a heads-up I've accepted György Buzsáki outright, as he's one of the most cited neuroscientists today. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good :) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review of submission by Chersiphron 09 August 2015

Hi Dodger -- Just wanted to say thanks for reviewing my article submission so quickly earlier this month and to ask a quick question: do you think there is a "notability" issue with creating a page for a small firm like OLI? Thanks again for your help. Chersiphron (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dodger67&oldid=678274262"