User talk:Dodger67

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



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 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)

@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)
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)

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

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)

@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)

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

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.


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

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

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)

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

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)

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

Time has passed...[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
What? You have a life outside of Wikipedia? Hmmm... —Anne Delong (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
PS - I got the formatting problem fixed. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Okay, Roger, is it good to go? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robbie Glover[edit]

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)

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)
Thanks for that - I'll start editing. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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)

@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)


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)

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)

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

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

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)
BTW, in your second reference the title of the magazine article is missing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping[edit]

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)

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

Rejected article about Krüss GmbH[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 12:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png 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)
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)

Golgatha and the Red Heifer[edit]

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

rejected Megaseodrive/Naginskiy[edit]

Hi Roger!

As main source I use - 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

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)
Hi Roger! I addes 3 more sources from newspapers, hope this can help. Megaseodrive (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nelly Kaplan[edit]

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)

@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)


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)

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)


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


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

It's okay...[edit]

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)


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

illegitimi non carborundum[edit]

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)

@Dirtlawyer1 - Is it really pseudo-Latin? I thought it's actually "proper" Latin. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Per ardua ad astra Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
@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)
  • Let me know if I can ever be of any help to you in your future AfD work -- I'm mired pretty deeply in AfD, and know the basics pretty well. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @Dirtlawyer1 - Thanks! I hope your being "mired" doesn't become "sunk"! Well it's bedtime for me, tomorrow I have to do some actual work... Yuck! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

For Your Information[edit]

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. -- (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

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)


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)

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)
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)
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)
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 Best of luck ! OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 15:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Letting you know, ping only works when you have signed your message at the same time. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 15:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
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)

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)


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)

Arthur Dyson[edit]

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)

@.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)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31[edit]

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)

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

Hi 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)

Speedy deletion declined: Synchrony Financial[edit]

Hello Dodger67. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Synchrony Financial, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Verified NASDAQ listing credibly indicates some significance to at least to pass WP:A7. See WP:LISTED: may well not pass at WP:AfD. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

speedy deletion User:Jvlarion[edit]

Please dont delete my page it was mistake to move it in an article it was suppose to be a User page but now I cant revert my User page please revert it as User: Engr. Joelar V. Larion. The system cant revert it maybe an error or only you can do the changes thank you administrator.

Hi Admin, so is there by any means my User page can be back again? I cant revert it back to make it a user page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvlarion (talkcontribs) 18:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jvlarion, I'm just the person who proposed the deletion, the admin who actually did the deletion is User:RHaworth, so that's who you need to contact about getting it back. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities[edit]

I have removed your recent post from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities - not only is it a clear request for opinion (do you really think there could be a factual answer?) but it is grossly offensive. If you want to engage in such debates, find a forum somewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi AndyTheGrump - Yes I do really believe there is a rational explanation for why these types of cults exist in the US but are unknown elsewhere.
In what universe is it "offensive" to state the simple objective fact that such cults are crackpot? Are you seriously proposing that David Koresh and his followers were perfectly rational and sane? What makes you think Jim Jones was no different from any mainstream Methodist/Presbyterian/Baptist/Lutheran minister? Do you seriously think closed armed cult compounds could exist in Sweden or Italy? Do you believe that polygamist churches could be established in England or Germany? Are you claiming it is possible for the Westboro Baptist Church to exist in France? Yet all those do currently or have existed in the US - there simply must be a reason why.
My question is no different than asking for reasons for the rise of anti-western Islamic radicalism. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not interested in engaging in a debate over this. Your question was offensively worded, and had no business being posted on the reference desk. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Just a little word of advice for the future, Roger. Tone is everything. If you are curious about the nature and character of Christianity in America, you need only ask a question like "How are Christians in America different with regard to issues X, Y, and Z" or "What studies have been done which show differences in attitude by Christians in America versus Christians in other parts of the world" Certainly, sources exist which explore such topics, for example, consider this one or this one, which shows the UK and raises some interesting problems with your initial premise. But when you phrase a question as you just did, it doesn't come off as a request for information, it comes off as a polemic statement that merely has a question mark at the end of it. "Look at all these stupid American Christians" is what your question comes off as saying. You don't want to be saying that, I know. Instead, you want to understand more about the nature of American Christianity. So ask a question that doesn't insult people. It will go much better. --Jayron32 20:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks User:Jayron32 for the advice. (Note to self - don't compile difficult questions when tired!)
As a counterexample, Moonies and The Lord's Resistance Army are a couple wacky Christian cults from outside the US. Although not exactly cults, the unusual Amish and Mennonite sects originated outside the US, too. As for why they migrated to the US, that probably had to do with more religious freedom in the US, at the time, than in Europe. StuRat (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
@User:StuRat Yes I suspect the fact that the US never had an "establishment" church and has had absolute religious freedom for far longer than most of Europe may be a significant factor, but it seems insufficient to explain the really "extreme fringe" elements such as the likes of Koresh, Westboro, etc. I have no idea where (or if) non-western groups such as the LRA, Moonies, Aum, etc fit into the pattern - if there is one. AFAIK the Amish and Mennonites are basically "relics" of a broader European Anabaptist movement that became increasingly "uncomfortable" with the Enlightenment and rise of Modernism in Europe, so they left to find a space for themselves outside of such pressures. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, the US doesn't have absolute religious freedom. No human sacrifices, honor killings, or female genital mutilation, for example (although the latter are more cultural than religious). Polygamy is an interesting one, where, while always illegal in the US, sometimes those laws are not enforced. Wearing a face covering and carrying a knife for religious reasons may not be tolerated, ether, in certain circumstances. StuRat (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you![edit]

Dobos cake (Gerbeaud Confectionery Budapest Hungary).jpg 7&6=thirteen () has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen () 15:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Flow[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Flow. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

13:19:48, 15 September 2014 review of submission by Jitroisofficial[edit]

Hello, I am requesting a review to ask what specifically needs to be changed on the Jean_Claude_Jitrois page.

Jitroisofficial (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! HelenOnline 10:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (films). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Please scan[edit]

I know you are busy and I am sorry to have to ask, but as I know that you have researched the history, please can you check my POV on Talk page South African Republic - You do not have to get involved if you do not want to, please just tell me if in your opinion, I am being neutral or not (obviously I think that i am :) but I do know that you will tell me if you think that I am not...- hence, me asking you, I think we have now a track record of honesty with each other and I have high regard your opinion...) Zarpboer (talk) 10:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Zarpboer, I think you're doing fine, moenie so baie worrie nie! I'll be less active here for a while as I have university exams in October. You can always ask for help or opinions at the wikiproject too. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
thank you! what are you studying? I am also thinking of studying something else, i have a b com, but no interest in using it... wikipedia is very cool! i am learning a lot and i am learning that i am quite a biased person, and i have to be careful whom i ask to balance my bias, cause many other people do not even know they are biased, never mind even considering it... and i know that you are not one of those people as i have seen you change your pov, i think you have seen me change my pov also? kinda cool that, the fact that one can learn and grow as a person, i think it was helenonline that said: that life outside wikipedia should be run on wikipedia culture, did not have a clue what she meant, way back then, all of two weeks ago :) Zarpboer (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi again Zarpboer just between you and me, I think our colleague HelenOnline is a formidably competent editor. I'm busy with a BA in Communication Science at Unisa - not easy at my age, I'm 46. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, BTW pinging only works if you sign in the same post (I had to use my psychic powers instead). Face-smile.svg HelenOnline 16:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Maritz Rebellion[edit]

I'm not the one engaged in an edit war. Zarpboer is the one who is the instigator of this conflict. Read the talk page of the article. I listed my reasons for the edits there, and then attempted to discuss the issue with the user. In his responses, not only did he fail to provide sufficient reason for the removal of the edits, but also insulted me as well. My response, though not exactly the best (you'll have to forgive my lack of social skills, as my sole companions are usually books on history and science and various forms of literature), were courteous and not intended for insult. I try to avoid conflict, and I learned my lesson the first two times I was blocked. Please don't block me over such a ridiculous issue. Toolen (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Clearly Toolen hasn't learned his lesson. Srnec (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
When (at least) three editors have disagreed with you an yet you persist in reverting to the version only you support, you are by definition edit warring. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I have improved the Maritz rebellion page, with citations, etc. Could you please have a look Srnec and Dodger67 - I do understand the confusion here... There are people who do not know that the Maritz rebellion was a rebellion against Britain, more specifically the Union of SA, and not "bitter-enders" who only wanted to re-establish the ZAR. So from their POV it makes sense to them. Then there is a lot of disinformation, mainly because of the lack of academic interest in this event, but it was not even a real rebellion as it has more to do with WW1 and anti-British etc. than it has to do with anything specifically as some of these "rebels" were commisioned officers of armies and had sworn allegiances. Therefore: was this a rebellion or an uprising or actually just treason? Either way, could you both please just scan my spelling, etc here: Maritz Rebellion i did copy & paste where i can, but I am only a people :) Zarpboer (talk) 10:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Checked my own spelling :) - Now the Maritz Rebellion page looks okay, ready for further refinement! I have added citations all over the place and from multiple sources, please let me know if it still needs anything anywhere? But I think that it is now a good neutral reflection of the rebellion? Zarpboer (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Oathkeeper[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Oathkeeper. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alex Titomirov[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alex Titomirov. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 26 September[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Jaco van Rensburg. Invalid reasons for deletion stated.[edit]

I do not understand your message. I have 4 citations, 2 in which I am mentioned by name. Explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvrensburg (talkcontribs) 10:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jvrensburg - A mere mention is not sufficient - you need to cite substantial articles that discuss you in considerable depth - articles that are directly about you and your work. Articles about shows you performed in are not adequate if they only mention your name in passing or in a cast list. The source articles must also be published by/in independemt and reliable sources - press releases, your own publicity or the publicity of productions you were involved in are not independent. Review articles by professional journalists in mainstream press are the best sources for actors. I'm afraid it's rather difficult to write an acceptable article about yourself here on Wikipedia. Please see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:PSCOI for some guidance and if you still believe you do qualify for an article you can get further assistance at the WP:TEAHOUSE which is a help desk for beginners. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Sounds like red tape to me. Just delete the page. Less admin for everyone. More points for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvrensburg (talkcontribs) 11:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jvrensburg, it seems you're under the impression that Wikipedia is just another social media site, but it's actually an encyclopedia that requires all article subjects to be objectively notable. A site such as Facebook may be more suitable for your needs at this stage. When there are published reviews about yourself and your work we can look at the possibility of an article again. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Moyers & Company[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Moyers & Company. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)