User talk:Dodger67

Why does this company deserve a Wikipedia article

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

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

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

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

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

Reference improvements - are they acceptable?

Hello,

Thank you for reviewing my AFC. After reading your comments and trying to understand the reason it was not approved, I've made several adjustments to the article. In your reasoning for disapproving the article, it was noted that references needed to be improved. I believe I've got the right formatting for references now and I've included more, which should improve my article's credibility. Would you please take a look at the article now (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:VT_M%C3%84K) when you have a moment? I understand you are busy and cannot reply immediately.

I would also like help understanding why similar articles have been approved, which do not have significant references, or any at all. Why is it that while I'm trying to create something by the rules and standards, other articles exist that should be rejected and deleted? A perfect example of a very similar subject is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presagis. I understand that wiki is trying to keep information credible. But I do not understand how my article can keep getting rejected while articles with no credible references still exist. Do I need to delete articles that do not have any references? Can I add references to them to improve them?

I'm new to wiki and contributing, so please forgive my ignorance.

I appreciate your help in getting my article approved with credible content.

SimSoftRules (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I see that you've answered some other users questions. Is it possible for you to see the improvements I've made on my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:VT_M%C3%84K ? Thanks for your help, I appreciate it. SimSoftRules (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi SimSoftRules, sorry I'm only responding now, somehow I missed this post. It looks like your referencing has indeed improved. I'm not sure why you say your draft "keeps getting rejected" when as far as I can see, it has been reviewed only once so far.

The fact that there are other articles with problems is not relevant to your article's approval. Most articles on Wikipedia have never been through a review process at all so finding the problems and fixing them is a never-ending process, one that you are definitely welcome to help with. I see the unreferenced on you found has already been tagged for the problem.

Getting back to your draft, some of the sections have no or very few references. Where did you find the lists of Customers and Standards? The Products section is also unsourced. If you add references fot these sections your draft will probably be accepted at itS next review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Dodger67 - Thank you very much for your help. I've made the changes you have suggested. So now every section of the article has some sort of credible reference. Can you please look at the article one last time to see if there are any other improvements I may make? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:VT_M%C3%84K Thank you very much for your help and time. SimSoftRules (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Articles for Creation barnstar
		A barnstar to you for reviewing 175 or more submissions during the WikiProject Articles for creation March 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks for your work to improve Wikipedia! Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 10:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

Talkback

Hello, Dodger67. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation.
Message added 00:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Requesting input at the discussion: !Vote requested to clarify matters about awards sent. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

title redirect

Thank's a lot for the cleanup at Yakub Khan Mehboob Khan. I have left this msg at the Talk page of the article too. My request is: Can the article have a Title Redirect to Yakub (actor)? I don't know how to do that. Thanks again. Kaayay (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kaayay - I have already created the redirect Yakub (actor). Thanks for the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Physically integrated dance

Hi Dodger, I'm trying to diffuse cat:dance and wondering if you can help me. Can you take a look at Category:Dance and see if there's a suitable subcat for physically integrated dance? Thanks. Lambtron (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lambtron, I fixed it. Category:Physically integrated dance is already a subcategory of Category:Dance culture, which I believe is the best fit. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Trial of Oscar Pistorius

You recently contributed at Talk:Trial of Oscar Pistorius.

Can I ask you to look at this Talk:Trial_of_Oscar_Pistorius#Neutrality_.22Progress_of_trial.22_section querying the neutrality of the section "Progress of the Trial" and let me know 1 if you agree/disagree that it's biased and needs fixing 2 whether you propose to make any contributing edits to fix.

I've suggested May 5, when trial resumes, should be a target date to get things fixed. In my view two things at least are needed:

• A balancing edit to record that expert witness for the prosecution testified that Reeva Steenkamp would have had time to scream and that it would have been abnormal for her not to.

• A balancing edit for Pistorius' apology. Perhaps recording Reeva Steenkamp's mother's response in the press following?

An alternative (which I prefer) would be to strike the edit I originally reverted, so that the concluding paragraphs would look like this:

On 28 March, the trial was postponed until 7 April as one of the assessors fell ill. On 7 April, Pistorius began testifying in his own defence at the trial. The cross examination of Pistorius lasted for five days, and ended on April 15th.

Please reply here (I've watchlisted your page).Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I think your proposed edits are quite reasonable, however I have no further interest in editing the article. Per WP:BOLD and WP:SOFIXIT you are welcome to go ahead and make the changes you wish. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I've copied my suggestions to the Talk page. I'll wait until May 5 when the trial resumes before intervening myself. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

AFC pages you have under review

You have one or more pages in Category:Pending AfC submissions being reviewed now with your name on them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Italian wolf article ready

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

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

MPAC Page for Creation

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

Threat Matrix submission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence of severe bias in editing

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

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

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

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

Resubmission of Prestonpans article about Scottish Barony

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full citation for Morillo article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Autosizing images

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rosalie Muller Wright Pakenham

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

Your request at AFCH-Rewrite

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

A fix for that title blacklist problem...

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

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

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

DYK for 1949 Sun Bowl controversy

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

DYK for David Showell

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

Please add your voice to the request for reverse of deletion

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

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

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

Ultraattenuation

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

Patriarchs

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

Native Son (American Band) article

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

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

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

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

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

Mpumalanga/Eastern Transvaal

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

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

Franck Vogel

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

Contribution has been reviewed and rejected twice...

Hi there Dodger67,

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

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

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

Thanks,

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

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

Terra Prime is not asphalt

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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