Jump to content

User talk:Dodger67: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Dodger67/Archive 7) (bot
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
As NCROPA no longer exists I fail to see why you believe this submission reads like an advertisement. I can though add more citations if required.



'''{{User:MiszaBot/config
'''{{User:MiszaBot/config

Revision as of 17:27, 20 July 2014

As NCROPA no longer exists I fail to see why you believe this submission reads like an advertisement. I can though add more citations if required.


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)[reply]

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

DYK for 1949 Sun Bowl controversy

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

DYK for David Showell

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Ultraattenuation

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Roger (Dodger67), thanks for the reply. I will be sure to keep this in mind. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashcarden (talk • contribs) 08:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi Abesuzek - I've removed the "(asphalt)" from the title for you - It is now at Draft:Terra Prime. I'd recommend that you discuss the article with the folks at WP:WikiProject Engineering, they would be able to give you guidance specifically relevant to the topic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi Gonzales Cenelia - It's all a learning experience - I've been through many. Now that you've read WP:What Wikipedia is not, you'll hopefully have better luck with your next draft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback!

Hi Dodger67, your feedback was really helpful, have taken your points on board and have made another draft attempt. If it's still not right, no dramas - it's all part of the learning experience! Will welcome any further feedback, cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlfieTieu (talk • contribs) 04:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AlfieTieu - It's looking much better now! You've shown that the subject has media coverage in his own right separately from the group and the additional information also helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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))[reply]

Hi JustSpring - What you need to do is take the explanation of why the company is notable that you have written here (its unique features) and incorporate it into the article. Make it clear how this company is different from the rest of the herd. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pallium India page

Hi Roger, thanks for your comments on my page on Pallium India. I have made changes, I would appreciate it greatly if you could take a look at it and let me know if I did it right. Jeenman (talk) 06:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Jeenman. The changes you made were sufficient to get the article accepted, so what would you like to write about next? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edgewater Towers page Draft:Edgewater Towers

Hi Dodger67,

The above page was rejected because it was not supported by reliable sources. I am the Chair of the Service Company of the building and I have a great deal of personal knowledge regarding the building. If you could let me know what facts are not supported by adequate sources, I will try to find a source to support the facts or I will amend the article accordingly.

Thanks, Sym Kohn EdgewaterTowers (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EdgewaterTowers - You were looking at the wrong page. You had an outdated copy of the draft on your user page - I have replaced it with a link to the correct draft page at Draft:Edgewater Towers. You will find my review comment, together with other information and various useful links, at the top of the draft page. BTW Your username is "illegal". An editor's username may never be similar to that of a company, place or organization. See WP:Username for guidance on how to change your username to something "neutral". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She should have predicted that, too!

Seems a shame to delete it when we could play with her Fiddle Faddle 16:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tempting... but you should have declined as a blatant advert. No time for messing around with noobs, and not really ethical either. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I declined it as something else. It was redeemable, with work :) Either way, though, this format was useless. Fiddle Faddle 16:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Timtrent - Sometimes only WP:TNT can fix a draft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta catch 'em all! Fiddle Faddle 10:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Spoke Article

Hi there, any help with my submission. I added an additional reference that can show it's origination.

Is there anything I can do to get this up here? I would like to ensure it is correct in this list, and links accordingly as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_student_newspapers_in_Canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qbattersby (talk • contribs) 18:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Qbattersby - You need to actually read the review, it says absolutely nothing about "origination", whatever that means.
You need to prove that someone who has no connection to the college actually cares that the student paper exists. You do this by citing a completely independent publication (meaning one with no connection to the college, such as a national mainstream newspaper or magazine) has written more than just a passing mention about the student newspaper. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Chelsea Residences

Hi, I've got some questions about your comments regarding the draft of the Chelsea Residences that you've nominated for speedy deletion, and that you've denied the Articles for Creation nomination of. You said "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." Can you point me to which parts you feel that way about? Everything in the lede and in the announcement sections is hard facts. The design section includes some descriptive detail about the features of the building and about the number and size of units available. Is that what is problematic? You also state "Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established." Three sources include two of the three largest national newspapers in the Philippines, neither of which was produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. Is this not sufficient? Thanks. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was speedily deleted even though I contested it (not even for the reasons you enumerated), but I'm planning on having it restored to my user space to work on, so I'd still appreciate the feedback. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrate article

Hi Roger,

My article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Administrate_%28software%29 was rejected on the basis that it read more like an advertisement. This could certainly be the case as it's describing "software" made by a "company" of the same name! My problem is two-fold: 1. This is my first article on Wikipedia 2. I'm writing about a commercial entity. So I understand my intent could be viewed as suspect! I am in no way affiliated with this company, but I'm a user of the software and would like to make an entry all the same. So I'd appreciate any specific advice.

Could you please point me to the exact parts that read like an advertisement, that don't seem neutral, or that require more sources? Thanks in advance!

Loriwagoner (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Graeme Codrington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Sun newspaper (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


How do I get conflict of interest notation removed?

Still looking for an answer to this. I wrote a Wiki page for musician Eliot Lewis using an account that belonged to Mr. Lewis' tour manager. I don't know Mr. Lewis and am not affiliated with him at all, and only used the account because his tour manager said he'd already entered bio information and discography. Mr. Lewis and his manager were not involved in writing the page, I was not paid for any work, and did all my own research. I'm a writer and editor with more than 20 years of experience in newspapers, magazines, nonprofit and corporate communications, and I understand the importance of neutrality in a vehicle like Wikipedia. Given these circumstances, is there a way to get the conflict of interest notation on the page removed? Could I move the page to my own account? Or can an editor point out specific sentences or information that seems bias and let me either rework or remove it?

Also, I noticed there's a notation on the Eliot Lewis page for "speedy deletion." Is this because of the apparent conflict of interest, or is there another issue with the article?

Thanks for your help!

Righttrack (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Righttrack - I think the best option would be to post a brief explanation of your connection - just as you did here - to the article's Talk page - Talk:Eliot Lewis - then the COI tag can be removed from the article. Just remember when you remove it to state in the edit note that you've explained the situation on the Talk page - "See Talk" is a generally accepted way to do so.
There is no trace in the page history of a Speedy deletion tag ever having been on the page. Hope this helps.
While you're on the topic try to solve the shortage of references problem too, there are entire paragraphs without any citations. The requirement for referencing is particularly strict for articles about living people as real harm can occur if unsourced controversial statements and claims appear in such an article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

notable only for one event

Hi thanks for your comment on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Deepika_Kurup. She is certainly notable for more than 1 event, she has won Young scientist award in 2012 and more recently this month she won the US Stockholm water prize. I have included all references in the article. Pangog200 (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pangog200 - If it's for the same invention it is still covered as one event, rather rewrite the article to be about the invention. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

cheers Roger (Dodger67) - both are related to water purification but they are not the same. the first one uses solar energy and the second one uses a combination of solar and a newly developed compound. the second competition was 2 years after the first one. do you think if it makes sense to make this distinction clear in the article? Pangog200 (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pangog200 - Yes make it really clear that there are two inventions and each was recognized with an award. Generally you also need to find good sources that talk about the inventor herself in considerable detail, rather than just the inventions and subsequent recognition. BTW, I'm going to bed now, back in about ten or so hours. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roger (Dodger67), I have made the changes and corrected some other details as well. I have also added several repted online references (WSJ, Fox news etc). Please let me know if this looks okay. thanks! Pangog200 (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Smart BASIC

Hello Dodger!

What are the reasons why my article about "smart BASIC" was declined?

Thank you for help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baobabus (talk • contribs) 03:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baobabus - Have you actually read the review yet - the pink box at the top of the page and the short explanatory note just below the box? It includes links to guides on how to fix the problem. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see it is stated that "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." My article is about programming language. It is based on documentation inside this application. This documentation is not available online and is not published in a book.

1. What is correct way to reference information relative to application which is available inside application documentation and is not available in external sources? 2. If this information will be published online - will it be enough for proper referencing?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baobabus (talk • contribs) 16:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Baobabus - You actually need third party sources to pass the notability requirement. While you can cite the manual, help files or other documentation included in the software it will not be sufficient to get the article accepted. You need to look for articles in mainstream magazines or reputable webzines that discuss the software in some detail - review articles would be good sources. The folks at WP:WikiProject Software would be able to give you better more specific advice as they know much more about the topic than I do. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Defence Review

Hi. How can I help? You seem to have the structure planned, is there any section you would like me to work on or is there something I can focus on? Gbawden (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gbawden: Take a look at the Talk page where I've laid out a few "to do" and source ideas. Please feel free to propose changes to the structure if you think it isn't workable. Do whatever you feel like. I'm pretty good at finding sources but I'm not that good at writing article text. Glad to have you on this project! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Gbawden - so what do you think of the draft so far? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good. You could probably publish it as an article now, rather than wait. Your structure is good. The only suggestion I have is a section highlighting the key recommendations/changes proposed by the review. I will go over the draft and chip in where I can. g Gbawden (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EU Gateway username

Dear Dodger67, you have written a comment on my talk page regarding a potential non-compliance of my username with Wikipedia's username policy. I have followed the instructions on:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple and submitted a request for a name change. Could you tell please how many days do you think I shall wait until the username change is done? also, can i still make changes and improvements in the article that I created and re-submit it for approval with the current name? thanks for your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EU Gateway (talk • contribs) 10:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EU Gateway - You can continue editing, when your name change is done all your edits will be allocated to the new name. The change should be done within no more than a day (or two if there is a large backlog). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Moylan

Dear Dodger67, I've never typed an answer into a talk page before, so I'm quite apprehensive that I'll get it wrong. Anyway, here goes. I am the author of the draft article entitled 'Daniel Moylan'. I submitted it for review, but it was not accepted by the reviewer (Chris Troutman), partly because he said it was 'promotional' and flattering to its subject, and partly because it needed to better explain the Boris Island airport proposal. A later reviewer said that I needed to back up my statement that Moylan is gay. I presume that what I need to do now is to fix these perceived problems as well as I can and then re-submit the draft for approval, as if it were a new proposed article. Is that right?Segalen4 (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Segalen4, yes indeed a claim about a person's sexual orientation (among other things) needs to be supported by a very strong source that reports a clear unambiguous statement from the person about his/her sexual orientation. But that's not all, you also need to consider whether the person's orientation is in fact relevant to their notability - in some countries a gay politician is practically always a topic of discussion in the press, in other countries it barely gets mentioned at all. The guideline at WP:EGRS discusses categorisation but I find the explanations there to be useful for clarifying the issue even when it's not about categories as such. Hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) The standard for inclusion of sexual orientation needs to be that they have, themselves, been explicit about stating it, and it has been reported in a WP:RS. Otherwise we are at great pains to ignore it, even if it is an important element in their lives. Fiddle Faddle 15:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I took the statement that Moylan is gay from his own website: http://www.danielmoylan.com/?page_id=51. Surely this would count as 'a clear unambiguous statement from the person'? Should I put in a reference to this website page? Segalen4 (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's a clear statement, but it's not in the press. If no mainstream news source has bothered to make an issue of it, we don't either - that's what is meant by "relevant to the subject's notability". If his own website/facebook/blog etc is the only source, leave it out of the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC South African Legion of Military Veterans was accepted

South African Legion of Military Veterans, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Fiddle Faddle 12:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Timtrent, thanks! This is my first G13 rescue, thus I put it up for review rather than pass it directly to mainspace by myself. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. I think you could easily have accepted it on sight, though. You're old enough and ugly enough (like me) to know your onions. Fiddle Faddle 15:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except that I'm a bit biased in favour of South African Military history subjects, so the second opinion is much appreciated. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfC

Hi Dodge67. I noticed you were active at AfC and I was wondering if you could take a look at a couple articles I have submitted where I have COI on David Williams (Doctor) and Paxata. In the past it's taken over a month to get a reviewer in the queue and my submissions are usually pretty easy. CorporateM (Talk) 14:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CorporateM, I have accepted the doctor's biography, I trust you are able to do the finishing touches such as categories. BTW if you have a source for his birthplace and current residence please add those details, (and the relevant categories). I'm passing on the other draft as it has no obvious problems but reviewing the finer detail of the subject is a bit outside my comfort zone. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20:02:00, 30 June 2014 review of submission by JeremyMalies


I believe the article is adequately referenced from external sources and is not commercially assertive. JeremyMalies (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear to me that you have not actually read my review comment. There are whole paragraphs without any references. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

02:25:23, 1 July 2014 review of submission by Bhamidik


I am not asking for a re-review, please can you tell me how can I make it good to be submitted? Article link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Manda_AnanthaKrishna.

Bhamidik (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read the review again and this time actually click on the linked words and phrases, they lead to pages with instructions and advice to fix the problem. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

04:17:49, 1 July 2014 review of submission by Hengtian


Hengtian (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dodger67,

I am writing to you because I am not very clear on which sections of the Wikipedia page are written like an advertisement. I made some changes just now, by altering the language and deleting some content, and tried to stay in line with Wiki's policies for notability, reliability and neutrality. If you could possibly take a look at the edited version, or specify the areas of the previous version that did not pass the 'neutrality' test, I would be very thankful!

Thanks,

Ashley

Draft Suranga Nanayakkara

Hi Dodger67

Based on your comments, I have revised the article Draft:Suranga_Nanayakkara with more references...Let me know if this good enough to go.

Thanks Chandima81 (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18:48:01, 1 July 2014 review of submission by Menonsatish5


The article was rejected, however no reasons were provided.

Satheesh Menon (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is given in the pink box on the User:Menonsatish5/sandbox page, exactly where the message on your talk page says it is. It was rejected because it was not an article, you have to actually write more than just the name, we review articles, not just a title. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aubrey Jacobs

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

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

Articles for creation / Alan Amory

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

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


Dear Roger

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

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

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


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

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

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

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

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

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

Disability style guide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Leaflet For Wikiproject Disability At Wikimania 2014

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

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

Draft:Alan Amory page

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

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

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

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

Interview request.

Hi Roger,

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

Flags

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

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


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

Hi there,

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

Read the review at the top of the Draft page and follow the links provided. You need to use proper inline citations because your draft is about a living person. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dodger67&oldid=617730410"