Jump to content

User talk:Dodger67

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bluebillracer (talk | contribs) at 20:47, 13 March 2015 (→‎19:47:09, 13 March 2015 review of submission by David Herrera 1985). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please comment on Talk:David Kay

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:David Kay. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

01:03:53, 12 January 2015 review of submission by Animall


Hi, I was wondering if you can help me. This is my first article for Wikipedia. It is about a rather new item called Cardio First Angel. The reason for my article is that this is a rather new gadget with the name, which doesn’t reveal much to a man not familiar with medical terms. In the article I have described the purpose and the function of this gadget. I believe that it can help to save many lives. They’re very few sources on the internet. Originally it is in German, then, English, Czech, Spanish, but all these information seem to me were derived from the original German (I don’t speak German) . The product was co-invented by the cardiologist Prof. Dr. Christian Hagl, who works at the Ludwig-Maximilians-University Medical Centre in Germany. This seems to me reliable source. (Wikipedia asks for at least one source). My article is written in a neutral, non-personal tone describing the function as well as how it can help logically to overcome fears the lay rescuer may have. I have personally been a witness in the past of the similar situation, where people were scared to touch the person on the ground, because they didn’t know what to do. I didn’t want purposely it list these fears and benefits as the bullet points, because I didn’t want to sound it as an advertisement. But the simplicity of the function of the Cardio First Angel is the main reason how to help inexperienced person to overcome these fears and act to save another person in need. If the benefits and functions of the Cardio First Angel are not described, there is no reason to write the article in the first place. So, I hope that you can help me in a way that it would be acceptable to you and Wikipedia. Thank you Animall


Animall (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Animall, medical topics are unfortunately not my speciality, I will ask a subject specialist from WikiProject Medicine to assist you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Dodger, thanks for messaging me. Animall, I am answering you on your talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Mining Cup - Re-Review

The draft submission for the Ontario Mining Cup page is ready for re-review. Independent, reliable sources have been referenced and the user Ontariominingcup is no longer editing the document. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontenac303 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:32:57, 13 January 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by SamHeath4


Thank so much for your comments on the "Christian Study Centers" article. I have added and edited the sources, keeping in mind your comments as well as Wikipedia's standards for reliable and verifiable sources. The article should be ready for another review.

SamHeath4 (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Dabangg

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dabangg. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:44:54, 17 January 2015 review of submission by GilesLow


This is not meant to be an advertisement as the Fondation doesn't sell anything. It is purely to inform the world about the awards' existence should they wish to find out more, such as if they hear that "Lord Foster has been awarded the Gold Medal of La Fondation" (see: http://www.fosterandpartners.com/news/archive/2014/05/lord-foster-awarded-medaille-d%E2%80%99or-of-la-fondation-du-m%C3%A9rite-europ%C3%A9en/), they can look it up on Wiki for that information. It is the European award scheme, like the Order of the British Empire or the Légion d'Honneur (well, we like to think so). All I did was to translate, from the statutes of the formation of the foundation, the object of the establishment so that it lacked any bias. My original offering, made several months ago, was made to look like one of those two entries, but all my offerings were constantly being deleted as the Fondation was missing links to it from somewhere (probably for many other reasons as well). With Jacques Santer and the "Président d'Honneur" being the Prime Minister of the Grand Duchy, Monsieur Xavier Bettel, should we add to these dignitaries' CVs their involvement with the Fondation? Then there would be a link to the page. The Grand Duke of Luxembourg holds the Grand Collier on behalf of all the people of his country, so maybe we could put something on the Grand Duke's page as well. Please advise as I am lost when trying to use the help pages.

Thanks. Giles

GilesLow (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Longest recorded sniper kills

Dodger67, please do not re-add incorrect information that you know to be incorrect. If you have any doubt please read the relevant references regarding Harrison. The reason I've deleted the full sentence is that this is already mentioned elsewhere on the article. If you wish so add this sentence with the correct target then please delete the other main reference to this which is in the more appropriate history section so this is not duplicated. Regards - Galloglass 21:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've re-added this into the intro, fair enough but now you need to change the history section as the article now says the same thing twice. - Galloglass 21:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:LEAD the introduction of an article is supposed to be a summary of the entire article -it should in fact not contain anything that is not discussed later in the article. I have started a discussion at the the article talk page about whether the specific mention of the current record should be in the lead. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I leave it entirely to yourself. The wording is more or less identical. If you want it in both places you can keep it but as I've already said it looks very silly. - Galloglass 21:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for South African Defence Review 2012

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Aamir Khan

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Aamir Khan. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects

Would you mind being an Active Peer reviewer on Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability/Peer review and Wikipedia:WikiProject Autism/Peer review? I'm going to be busy with real life soon so I don't think I can for long. Please reply on my talk page. Thanks. Maranjosie (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox redirect

Hi Dodger67, Please remove the redirect from my sandbox as you have offered. This was my first created article, I am reasonably new to Wikipedia, and I have no idea what is going on!! Also, the trinomial authority for Canis lupus variabilis - are extinct canids published in Animal Species of the World or similar? I am not sure where to look. Regards, William Harris • talk • 19:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You botanists are quick off the mark! Many thanks. William Harris • talk • 19:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec):Hi User:William Harris Done! see here. I know less than nothing about trinomial authorities, except that it's an essential data item for taxoboxes - ask at the Wikiproject, someone there will probably know, or know where to find out. (P.S.: What's this about botanists?) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have confused you with another helpful administrator - it is too early in the morning and I have yet to drink my coffee! William Harris • talk • 20:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Early morning for you, almost bedtime for me... Wikipedia editing is addictive! This is what I've just been working on, but I'm done for the night. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. I am in the other SA (South Australia) where we have the other UNISA (University of South Australia). Thanks for your help. William Harris • talk • 20:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dodger67, I asked about the trinomial authority for Canis lupus variabilis on the WikiProject:Mammals page and got the reply that I just edited - very helpful over there. Regarding my sandbox, something strange is going on. What is there in edit does not match what is seen after pressing save - most of it does not appear on the screen! Is that something you can work some background magic on, please? William Harris • talk • 11:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:William Harris, I found the errors that hid most of the page content but I can't figure out why the list defined refs are not displaying, it's not a referencing method I use much - this is one for the WP:Help desk#References not showing up. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Roger (Dodger67), it appears to have sorted itself out. The Megafaunal wolf article is now live - many thanks. Regards, William Harris • talk • 12:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually someone responded to my Help desk post and fixed it. Congrats on another article! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Mexicans of European descent

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mexicans of European descent. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Centre of Excellence for Operations in Confined and Shallow Waters

Roger, thank you for reviewing my draft for said article. It is a translation of the original German article, which is also linked. I have worked for this organization in the past so I know a lot about it. What concerns do you have with the article? I am currently reviewing, updating and creating articles that deal with NATO and its bodies and its organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seabas57 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seabas57, I have no specific concerns, but as I am not very familiar with NATO or Naval topics I have posted a request to WikiProject Military History for one or more subject specialists to assist with the review process. Unfortunately they have been (unusually) slow in responding to the request. I think it would be a good idea if you could start a discussion of your plans for the NATO articles at the project. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TRE

I am still fighting for TRE in wp, please see my latest posting at AfC submission. Now it is up to you guys. PS: And yes, I am enthousiastic about TRE!--Heebi (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this about - please provide a link and/or an explanation of context. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ups. Here for better understanding what i wrote in the admission section last week: A Department of Defense survey from June 2011 evaluated TRE and several other posture and tension modulation techniques (see: "Mind-Body Skills for Regulating the Autonomic Nervous System") Although further research is being requested, the effectivness of TRE is acknowledged: "TRE’s are a brief series of techniques designed to produce trauma healing and stress reduction by using six simple exercises that evoke neuromuscular tremors/shaking that is generally experienced as relaxing or pleasurable. ... Further research into the technique is merited." At present I can not find any stronger backing study; so now it´s up to you guys, if TRE is notabel enough for wp. (see: [1])--Heebi (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About the personal attacks

Looks like you're right, yes. But I won't be blocking the user(s) right out of hand. It's near my bedtime now, I'll take a look in the morning if they have made any further offensive comments. If it turns out to be so, a range block of at least one week is in order. JIP | Talk 21:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we'll see if anything further happens. It's bedtime for me too, midnight here! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - Helper Script access

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look shortly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops! I broke it.

Hi Dodger67, somehow on an administration page called Category:Talk header templates, under the letter W, I have managed to create a template called User:William Harris. Please use your magical powers and remove it if possible, please. Regards, William Harris • talk • 11:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi William it's really easy to fix. Go to User:William Harris and then click on the "Edit" link in the heading of the last section "Useful items" - you will see a list of categories right at the end - delete the offending one and save. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@:User:William Harris I just realised that you probably want to keep a link to the category in your "Useful stuff" list. In that case you don't delete the category, you just insert a colon before the word "Category" like this - [[:Category... that "deactivates" the category and coverts it to a simple link. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am now delisted from the Category:Talk header templates, and my category on my home page now works as a link - many thanks! (I still think this is all black magic, and will maintain vigilance!) Regards, William Harris • talk • 11:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it. Actually breaking the wiki takes a huge amount of determined effort and intentional malice - an innocent typo or two isn't anywhere near enough damage. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Air combat manoeuvring

Already covered by collaporative Aviation =y in the milhist banner--Petebutt (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. In future please post an edit summary. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:59:23, 8 February 2015 review of submission by Historian78



I recently wrote an article on an American producer of music documentary films and recordings. The individual's name is Toby Byron. Someone who goes by the codename of "Dodger67" is making the judgment that the article, with over 30 references, does not use reliable references. I am a professional historian, with a Ph.D. in American History, and I really must question Mr. "dodger67"'s judgment. Among the references I used in my rejected article were links to reviews of Mr. Byron's productions appearing in The New York Times and other major media. I also provided links demonstrating that his productions have appeared on the American PBS television network over many years, as well as the CBS television network. I provided links indicating that the books that Mr. Byron has either co-written or produced are in fact for sale on Amazon.com and other outlets. I embedded additional links in my proposed article to active webpages of musical artists Mr. Byron has worked with, managed the tours of, and/or represented. I am not quite certain what sort of documentation Mr. Dodger67 is looking for. Mr. Byron's life and works are evidenced in the form of the products he has created; I have provided links to these and to some of the people involved. Further amplicifation beyond the "not acceptable" stamp is needed at my end. What kind of documentation would Mr. Dodger67 find persuasive? I am eager to know. Thank you. Historian78 (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Historian78[reply]

Historian78 (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historian78, for someone with a Ph.D. in history you seem to have a rather poor grasp of the concept of change over time. When I reviewed the draft it looked like this. All the references were added by you after my review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 1

Hi! Thank you for subscribing to the WikiProject X Newsletter. For our first issue...

Has WikiProject X changed the world yet? No.

We opened up shop last month and announced our existence to the world. Our first phase is the "research" phase, consisting mostly of reading and listening. We set up our landing page and started collecting stories. So far, 28 stories have been shared about WikiProjects, describing a variety of experiences across numerous WikiProjects. A recurring story involves a WikiProject that starts off strong but has trouble continuing to stay active. Most people describe using WikiProjects as a way to get feedback from other editors. Some quotes:

  • "Working on requested articles, utilising the reliable sources section, and having an active WikiProject to ask questions in really helped me learn how to edit Wikipedia and looking back I don't know how long I would have stayed editing without that project." – Sam Walton on WikiProject Video Games
  • "I believe that the main problem of the Wikiprojects is that they are complicated to use. There should be a a much simpler way to check what do do, what needs to be improved etc." – Tetra quark
  • "In the late 2000s, WikiProject Film tried to emulate WP:MILHIST in having coordinators and elections. Unfortunately, this was not sustainable and ultimately fell apart." – Erik

Of course, these are just anecdotes. While they demonstrate what is possible, they do not necessarily explain what is typical. We will be using this information in conjunction with a quantitative analysis of WikiProjects, as documented on Meta. Particularly, we are interested in the measurement of WikiProject activity as it relates to overall editing in that WikiProject's subject area.

We also have 50 people and projects signed up for pilot testing, which is an excellent start! (An important caveat: one person volunteering a WikiProject does not mean the WikiProject as a whole is interested; just that there is at least one person, which is a start.)

While carrying out our research, we are documenting the problems with WikiProjects and our ideas for making WikiProjects better. Some ideas include better integration of existing tools into WikiProjects, recommendations of WikiProjects for people to join, and improved coordination with Articles for Creation. These are just ideas that may or may not make it to the design phase; we will see. We are also working with WikiProject Council to improve the directory of WikiProjects, with the goal of a reliable, self-updating WikiProject directory. Stay tuned! If you have any ideas, you are welcome to leave a note on our talk page.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing!

– Harej 17:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DMD External Link

Hi Dodger 67, Regarding the DMD Wiki page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchenne_muscular_dystrophy - I feel that a link to the page of a charity which is spending lots trying to solve the disease would be 100% relevant. The link I inserted under external links was: http://www.action.org.uk/appeal/duchenne-muscular-dystrophy%20 We have a more detailed page on it here: http://www.action.org.uk/our-research/duchenne-muscular-dystrophy-developing-badly-needed-new-treatment-boys-devastating-cond I consider these to be entirely appropriate, so may I ask why you don't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodie19838 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Woodie19838. The link you added is to a page soliciting donations to a charity for funding research, the page does not contribute significantly to the article reader's understanding of DMD itself. The link is clearly intended to promote the cause of the charity rather than to the advantage of the reader of the article. Please see WP:WORTHYCAUSE for a fuller explanation of Wikipedia's position on such issues. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could see how you'd think that on the first link, but this one? http://www.action.org.uk/our-research/duchenne-muscular-dystrophy-developing-badly-needed-new-treatment-boys-devastating-cond In it we hear from leading doctors things like: "We’ve known for many years that boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy have too much calcium in their muscles,” he explains. “We’ve identified a possible new medicine that might reduce this calcium overload and we are testing it in the laboratory.” A medicine targeting calcium overload isn't mentioned once in the article, so that's to the advantage of the reader. Or do you object to that as well?

@Woodie19838, I'm not sure, so I think you should rather ask WikiProject Medicine for an opinion, that's where you'll find editors who specialize in medical articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your response Roger. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodie19838 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on WP:AN#Closure review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script

Hello! You have been selected to receive an invitation to participate in the closure review for the recent RfC regarding the AfC Helper script. You've been chosen because you participated in the original RfC. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. This message is automated. Replies will not be noticed. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you
Thank you Roger, for looking over and editing my Hollow Fiber Bioreactors draft on Wiki. It's my first draft ever to this platform, so I was a bit confused on how to complete it successfully. I think I took care of all the issues with the article. HalinaZakowicz (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Global perceptions of autism

Those assertions were well reverted. The article content seems a long way from its title. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Thu 22:40, wikitime= 14:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's a fairly decent summary of the situation worldwide, there are other articles that go into further detail about autism in the western world, so that's not the focus of the article. In fact that section was added some time after the "rest of the world" sections. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cfr. / Cf. / Vgl.

Dear Dodger,

Thank you for commenting. "Cfr." (also "Cf.") is short for "Confer" and common in English (liberal arts) literature, contrary to "See" it indicates a sort of summarized reference and no direct quotation. By the way: The German equivalent (cfr. the German-Wiki entry for "Kim Yusob") is "Vgl." (short for "Vergleiche" = "compare/confer").

With kind regards AntonioRusconi (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AntonioRusconi thanks, so I've learnt something new on WP today! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:53:46, 28 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Typing a lot


Hi Dodger67! Thank you for taking the time to review my article! As I am new to using Wikipedia, I decided to try it out by writing about a company. However there were not many sources pertaining to this company, may I ask how do I go about overcoming this problem in giving more credible sources? I did try to deliver a neutral point of view by giving facts about the company, could you tell where did I go off point if any? I really appreciate your help in this matter, since I do not have any experience in using Wikipedia. Thank you once again.

Typing a lot (talk) 07:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gerry Goldstein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorney (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) 09:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for the approval on Jarl Mohn. Dredmorbius (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Streptomyces verticillus

Hi Roger (Dodger67). Many thanks for approving Streptomyces verticillus. It's my first attempt at an article and I'm very happy. I have a couple of questions though. In the "View history" section of the article, it has info on every edit I've ever made to my sandbox. Is that normal? The only relevant edits (i.e. edits pertaining to Streptomyces verticillus are two on 5th March and two on 7th March. My second question is how do I get my sandbox back? Every time I click on my sandbox, I get redirected to the Streptomyces verticillus article. Sorry if these are stupid questions. Like I said, I something of a newbie here. Thanks for any advice you can offer. Cheers, tH0r (talk contribs) 07:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:L0st_H0r!z0ns Congratulations on the new article! It's a real pleasure to review such a well written and properly formatted draft. When you get redirected to the article you will see a small text "note" immediately below the title "Redirected from <link to your sandbox>", clicking on it will take you back to the sandbox page where you can simply delete the redirect code. However, if you're planning to create multiple articles it's a lot "cleaner" to simply create a new separate sandbox for each one. You do this by first creating a link somewhere convenient (such as your now clean sandbox) like this: User:L0st_H0r!z0ns/Streptowhatsit somethingus, then you click on that (red) link and start writing. It has the additional advantage that the title is already set correctly. Take a look at my sandbox, where I have such a list of all my drafts. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger (Dodger67). Many thanks for responding so quickly and for the advice. I'll give that a try. Cheers. tH0r (talk contribs) 08:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Hi Roger (Dodger67). That worked a treat!! Many thanks for all your help and advice. Much appreciated. Cheers. tH0r (talk contribs) 08:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:28:09, 9 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by DawnParry


Hi, Im so sorry, I simply copied and pasted from the IFB site initially, to create the wiki IFB page. I'm new to this. I've now completely altered it. I'm standing for election in Bristol West constituency and we at IFB were informed that it wasn't possible to add the Party name on the constituency/candidates' page until a wiki page was created. And without me belonging to a political party even though it's a facilitator and not a policy driven party, it loses IFB's identity.

I'm now going to resubmit please, having entirely stripped this down. Also, I don't know how to link things on here.

DawnParry (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DawnParry, I've had a go at fixing it up, I think it's an acceptable start now, but I can no longer review it as my neutrality is compromised by the ammount of work I've done on it - so we'll just have to wait until someone else gets to it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:10:42, 10 March 2015 review of submission by Rapunzalia


First of all, thanks for the review. You were right about the lack of sources so I edited the article and added more references. I would appreciate it if you could find the time to look at it again and tell me whether the article is fit for publication now. I'm new at Wikipedia but I would like to do a lot of good work here. Rapunzalia (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rapunzalia it's not regarded as good practice for the same reviewer to repeatedly review a particular draft, so I'd rather just give you a few tips/comments. The "Stichting Rotterdam Maaskant" page contains quite a lot of critical commentary about Neutelings' work. You could use some of it to improve the article, just be sure to cite it properly. WP readers are interested in what qualified critics (such as prize juries) have to say about creative people such as architects. If you're not fluent in Dutch you can ask for help at the Teahouse, I'm unfortunately not fully fluent but understand enough to recognise the critical commentary for what it is. The Icon magazine reference link does not work, it just goes to the iconeye.com main page - if it's only available to subscribers then you should note "(subscription needed)" in the reference. The "Selected projects" list is entirely unreferenced. If there's anything else I can help with, you know where to find me! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meridian Compensation Partners, LLC article

Hi,

I received the note that this article was declined for notability issues. Can I ask why that was? I see other articles about consulting organizations with similarly notable information in the articles, and I'm confused why this is not being considered notable. For example, can you explain why this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novantas is considered notable while the article I submitted is not?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glcmedia (talk • contribs) 19:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Glcmedia, if you had actually read the WP:Notability guidelines, as advised and linked in the review text, you would easily see that Novantas does not pass the notability standard. If it were submitted for review it would not be accepted, I have just proposed it for deletion. The existence some poor articles on Wikipedia is not a valid reason for adding another. You should rather use some of the best company articles as examples to emulate instead of dumpster diving for the lowest possible quality that you think you could get away with. What you need to do is find independently written articles about the company published in editorially independent sources such as mainstream news or periodicals, and then use them as the basis of the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have read the guidelines and that's why I asked the question. My submission includes links to three editorially independent sources, which serve as the basis for the article's content. I take it that is not enough, and that is why I asked about other articles, that seem to have been reviewed and accepted without issues, that have fewer sources than this article. I will add more sources to the article and resubmit.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glcmedia (talk • contribs) 20:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:47:09, 13 March 2015 review of submission by David Herrera 1985


Dear Dodger67,

I would like to know what I must do to ensure that the article in question is sufficiently "verifiable". I have added 9 references, 8 eight of which are completely independent and impartial. I built my article based on other banks which have Wikipedia entries and some only have 2 or 3 references, so I am at a bit of a loss of what more I should increase. I added this entry because there are articles which refer to Nemea Bank, such as List of banks in Malta, so the article is notable and worthy of inclusion in the encyclopaedia. I would appreciate your advice on this matter.

Thank you,


David Herrera 1985 (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David Herrera 1985 - let's take a look at those references, 1 to 5 are simply lists and registers that prove only that the company exists, that it is a bank and it is domiciled in Malta - none of these have any bearing on the notability standard for companies. The 6th reference is the bank's own website. References 7 and 8 are from a newspaper, but as I don't have access to them I can't see if they are articles written by clearly independent journalists or simply press releases originating from the bank itself. The 8th reference does not mention the bank at all. So there we have it - only two of the references might evidence notability. We need clearly independent sources that discuss the bank in significant detail, published in mainstream press and magazines. Listings/directories and passing mentions don't make the grade. BTW recent editions of the Sunday Times (I presume it's the British one) are available online, adding links to the references could be useful. Look for more press coverage (but not PR from the bank itself). I hope this helps. BTW the other articles with poor referencing have probably never been reviewed - the review system has been in place only since 2007. If you want to compare your draft to other bank articles look for a B-class or better quality rating in the WikiProject banners on the article talk pages. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Dodger67, Thanks for your feedback. I will definitely work on your advice and update the article. As a pan-European bank, we also have a number of online reviews in other languages, including Spanish, French and Finnish reviews by several major aggregate sites and newspapers. Can these be added to this Wikipedia page, or must all references be cited in the English language? Thanks again, David (David Herrera 1985) (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:18:58, 13 March 2015 review of submission by DriveMaster128


I would like to point out that R-Linux is a Linux program. Linux software, unfortunately, doesn't attract much attention, especially when comparing with their Windows counterparts. And I believe that a review on http://www.softpedia.com (a review, not a promo), is quite a reliable source. DriveMaster128 (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC) DriveMaster128 (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DriveMaster128 - The Softpedia review might be a good source, but you don't actually use it as a reference. See the Referencing for beginners guide. You could also solicit some assistance from WP:WikiProject Linux, that's were you'll find other editors with specific experience of the topic. Hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dodger67&oldid=651242010"