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 Muab2 (talk | contribs) at 07:22, 30 April 2015 (→Request on 12:24:22, 28 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Muab2). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Normalization

Dodger67. I just spent over a day starting to clean up the normalization article which has been on for over 2 years. I have known Wolf Wolfenberger since the late 1970s, and have met Bengt Nirje; the proponents involved since Wolf's death in 2011 are termed his students (then to degrees), primarily from Syracuse University where I was faculty, or recipients of assistance from his institute. More commonly, in the 1980s on, our National Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Community Integration (a Presidential Center) is purposefully confused with his views and institute; he was my associated faculty in the Division of Special Educaiton and Rehabilitation.

I do see the disparaging remarks on homophobia were taken off yesterday, and I came back with our first lesbian research study reference today, and of course that section is missing, so I will end up with an unknown woman researcher again (Shoultz, on above). The list of community paradigm supporters (those are not the students, but national center directors) is off again, which means you have taken my references for someone else's use only, disparaged my national center for supporting a moral coherency group in the world, and exited again as an institutionalizer that way! The "kids" only are involved, primarily with rips offs at the other gates, and have been sued already. What was left on was public ignorance on the dolls associated with my national research center!

JARacino (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)JARacinoJARacino (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Rapunzalia, happening to drop by here: the content of the article was almost identical to the article on the firm. There's no point in having two such similar articles. SSince someone might reasonably look for the name, I changed it into a redirect to the firm, and moved that redirect into mainspace.. Ifsome day you wish to write specific content about they individual supported by references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements, there's no reason why it could;t be expanded. But you'll need source about him specifically, not the firm, and if the firm;'s work is essential his own work, this may be difficult. It would also be [possible to move the article on the firm to his name instead, and make the redirect in the other direction. If you want to do that, let me know. DGG ( talk ) 08:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dodger67, you're right in saying that the pages were very similar. I had hoped to find more sources about the person but for now the only thing available were interviews and announcements of lectures. If I ever come across more extensive information I might venture to make the page again. As for now, I think it's best that the firm is the page it redirects to because it is clearly the more important one of the two. And the firm has two architects so I suppose the second one wouldn't be too pleased if his partner was the main title. Thanks for all the help! Rapunzalia (talk) 09:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: FYI see reply above. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:29, 25 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]

@David (David Herrera 1985) - feel free to use sources in any language - if needed we can find reviewers who are fluent in just about any language used in mainstream media worldwide. As long as the sources have been written by competent commentators not connected to the bank they would probably be usable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:53, 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]

Great Answer

Great Answer Badge Great Answer Badge
Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum.

A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification.

Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
Great answer about notability and verifiability.


South Africa are now B2

I have changed B2 to South Africa. Even if Pakistan scores 243/0 in 0.0 overs, their NRR will be lower than South Africa.Sujith (talk) 07:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sujith, all it took was a little patience, we waited until it became clear. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the person who edited earlier, I too waited till the end of the Ireland innings.Sujith (talk) 08:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see so. I think my latest post on the article talk page sums up the current situation correctly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:48:41, 15 March 2015 review of submission by Nadia Eliseeva


Nadia Eliseeva (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, You have declined my self-scanning page while according to you there is already a self-checkout page. Please allow me to explain that self-checkout and self-scanning are different systems and the shopping trip is also completely different.

Self-checkout; customers walk into the store, add their products into their basket and at the end of the shopping trip all the products are scanned in one time through the self-checkout machine after which the customer can pay. During the shopping trip the customer has no clue about pricing and will not be informed about advertisements.

Self-scanning; customers walk into the store, sign up to a scanning device (usually attached to a customer loyalty card) or login with their smartphone. They can download a shopping list already created at home. During the shopping trip the customers scans each product, the customer is completely aware of the total costs and receives personalized advertisements directly on the scanning device. It is even possible for customers to add allergies or diets to their profile. When they scan an article which matches the allergy of diet the customer will be alerted.

Also the software for both solutions is completely different. For self-checkout the software is only needed in the machine that scans the products at the end of the shopping trip, there is no connection with the specific customer. For self-scanning the customers needs a personal profile and the customers is connected with the supermarket at all times.

So please review the article again. By the way, on the French wikipedia page there is also a self-scanning page, which has less quality, but which is also approved.

Thank you for your time and I am looking forware to your reaction!

Hi Nadia Eliseeva - please include a brief explanation of the difference in the article itself, then the next reviewer (and subsequent readers) would also know.
I don't understand French so that article is of no use to me, sorry :( The French Wikipedia's quality standards are their affair, the English Wikipedia's standards are generally considered to be more developed than most of the other Wikipedias. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your answer to my query re: a category for Salmagundi Club

Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 2

For this month's issue...

Making sense of a lot of data.

Work on our prototype will begin imminently. In the meantime, we have to understand what exactly we're working with. To this end, we generated a list of 71 WikiProjects, based on those brought up on our Stories page and those who had signed up for pilot testing. For those projects where people told stories, we coded statements within those stories to figure out what trends there were in these stories. This approach allowed us to figure out what Wikipedians thought of WikiProjects in a very organic way, with very little by way of a structure. (Compare this to a structured interview, where specific questions are asked and answered.) This analysis was done on 29 stories. Codes were generally classified as "benefits" (positive contributions made by a WikiProject to the editing experience) and "obstacles" (issues posed by WikiProjects, broadly speaking). Codes were generated as I went along, ensuring that codes were as close to the original data as possible. Duplicate appearances of a code for a given WikiProject were removed.

We found 52 "benefit" statements encoded and 34 "obstacle" statements. The most common benefit statement referring to the project's active discussion and participation, followed by statements referring to a project's capacity to guide editor activity, while the most common obstacles made reference to low participation and significant burdens on the part of the project maintainers and leaders. This gives us a sense of WikiProjects' big strength: they bring people together, and can be frustrating to editors when they fail to do so. Meanwhile, it is indeed very difficult to bring editors together on a common interest; in the absence of a highly motivated core of organizers, the technical infrastructure simply isn't there.

We wanted to pair this qualitative study with quantitative analysis of a WikiProject and its "universe" of pages, discussions, templates, and categories. To this end I wrote a script called ProjAnalysis which will, for a given WikiProject page (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek) and WikiProject talk-page tag (e.g. Template:WikiProject Star Trek), will give you a list of usernames of people who edited within the WikiProject's space (the project page itself, its talk page, and subpages), and within the WikiProject's scope (the pages tagged by that WikiProject, excluding the WikiProject space pages). The output is an exhaustive list of usernames. We ran the script to analyze our test batch of WikiProjects for edits between March 1, 2014 and February 28, 2015, and we subjected them to further analysis to only include those who made 10+ edits to pages in the projects' scope, those who made 4+ edits to the projects' space, and those who made 10+ edits to pages in scope but not 4+ edits to pages in the projects' space. This latter metric gives us an idea of who is active in a certain subject area of Wikipedia, yet who isn't actively engaging on the WikiProject's pages. This information will help us prioritize WikiProjects for pilot testing, and the ProjAnalysis script in general may have future life as an application that can be used by Wikipedians to learn about who is in their community.

Complementing the above two studies are a design analysis, which summarizes the structure of the different WikiProject spaces in our test batch, and the comprehensive census of bots and tools used to maintain WikiProjects, which will be finished soon. With all of this information, we will have a game plan in place! We hope to begin working with specific WikiProjects soon.

As a couple of asides...

  • Database Reports has existed for several years on Wikipedia to the satisfaction of many, but many of the reports stopped running when the Toolserver was shut off in 2014. However, there is good news: the weekly New WikiProjects and WikiProjects by Changes reports are back, with potential future reports in the future.
  • WikiProject X has an outpost on Wikidata! Check it out. It's not widely publicized, but we are interested in using Wikidata as a potential repository for metadata about WikiProjects, especially for WikiProjects that exist on multiple Wikimedia projects and language editions.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing! If you have any questions or comments, please share them with us.

Harej (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:03:53, 27 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Elemonier


Hi Dodger67,

Thank you for taking the time to review the page I created. I agree completely about the excessive references. In my zeal to make sure I had enough references, I went a bit overboard. I will condense/remove some of them.

Hi Elemonier, I'm going to intersperse my replies to your questions and use italics so that it's easier to keep track of everything.

I just have a few questions about how to best address the necessary changes before resubmitting it. I am very, very open to suggestions, which is why I'm here. The last paragraph of Writing career mentions that the author has works that appear in pop culture anthologies, which is one of the places where it has too many references. My thought is to just create a single reference that lists the different works in the same reference, but that might also look clunky at the bottom. I could leave off the reference entirely, but my concern then becomes will someone note it as needing one? What would you suggest as the best way to handle that particular spot?

I would solve that by actually naming the anthologies and referencing each instance separately, like this:"...has been published in a number of bestselling pop-culture anthologies such as This Anthology(ref for it), That Anthology(ref for it), The Other Anthology(ref for it) and One More Anthology.(ref for it)"

This might sound a tad dense, but when reviewers say 2, maybe 3 references, I want to make sure I understand, you mean in a single sentence, or overall in a paragraph?

Two or three together in the same spot, like: "The moon is made of cheese.(ref1)(ref2)(ref3)" When too many of those superscript numbers are all bunched together it breaks the flow of the text and it looks like the writer is "trying too hard" to prove the point - if two or three refs can't do it then six or eight aren't going to convince the reader either. The basic idea is to spread the references - place each one as close as possible to the word or phrase it directly relates to (usually directly after), like this:"The moon is made of cheese,(ref1) some astronomers say it is Cheddar(ref2) while others insist it is mature Stilton,(ref3) many Italian astronomers prefer the Parmesan theory.(ref4)"

The other places I'd love some suggestions for is the lack of references in the first paragraphs of Early life and Personal life There are several things that are linked to but have no references in Early life Since it's for high school/college, what should have references here? On a message board, that question may come across as a bit snarky, but it's not at all meant to be. For me, I feel like I've gone cross-eyed looking at it and I can't see what I'm missing there. Truly need the extra set of eyes here. Same for the first paragraph of Personal life. I didn't link to Peace Corps or Guatemala because that's already done earlier. Should the reference come there, rather than earlier? I'm not otherwise sure what type of reference should be there, since it is for first marriage and children, so any suggestion would be very helpful. I can see that I could make a reference for the last sentence that says much of her work is published under (her former married name). But since that's mostly the pop anthology and her first book, Elena (which is listed in the info box), what would be the preferred way to reference it simply? I would love suggestions for that paragraph, as well.

Quite simply, how do you know what her parents' names are? Where did you find out that she was born in Philadelphia and moved to Leesburg? Similarly, where did you get the information about her first marriage, children, etc? If a single source covers the entire content of a paragraph you can simply reference it once at the end of that paragraph. To show that some of her books were written under a different name simply cite the book itself or a site that lists her work. It may be useful to add a bibliography of her major works to the article - where the details of each book are given.
If you got some of the information from an unpublished source - such as directly hearing it from Urbani or in a private letter or email I'm afraid you cannot include that information at all as only published sources are acceptable.

Once I've made the requested changes, I will resubmit.

Thank you again for the feedback, it is greatly appreciated.

Respectfully, Elemonier

Elemonier (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these answers are helpful, if you need more clarity you know where to find me. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More details please

Hi

You recently rejected my article and stated that you wanted more reliable sources. I thought I had done this correctly as I cited major publishing houses and award sites. I am totally willing to provide more references but could you kindly guide me as to which parts of the article you are referring to and what exactly you are looking for. Thank you kindly.

I hope I am doing this correctly as it is my first time. My apologies for any errors.

Edit: having looked at how this appears after submission, I realize even the Talk page submission is a mess. I am not sure how to fix it though ::sigh::. Again, my apologies.

CapnBlaze (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC) CapnBlaze 3/29/15[reply]

Hi CapnBlaze, unfortunately the "canned" review message places emphasis on reliable sources but in the case of your draft the issue is actually more about the independence (or lack thereof) of the sources you have cited. The awards you mentioned are referenced from the website of the award organization itself - which naturally has an interest in promoting the award. For the panel discussions you use recordings of the events, published by the organizers, as the references and similarly with the radio plays you use podcasts of the stories - but we don't know if anyone actually tuned in to the broadcasts. Other information you cite from Johnson's own website. All of these sources are too close to the action to have a neutral disinterested view of the subject. What you need is to find reports or other sources written by people who have no direct interest in the events, publications or Johnson herself. Book reviews in mainstream news media or magazines/webzines, profile articles about Johnson in literary journals, and so on - written by people who have nothing to gain or lose from anything Johnson has done or will still do - secondary sources. I hope this helps.
By the way - the formatting problem of your post (which I have fixed) was because you had spaces at the start of each line - it's a "feature" of the wiki software to format text that starts with a space like that - in a box without line wrapping. If you really need to indent you use one or more colons at the start of the line of text. See WP:INDENT for more details about how and when/why to do so. Indenting is hardly ever used within an article - particularly if it's just ordinary running prose, but it is used in Talk pages to indicate the flow of discussions - when replying you use one more colon than the part you are replying to - just like I have done here, so if you reply to this you should start your text with two colons (you will only see them in edit mode). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your response Roger (Dodger67). That was extremely useful and helpful. It was very appreciated.CapnBlaze (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DaVinciTek

Hello Rodger,

My draft for DaVinciTek was recently rejected due to an advertorial tone. I was wondering if you could pinpoint the sections you found to reflect this tone as I do not find the whole piece to read like an advertisement. More than happy to make adjustments, just want to ensure you're not forced to review yet again in the future. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ITtech1000 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

02:59:03, 1 April 2015 review of submission by Aenfinger


Aenfinger (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear reviewer. Thank you for taking the time to review the draft on biofrequency chip. Can you please provide specific reasons why the draft was rejected. The biofrequency chip is a product and dosage form that is commercially available. There are companies developing prescription products from the technology, but I didn't include that information because it may be perceived as promotional. Again specific information you are looking for is helpful.

Thank you

Hi Aenfinger, please join the discussion at WT:WikiProject Medicine#Draft:Biofrequency chip. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Physical disability

Does this article say anything which is not said in the main Disability article? Is it worth preserving?Rathfelder (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder - The Disability article has just a single paragraph "summary", the Physical disability article has several sections, so yes it says a lot that the "main" article does not. The Physical disability article could actually be expanded and improved quite substantially. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You think a separate article is a good idea? They could be merged.Rathfelder (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes a separate article for every "category" of disability, and have the disability article summarise all aspects of disability in the broad sense. Excessive detail about physical disability in the general article should actually be moved to the physical disability page. This structure was decided at WikiProject Disability quite some time ago, and you really need to take your ideas to the project, don't dicuss them only with me. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:51:59, 6 April 2015 review of submission by Abhyud


Hi,

I have modified my article as per the feedback given by you and maintained the Wikipedia quality guidelines. Kindly, review my article again.

Abhyudaya Tripathi (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abhyudaya Tripathi (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

House of Köröskényi

I really do not understand what you require from me. Could You please note exact requirements for the page to be published! Hexenkind410 (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hexenkind410, it's quite simple, you need to adequately respond to the criticism and concerns posted by one of the experienced WikiProject Royalty and Nobility editors on the Talk page of the draft - Draft talk:House of Köröskényi. The editor basically claims the whole article is not credible or the sources it is based on may be fake. Please discuss the matter further on the draft talk page. I am not a subject specialist at all, I'm just one of the gnomes helping out at the Articles for Creation project. The only nobility I know of from that part of the world is Count Dracula. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: User:ELECTROHOMEOPATHY/sandbox

Hello Dodger67. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:ELECTROHOMEOPATHY/sandbox, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:ELECTROHOMEOPATHY/sandbox - Sigh! We really need a speedy criterion for "obvious bullshit". It's this type of utter rubbish that forms a significant proportion of the backlog that periodically clogs up the AFC process and otherwise simply creates "make work" for actual productive editors. It's blatantly obvious to anyone with even a modicum of a clue about the inclusion standards on en.WP that that topic will not last a day in mainspace, so why can't we simply euthanase it at the earliest opportunity rather than pedantically going through the burocratic motions of leading the drafter down the garden path with a string of too polite and non-emphatic declines and then waiting for another six months after the draft writer eventually gives up to finally put the page out of it's misery. </rant> Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with that, but it wasn't a G11. In any case, the draft has been rejected as expected, and the account has been soft blocked. It will be a happy day when someone manages to include "obvious bullshit" in CSD, but that day has not arrived yet §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) How about 'joke' or 'hoax'? Fiddle Faddle 10:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those plants!

Unbelievably, the draft has been resubmitted with almost no work done. It is so tempting to accept it and AfD it in one move, but only because the author seems unwilling to listen to you, to me, and to others. She also seems incapable of the common courtesy of interacting with those offering her some help, something that does not bode well for her employability. ~sighs~ Fiddle Faddle 10:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Timtrent, I feel you! The problem, as I see it, is that it might actually be a notable journal, but she is just not getting to the point of actually proving it. That's why I've called in the topic specialists. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it might. I think it is, probably, but the article on to needs to stick! I have just responded at some length to her on the draft talk page, where she has posted a bleat. I do wish she would just do the work. Fiddle Faddle 10:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And it is live Fiddle Faddle 11:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:16:48, 9 April 2015 review of submission by Rmreally


Thank you for reviewing the IPFH submission. We have revised the copy as best we can according to your feedback. Can you look at it before we resubmit to see if there is anything else required?


Rmreally (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rmreally, you need far more references, I see entire paragraphs that still have none. Every single substantive claim or fact needs to be referenced. I've cleaned up the first sentence, it was a bit messy and repetitive. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
HiRoger (Dodger67) , thank you so much for your advice and help on the Institute for Preventive Foot Health entry. I deeply appreciate your specificity and the examples you provided. I'm resubmitting and will keep fingers crossed. Best regards.--Rmreally (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rmreally - You need to add many more references. References from medical journals are the "gold standard"; I found this: "Clipboard". Home Healthcare Nurse. 30 (8): 442. 2012. doi:10.1097/NHH.0b013e318265d2e1.. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:22:53, 11 April 2015 review of submission by Maryhess2015


I have added substantial citations to news articles and other external sources to justify the contents of the article on the Religious Education Association. I submitted it for re-review over a week ago, but it seems to just sink further back in the review queue. This is very discouraging. How can I get this article reviewed and up where everyone can see and improve it? Thank you! Maryhess2015 (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maryhess2015 (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maryhess2015, the number you see is not the draft's position in the list, it's the total number of drafts waiting for review. Yours is almost one of the "oldest" so it will most probably be reviewed quite soon. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! that's helpful. Maryhess2015 (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 3

Greetings! For this month's issue...

We have demos!

After a lengthy research and design process, we decided for WikiProject X to focus on two things:

  • A WikiProject workflow that focuses on action items: discussions you can participate in and tasks you can perform to improve the encyclopedia; and
  • An automatically updating WikiProject directory that gives you lists of users participating in the WikiProject and editing in that subject area.

We have a live demonstration of the new WikiProject workflow at WikiProject Women in Technology, a brand new WikiProject that was set up as an adjunct to a related edit-a-thon in Washington, DC. The goal is to surface action items for editors, and we intend on doing that through automatically updated working lists. We are looking into using SuggestBot to generate lists of outstanding tasks, and we are looking into additional options for automatic worklist generation. This takes the burden off of WikiProject editors to generate these worklists, though there is also a "requests" section for Wikipedians to make individual requests. (As of writing, these automated lists are not yet live, so you will see a blank space under "edit articles" on the demo WikiProject. Sorry about that!) I invite you to check out the WikiProject and leave feedback on WikiProject X's talk page.

Once the demo is sufficiently developed, we will be working on a limited deployment on our pilot WikiProjects. We have selected five for the first round of testing based on the highest potential for impact and will scale up from there.

While a re-designed WikiProject experience is much needed, that alone isn't enough. A WikiProject isn't any good if people have no way of discovering it. This is why we are also developing an automatically updated WikiProject directory. This directory will surface project-related metrics, including a count of active WikiProject participants and of active editors in that project's subject area. The purpose of these metrics is to highlight how active the WikiProject is at the given point of time, but also to highlight that project's potential for success. The directory is not yet live but there is a demonstration featuring a sampling of WikiProjects.

Each directory entry will link to a WikiProject description page which automatically list the active WikiProject participants and subject-area article editors. This allows Wikipedians to find each other based on the areas they are interested in, and this information can be used to revive a WikiProject, start a new one, or even for some other purpose. These description pages are not online yet, but they will use this template, if you want to get a feel of what they will look like.

We need volunteers!

WikiProject X is a huge undertaking, and we need volunteers to support our efforts, including testers and coders. Check out our volunteer portal and see what you can do to help us!

As an aside...

Wouldn't it be cool if lists of requested articles could not only be integrated directly with WikiProjects, but also shared between WikiProjects? Well, we got the crazy idea of having experimental software feature Flow deployed (on a totally experimental basis) on the new Article Request Workshop, which seeks to be a place where editors can "workshop" article ideas before they get created. It uses Flow because Flow allows, essentially, section-level categorization, and in the future will allow "sections" (known as "topics" within Flow) to be included across different pages. What this means is that you have a recommendation for a new article tagged by multiple WikiProjects, allowing for the recommendation to appear on lists for each WikiProject. This will facilitate inter-WikiProject collaboration and will help to reduce duplicated work. The Article Request Workshop is not entirely ready yet due to some bugs with Flow, but we hope to integrate it into our pilot WikiProjects at some point.

Harej (talk) 01:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rmreally (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC) I am in a quandary. I resubmitted the text after following your suggestions, including rewriting since you felt the original entry read like an essay. Now I see that I have been rejected again, with the reviewer saying the copy reads like an advertisement and stating that the references are not appropriate. Do you have suggestions on how to proceed? I am in the process of gathering external links from external sources and reviewing copy again, since I am not sure why the reviewer thinks it reads like an ad. Thanks for any help you might provide.[reply]

07:13:10, 28 April 2015 review of submission by Wc5tRE4URILpNcMNQRJp


Hi, could you help me understand what else I need to do to get this document online as I am struggling to see what else I can do.

I have quoted numerous independent sources about the venue so am at a loss, any other advice you can offer would be greatly appreciated.

Wc5tRE4URILpNcMNQRJp (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wc5tRE4URILpNcMNQRJp - You've actually referenced only one source, the Nuneaton News, a local newspaper. You need a wider variety of sources and with a national or at least a wide regional level of coverage, the local community paper is not sufficient. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the feedback, I have added some more content for others including 2 articles from a natioal newspaper, I hope this is sufficient and look forward to hearing from you soon.

Many thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wc5tRE4URILpNcMNQRJp (talk • contribs) 10:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:24:22, 28 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Muab2


Hi,

Thanks for your feedback Dodger67. I will make the necessary changes as per your feedback and put it up for review again.

I have a question, other than adding additional references for the current content, will it be okay if I add awards and milestones with relevant external references (wherever possible) to show that it is a notable company?

Regards, ~~muab 28 April 2015~~

Muab2 (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Muab2 What you really need to do is look for articles about the company in the mainstream press, financial magazines and similar independent journalistic sources. Just check first that those articles are not press releases from the company, you need articles written by people with no connection to the company. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Dodger67,

Thanks for your advice. I will make the necessary changes before putting it up for review.

Regards, ~~muab 29 April 2015~~ Muab2 (talk)


Hi Dodger67,

I have added the revised article again for review. I would like you to take a look and comment.

Thanks & Regards, ~~muab 30 April 2015~~ Muab2 (talk)

Request on 09:11:44, 29 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Gaidinliu


@Dodger67:: Regarding related article, I want to seek your advise as what section/para/lines need to be re-written. From peacock terms perspective, there should be none on the page. All the references that I found about the person were highly appreciative and I have tried to make them neutral and informative.

Also, regarding references, all the references provided were different news sources. The news coverage is also wide for this person and duration of coverage is consistent across many years.

I have sought an advise at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk and was asked to clarify with the reviewer first. Please help me update the relevant parts that are not in line with Wikipedia:Encyclopedic style.

Gaidinliu (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dodger67&oldid=660015948"