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 Sergio101bank (talk | contribs) at 20:23, 29 May 2015 (→‎Please Provide An Explanation for My Removed Link: new section). 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]

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]

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)

Hi again Muab2 - I will not be reviewing it again. It's better to get a fresh opinion from someone else, we do not want the article to become biased by being exposed to only my opinions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Dodger67,

Sure Thanks.

Regards, ~~muab 4 May 2015~~ Muab2 (talk)

Hi,

Thanks for your continued support. I am happy to hear that the article can be moved to the article space now. I have resubmitted the article for review. It's been up for 2 weeks now and it shows 1063 submissions are in queue. Can I move it from AFC space to main article space? If so, how?

Kindly help.

Regards, Viny

--Muab2 (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@Muab2 It's done! So what are you going to work on next? We have many India related articles that need fixing and improvement. Many contributors from that part of the world are not really fluent in English - take a look at WP:WikiProject India if you're interested. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Dodger67,

Thanks a ton for helping me publish the article. I learned a lot from you and other wikipedians in the process. I would love to work on projects related to India.

Thanks once again.

Best Regards, --Muab2 (talk) 05:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Hi Gaidinliu - I will reply at the AFC Help desk, then others can also join the conversation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:58:24, 30 April 2015 review of submission by Atcny


Can you give me an explanation of why this is being declined. I have seen a few other pages of Real Estate executive with less notoriety than Horacio Ledon. He is in the top 1% in his field and currently is the President of New Development for the largest brokerage in the US and is responsible for over seeing the development of over $10 billion of building development. Like the others he has appeared in the news papers, The real deal, the most read industry magazine, he has also been on CNBC and other programs to answer questions and speak about the market.

Can you suggest what changes need to be made to get this approved?

Thank you Atcny (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Atcny - The main problem is that you have not actually referenced the sources you mention here such as CNBC or "the newspapers". You have used only "industry magazines" which are usually nothing more than publishers of press releases and other advertorial content for people and firms in the industry. Most of your references indicate that Ledon is the author of the articles, so they are not even close to being independent. Use the "hardcore" press sources that you say do exist, but make sure that the sources actually contain extensive information about Ledon the person, and not the company named after himself. Avoid press releases like the plague. If you find that you have more material about the company than the man you should consider changing the article to be about the company rather than the person. Hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid crystal water

Could you explain your rationale for accepting this article, given the concerns raised over its promotion of claims regarding a supposed 'state of water' apparently neither accepted or even discussed by mainstream science? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AndyTheGrump, I accepted it on the strength of the sources cited, various scientific journals. Issues of the topic being mainstream or fringe science need to be resolved by editing and discussion, they are not a barrier to acceptance per se. Even the most crackpot pseudoscience is a legitimate topic for WP as long as it is sufficiently sourced to pass Notability. The obverse of "no amount of editing can fix notability" is "once notability is demonstrated everything else is a content issue". If you believe it should be sent back to Draft-space the option to do so is available through AFD. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:FRINGE:
"For a fringe theory to be considered notable it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals – even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article themselves. To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia"
The article cites nothing but primary-source material promoting the theory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyTheGrump Do scientific journals really count as primary sources given their editorial controls? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyTheGrump - given the discussion at the Fring Noticeboard (which I was not aware of until you mentioned it on the article talk page a short while ago) I will revert my review and send it back to Draft-space. In future please place a notice on the draft/article talk page if it it being discussed elsewhere! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the WP:FTN discussion should probably have been prominently linked - it gets mentioned in passing by User:Roches, but that could easily be missed. I think that everyone was expecting more work to be done on the draft - or for the creator to accept that it didn't belong on Wikipedia. As for articles in scientific journals being primary, they unquestionably are in this case - the authors are the ones conducting the research. In any case, scientific journals can vary greatly in terms of editorial process - the worst of them will publish anything they are paid to, and 'peer review' may exist in name only: see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANC flag revision

Hi Dodger67. I don't understand this revision. The version you are reverting to is not even a proper sentence? And of course there's no connection between the ANC and the Grand Duchy of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach. However, the flags are identical, which is an interesting fact. Greenman (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenman It is not particularly interesting - but that's not the issue - the statement implies that there is an intentional connection between the two flags - as if a committee of founders of the ANC deliberated and decided to recycle some random old German noble family's flag as their own. Given the ANC's close association to Marxism/Communism the very idea of the ANC intentionally apropriating a flag of a an elitist noble family is patently absurd. I'd be willing to bet serious money (if I had any to spare!) that nobody in the ANC was even aware of the existence of the old german flag - not when they chose their design and not even now - except if some members happend to have read the article while the statement was included. There is simply no relevant connection between the two except a chance coincidence of using the same colour scheme. You are of course welcome to fix the broken sentence (which I did not notice) but please keep the irrelevant German flag out of it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've continued the discussion on the article talk page so that others can contribute. Greenman (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict

Hello Dodger67, we were unknowingly working simultaneously on improving the Union of SA section, which resulted in an edit conflict when I tried to save my version. I'm gonna try combining your good faith changes with the ones I was about to save. Might take a little while yet. Glad to know someone is keeping an eye on my edits and/or interested in improving that long-neglected article. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, edit conflicts happen fairly often. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS - am pushed for time right now. So I'm just going to upload my previously mentioned conflict-edit version which contains extensive changes, and then peruse your edits at leisure and incorporate them if or where necessary, when time allows. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2015 (UT
PPS - whoops, never mind. Just had a sudden power failure, lost the all the (unsaved) extensive changes I was telling you about. Maybe some other time. 41.162.131.130 (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Curious coding

Since you seem to be the only one around here who seems to be experienced and has an interest in the history of SA item, I trust you won't mind if I ask you for some insight (if any) re the curious form of citation coding used at SA Republic section. e.g. [1]: 224  which produces two differing sets of reference numbers.

Incidentally, in due course I'm going to trim substantially the Union of SA section -- (aside from all the OR it's convoluted and much much too long / has undue weight.

A consolation Kitten

No-one should have to go though a rotten RfA. So this kitten will curl up in your lap and make it all better.

Fiddle Faddle 15:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "Do you know who I AM????" gentleman

the org has no web site even, just a facebook page. I think he wanted one on Wikipedia. He would appear to be broadly unknown, as is his org. Fiddle Faddle 22:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Timtrent Meh... What he doesn't get is that he is the only person who actually cares that the articles exists, the rest of us look to the sources. I do my best writing when I know nothing and have no opinion about the subject, then the sources alone determine the content. Bedtime... G'nite! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to tell him just that! I think he has mistaken Wikipedia for a self published directory entry. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:True School Entertainment seems, to me, to be appropriate. Fiddle Faddle 22:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On Vikrant Class Aircraft Carriers

Thank you for helping in clarifying the question with your views in Teahouse. I request you to express your views in the talk page of the "Vikrant Class Aircraft Carriers" also. Regards--M.srihari (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari[reply]

On Quantum Thermodynamics

Currently I am in vacation in Peru nevertheless I am quite disappointed by the rejection of this topic. Quantum thermodynamics is an emerging field only this year there were 4 conferences devoted to this subject in Singapore Berlin Brazil and Spain. But to the point quantum thermodynamics is not quantum statistical mechanics. It resembles the subtle difference between probability theory and statistics. I would appreciate if other editors could address this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkosloff (talk • contribs) 02:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rkosloff, the issue is being discussed at WT:WikiProject Physics#Draft:Quantum thermodynamics, please join that conversation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:23:14, 13 May 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Dsouzaronald



Dsouzaronald (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTDIRECTORY -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where are we on the Vulcan Blazers?

I'm not sure is it is submitted or still out there, changes were made.... Robco311 19:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeeCeePhoto (talk • contribs)

Nomination for speedy deletion

I would ask that you reserve judgement on the Draft article Vulcan Blazers, as it is not a self promotion and is in progress. I see the use of We in many places that may have triggered your pique, it was an oversight and the article still has a way to go. Thanks Robco311 18:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeeCeePhoto (talk • contribs)

Hi BeeCeePhoto - I have removed the Speedy deletion nomination. You would do well to remove the entire "Mission statement" section in addition to rewriting the text in third person. Look for additional independent reliable sources that discuss the organization in significant detail. The only current reference that does so is the leagle.com one, the Congressional Record and Baltimore Sun articles contain only passing mentions of the Vulcan Blazers. With a history going back to 1970 a visit to libraries that have newspaper archives may be productive. Please do not resubmit it for review while it still has "a way to go". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:17:22, 13 May 2015 review of submission by BeeCeePhoto


The article has been adjusted to be more neutral, please be gentle...Robco311 20:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Robco311 20:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, can we remove the "Blatent self promotion tag on the article? It's like ... all caps. 108.29.158.133 (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islington Assembly Hall

Hi Roger,

Thanks for your comments about the Assembly Hall draft.

I removed the bits about the restoration because I only had the Islington Assembly Hall website to reference which has a picture of when it was originally used... Would this suffice as reference?

Any help you can give me would be really appreciated! It has taken me 6 months to get this page published! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatKing15 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@KatKing15 You can indeed use its own website for uncontroversial basic information such as when it was built, restored etc. so please include it. However you still need to get hold of a few independent mainstream press or book sources as evidence that the place is notable in its own right. Have you tried local libraries, colleges, local history society, etc? They may have old books, newspapers or magazines with useful information. As a listed building there might have been some reporting about it at the time it was listed, or what about when it was originally built or the restoration might have generated some press interest - other than just the local paper. There's an awful lot of information in the world that Google can't find. Your persistence is admirable, unfortunately as Wikipedia is maturing most of the "easy" subjects have already been done - except for new pop stars and princesses! As we drill down into finer and finer detail sourcing becomes harder. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts and maintenance tags, re Draft:Eli Benshoof Klein

I'm thinking on draftspace articles it's better to leave an {{AFC comment}} than put maintenance tags on them. Inline tags like {clarify} and {citation needed} can be useful but I mean those big tags at the top of the article seem inappropriate for drafts. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Jeraphine Gryphon I don't think there has ever been a proper discussion about whether such tags could/should be used on drafts or only in mainspace. Perhaps we should raise the issue at some apropriate venue? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:31:49, 20 May 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Sangeeta29Singh


Sir, I have submitted the article in Wikipedia on “Indian Sign Language” about one month ago. The article has been declined on the ground of its earlier existence in Wikipedia under the title “Indo-Pak Sign language”. Indo-Pak Sign Language in itself is not a sign language but a term given by Ulrike Zeshan (2000) while studying the sign language varieties in the two cities i.e. Karachi and New Delhi. The findings of the study indicate that the sign language varieties are same in two cities across the border. However, the existence of Indian Sign Language (ISL) and Pakistan Sign Language (PSL) cannot be denied on the ground of terminology give to the sign language varieties used by the Deaf people in both the countries. Both sign languages have their own history and the journey of its development. The Indian Sign Language is the symbol of existence of Indian Deaf communities and their struggle for the recognition of their mother tongue which is ISL. The Deaf communities in India have started taking strides to raise their voices for their rights including the official recognition of ISL. It is the beginning of revolution initiated by the Deaf Leaders and Deaf communities of India for the recognition of their native language which is ISL. So, it becomes very necessary to start with the new page under the title “Indian Sign Language” to create the awareness about ISL and to contribute Deaf Communities of India in their struggle for recognition of ISL. Kindly, request you to allow me to start a new page under the title “Indian Sign Language” to disseminate the issues and concerns as well as the historical development of Indian Sign Language. However, I am open to edit the article wherever needed as per your suggestions. Sangeeta29Singh (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC) Sangeeta29Singh (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangeeta29Singh In the opening paragraph of the draft you wrote: "Indian Sign language is also known as Indo-Pak Sign language" so you must edit the existing article, not create a new one. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft of Buddycloud

Hi Dodger67

(I hope this is the right way to contact you)

I was googling and I saw you were editing Buddycloud. Really nice draft imho and thanks for spending the time on it.

If you needed any help or information from me (I run the team), please let me know - simon@buddycloud.com and I'll do my best to provide sources or links that would help you.

Hi, I'm afraid you've misinterpreted my edits, I'm just one of the reviewers who fixed up a few technicalities in the draft, the actual writer is User:Aliothcor, who started the page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, ok - thanks. I'll look at getting some references into the article to help strengthen it. PS: nice to see you are also in SA. I'm from Durban and most recently I have been working with the Project Isizwe team on their free wifi initiative. Breakfastofsecrets (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

question

Hello Roger. It's been nine months since Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dodger67. Are you still interested? If so, maybe the thing to do is ask DGG for his opinion beforehand.—Anne Delong (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anne, I'm currently travelling and quite busy, I'll get back to you within a week or so. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for your review

You stepped back from the Vulcan Blazers draft, which you left with a 'Blatant Self Promotion' tag. Is that still warranted? Robco311 (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robco311, the comment is relevant to the state the draft was in at the time, that's why such comments come with a "timestamp" that links back to the history of the page as it was then, click on the "View history" tab at tye top of the page to see how every edit is recorded. Btw it's not a "tag" as such, all the review templates and comments are stripped away when a draft is accepted so don't worry about it.
I will not be reviewing it again, we do not want repeated reviews by just one person because that creates the risk that the article becomes biased towards that single reviewer's point of view. The next review will be done by someone else who brings a fresh opinion, though obviously informed by what previous reviewers have said so far. The new reviewer would take care to check that issues pointed out by previous reviews have been fixed and give further advice as needed. If your sources are good and you interpret them neutrally the article should be accepted soon, good luck. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

04:43:46, 25 May 2015 review of submission by GreatLakesdemocracy


Dear Reviewer(s): I am not asking for a re-review. The reviewer's critique that the article requires more sources, about more than one person associated with the article's subject is germane, reasonable and persuasive.

I can and will secure more credible sources, primarily from the Malcolm-King archives, located at Marymount Manhattan College; and from a number of scholarly works -- dissertations, scholarly articles in obscure and defunct journals -- and the archives of The Amsterdam News.

My question is:

Is this worth it? Malcolm-King was influential in its day, and a number of its influences have been instituted within the sponsoring Catholic institutions and The City University of New York. That seems significant, especially in contrast with the level of self-promoting articles about any number of educational programs in Wikipedia.

On the other hand, I simply wonder if it's so bygone an institution, with so limited an interest base, as to warrant the research.

Any responses? Or clues about how i can determine whether it's worth the effort, and can defend notability in addition to citability?

Thanks. Appreciate your reflections and work.

GreatLakesdemocracy (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GreatLakesdemocracy. How much effort is "worthwhile" depends entirely on how much effort you are willing to put in. It certainly seems as if it is a notable subject and Wikipedia can do with more historical topics, one gets tired of reviewing the umpteenth wannabe garage band article advert. I have been working on an article about the early history of the South African Air Force for quite a long time now, iirc I started it well over a year ago. I note you don't mention newspapers among the sources, if you can access news archives you might be able to find some good source material that is truly independent of the college. Articles about academic institutions often stumble over the lack of independent sources - written and published by people who have no connection to the college itself. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23:14:28, 26 May 2015 review of submission by Jonkmanskas


Hi Dodger67, you may remember this draft page that I created and with which you so kindly assisted me with good advice. As you will remember, the article was fairly significantly edited and references were indeed added. Unfortunately, the article was rejected. I suspect the person who reviewed it (Sionk), simply looked at your initial comments and decided that there were no subsequent amendments made to the aricle after that. Please, look at the article and advise me on what more to do. Yes, the sources are mostly the JC de Ferrieres's books, except for a few other sources. However, let's face it, the article IS ABOUT THE AUTHOR JC de Ferrieres. She was undeniably a well-known person, both in South Africa and Europe - and is still remembered by many. And, according to reliable sources, her autobiography is in the process of being republished. I am attempting to lay my hands on more sources (publications), the information I will add, as and when I receive it. Any advice and guidance from you will be greatly appreciated. Jonkmanskas (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Dodger67, I forgot to quote the title of the page I referred to. It is Draft:JC de Ferrières Jonkmanskas (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonkmanskas, I see the problem, almost all the sources are either written by de Ferrières or published by the church itself. Other than that you have only an obituary in the "Volksblad" and a single passing mention in a footnote in the University of Johannesburg publication where she is simply named as an example of a female evangelist within the AGS church. If you cannot locate further sources it may be that she is simply not as well known as you think, outside of the church community in which she was active. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On quantum thermodynamics

Hi Doger67, I removed the redirection of quantum thermodynamics to the page of Quantum statistical mechanics. The field of quantum thermodynamics is much bigger then that presented in Quantum statistical mechanics and even not really related. That redirection was a mistake. The article by Rkosloff on quantum thermodynamics is much more suitable and extensive. It covers the main approaches to the field 1) Dynamical view of quantum thermodynamics. 2) Typicality as a source of emergence of thermodynamical phenomena. 3) Quantum thermodynamics and resource theory. The topic of quantum thermodynamics is very relevant and contemporary, you can have a look on the web site <http://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/qut/>. I wish to resubmit the Rkosloff article letting the community to further expand and enrich this article. Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmikmik (talk • contribs) 15:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmikmik (talk • contribs)

@Lmikmik Please discuss this at WT:WikiProject Physics#Draft:Quantum thermodynamics as the draft has proven to be highly controversial. So far the consensus of opinion has been that the two articles are about the exact same topic, thus separate articles are forbidden. I am not a physicist so I am not qualified to even have an opinion about the issue, so I really cannot help you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On StorMagic

Hi Dodger67, thanks for your review of my article submission on StorMagic. I am responding to your question about what reviewers said about StorMagic. Two articles include info that confirms what other articles have said about their technology. Example quote below. Two of the articles are password protected (you need to be a subscriber) so I wasn't able to read them, just their abstracts. Do you think I should describe the comments from the "free" content in my article? Perhaps I should only include links to non password-protected (public domain) articles? Thanks for your help!

From Enterprise Strategy Group - "StorMagic is moving forward with a very wise approach: It is staying true to the value of its product and the type of customer it best serves. StorMagic understands the fundamental problems with legacy solutions and built a virtualized storage solution optimized specifically for distributed organizations with a large number of remote locations. The technology is proven and it shows based on the recent deals StorMagic has won with some of the largest retailers in the world. In fact, one retailer’s legacy storage deployment across 2,200 stores reported an average of five outages per week, with six hours of downtime per outage. After replacing its legacy solution with SvSAN, the retailer has run virtually outage-free since the initial deployment occurred almost a year ago. If you are looking for a way to efficiently deploy a cost-effective, highly available virtualized storage solution across a distributed organization, ESG Lab recommends taking a look at StorMagic SvSAN." Fairwin99 (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

H Fairwin99 - use whatever you can access but don't cite what you have not read. If you would like to see the content that is behind a paywall but can't justify the cost of a subscription, someone at the WP:Resource exchange might be able to provide you with a copy - posting a request there is easy. Don't forget that paper magazines also exist - a visit to a library might be productive. Don't include long quotes, a phrase or two would be ok, briefly summarise the rest in your own words. Don't forget to mention the negatives if reviewers were critical of some aspects of the company or its products, our "job" is to neutrally record notable subjects, not to praise them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying! Your comments help make the article better. I will cite the ones i've actually read for now and take your advice about including only short paraphrased content. Good point about neutrality. If there are negative comments to balance it out I'll also include them. If/when I can access the paywall stuff I'll update the page with new citations. Thanks again!

2602:306:CEEF:7740:ACE3:4E46:2615:F63C (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was notified that a few resource links which I added to the Mobility Scooters and Motorized Wheelchair page were deleted. I am confident that I did not violate any rules and that my links should be reconsidered. They are directing users to a page that will allow them to find user manuals for every single type of mobility scooter and power wheelchair. Can you please explain why it was removed with more precise details? For example which rule I violated or why exactly it was removed? The links were placed on the two pages below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobility_scooter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorized_wheelchair

I linked them to the respective User Manual download pages on a trusted source found below:

https://www.mobilityscootersdirect.com/user-manuals/mobility-scooters.html https://www.mobilityscootersdirect.com/user-manuals/power-wheelchairs.html

I look forward to your reply.

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Fairbridge was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dodger67&oldid=664611197"