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 Patrick F. Matre (talk | contribs) at 12:11, 21 April 2016 (→Ube delicious enterprise: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

AfC helper script update

Hi! I looked at your most recent edits with the script and determined that you're not using the most recent version. You can use that version by removing the line in your common.js file pointing to User:Theopolisme/afch-rewrite.js, and then checking the setting at Preferences → Gadgets → Editing → Tick Yet Another AFC Helper Script. New features that have been introduced include previewing decline reasons, putting your comments on the author's talk page during a decline, and adding {{Talk header}} to new user talk pages. APerson (talk!) 17:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 7

Newsletter • February 2016

This month:

One database for Wikipedia requests

Development of the extension for setting up WikiProjects, as described in the last issue of this newsletter, is currently underway. No terribly exciting news on this front.

In the meantime, we are working on a prototype for a new service we hope to announce soon. The problem: there are requests scattered all across Wikipedia, including requests for new articles and requests for improvements to existing articles. We Wikipedians are very good at coming up with lists of things to do. But once we write these lists, where do they end up? How can we make them useful for all editors—even those who do not browse the missing articles lists, or the particular WikiProjects that have lists?

Introducing Wikipedia Requests, a new tool to centralize the various lists of requests around Wikipedia. Requests will be tagged by category and WikiProject, making it easier to find requests based on what your interests are. Accompanying this service will be a bot that will let you generate reports from this database on any wiki page, including WikiProjects. This means that once a request is filed centrally, it can syndicated all throughout Wikipedia, and once it is fulfilled, it will be marked as "complete" throughout Wikipedia. The idea for this service came about when I saw that it was easy to put together to-do lists based on database queries, but it was harder to do this for human-generated requests when those requests are scattered throughout the wiki, siloed throughout several pages. This should especially be useful for WikiProjects that have overlapping interests.

The newsletter this month is fairly brief; not a lot of news, just checking in to say that we are hard at work and hope to have more for you soon.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21:15:29, 26 February 2016 review of submission by Lerak kesedud


I have added some links which I found they are in English, most of the other links are in German language. There is in the German WIKI, a page about, minus delta t see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minus_Delta_t

I have worked and learned to use the wiki over the weekend, please can you kindly have a look, if this is going into the right direction for your approval? pls let me know all the best from Vienna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lerak kesedud (talk • contribs) 16:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lerak kesedud - The next reviewer will probably express an opinion about the sources you have added - unfortunately I can't read German. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stub Proposal re: Ruth Wolff

Dear Roger (Dodger67):

Some thoughts while revisiting the "containing Ruth Wolff" Wikipedia site:

Although it is clear that Wolff wrote the screenplays for both THE ABDICATION and THE INCREDIBLE SARAH films, her credit in both cases -- central as author in each -- is not as yet linked to a stand-alone biographical page. As you can see, almost all the other participants -- many far less prominently involved in each (composers, supporting actors, etc.) -- are already so linked. It would seem, at this point, a more than compelling reason to suggest the creation, at the very least, of a provisional "stub" based on previous postings for others far better equipped than I to implement.

And, of course, the many references on the web, in archives and elsewhere relative to the publications, plays and essays as outlined in the postings of 29 and 30 January 2016 should serve to amply reinforce the validity of such a proposal.

After months of fruitless attempts on my part, might it now be possible to achieve this in a timely fashion.

Damien Camny 108.29.43.134 (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is about something else

Hi Dodger67,

Thanks for your time to review my article. I was wanting to know what in particular I can change to strengthen my article for publishing. A lot of my references are on my ancestry.com website on family trees. The public can view this here : http://person.ancestry.com.au/tree/85900097/person/44531419815/story Please assist me in making this publication possible, as it would mean a lot to me.

Kind Regards,

Edward Thian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.255.253.49 (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Edward Thian, I have no idea at all what article you are referring to - please provide a link to it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hayashi & Okuhira pdf

Hi, I can send you a full text pdf of:

  • Hayashi, R. & Okuhira, M. (2001). The Disability Rights Movement In Japan: Past, Present, And Future, Disability & Society, 16, 6, 855-869

in partial fulfillment of your request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Articles about disability in Japan. Please use Special:EmailUser to email me so that I can reply with the pdf as an attachment. Regards, Worldbruce (talk) 05:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce, you've got mail. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Hi Roger,

Thank you so much! You are a life saver!

Jenny Patranella (talk) 20:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but what did I do to deserve this? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted your deletion of content from Talk:Longest recorded sniper kills

Please do not remove discussions from article talk pages, particularly when other editors contributions are also deleted. Talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete I archived it, standard practise. Esemono (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Esemono Please use edit summaries so that others can know what you're doing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:22:04, 2 March 2016 review of submission by BergKaprowLewis


I am not so much requesting a re-review as I am seeking some prescriptive feedback as to why my submission is deemed to read like an advertisement. Are there any sections in particular that I should look to rewrite? Your help will be greatly appreciated.

BergKaprowLewis (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Michael[reply]

Draft article of Rohit Varma, M.D., M.P.H.

Hey Dodger. I just wanted to let you know that the MfD that was suggested has been since been withdrawn by the nominator (which was I). So you may proceed with reviewing the article. I've also removed the MfD tag, to prevent any confusion. Thanks. Boomer VialHolla 21:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disability artists now renamed to Disability Art

Thanks for getting involved- you are totally correct. We a running a edit-a-thon for newbies from Disability Arts organisation at the moment and the template was thrown together and needs some tlc. Please keep it on your watch list and join in.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Clem Rutter, and in return I'd like to invite you and your fellow edit-a-thon-ers to please join WikiProject Disability. I hope your participants stay and become long-term Wikipedians. BTW Does the edit-a-thon have a page, on or off WP? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yes: Wikipedia:Meetups/UK/Disability Arts Online Editathons, Clem's co-tutor, Leutha (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Meetups/UK/Disability Arts Online Editathons and also User:ClemRutter/training and User:ClemRutter/training#Messages has a list of out students. More later- we lose the room in 15 minutes!-- Clem Rutter (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

09:44:19, 7 March 2016 review of submission by 85.96.239.144



Dear Editor, We believe "metabolic surgery" should be added to Wikipedia as a separate item because "metabolic surgery" is clearly distinct from " bariatric surgery" for the following reasons: A. The objectives of "metabolic surgery" and "bariatric surgery"are different from each other.

The term "metabolic surgery" indicates a surgical approach whose primary objective is the control of metabolic alterations and hyperglycemia related with type 2 diabetes in contrast to "bariatric surgery," which provides weight-loss as the primary objective1.

B. "The patients who undergo metabolic surgery" is different from the patients who undergo bariatric surgery.

Choosing surgery to treat metabolic disease or diabetes without aiming weight loss makes a difference in defining the characteristics of surgical candidates1.

The metabolic surgery candidates are much older, there are more male patients and they have severe diabetes, metabolic syndrome and potential for cardiovascular disease2. BMI does not predict diabetes remission or glycemic control.

Ileal interposition which is a type of metabolic surgery was used effectively in controlling type 2 diabetes mellitus in clinical trials for nonobese populations with BMI less than 30 kg/m2 and 35 kg/m2 populations4-5.

Recent research6 including other types of surgery as Roux-en-Y gastric-bypass and biliopancreatic diversion has shown patients with a BMI 30 kg/m2 benefited from metabolic surgery in terms of diabetes control similarly to patients with BMI between 30 - 35 kg/m2.

C. "The expected outcomes of metabolic surgery" are different from bariatric surgery. Metabolic surgery is a new clinical pathway. The separation of metabolic surgery from bariatric surgery changes the clinical practice in terms of patient expectations and specific outcome measures2. International Diabetes Federation (IDF) stated that success of metabolic surgery interventions should be evaluated by the achievement of diabetes-spesific goals as remission of the diabetes state or improvement of the metabolic state.7

D. There are some "novel operations for metabolic surgery" . While most bariatric surgery techniques are being used to treat diabetes as well , several novel procedures specifically aimed to treat diabetes are already being developed which are not necessarily causing weight loss.

Laparoscopic ileal interposition is a novel type of metabolic surgery which was used effectively in controlling type 2 diabetes mellitus in clinical trials for nonobese populations with BMI less than 30 kg/m2 and 35 mg/m2 populations4-5.

E. "The rationale for public awareness about metabolic surgery" is different from bariatric surgery.

Using surgery to treat diabetes is a revolutionary concept8. With the name changing as metabolic surgery, public perceptions about diabetes treatment options may change too.

Obesity is currently considered as a life-style problem but diabetes is accepted as a chronic and deadly disease. The change in name as metabolic surgery might encourage patients to seek gastrointestinal metabolic surgery as a treatment option2. Otherwise the patient may never consider the fact that surgery may reverse diabetes and related metabolic disorders. 

An integrated and multidisciplinary approach to metabolic surgery involving endocrinologists, surgeons and general public awareness is necessary for the benefit of the type 2 diabetes patient.

References 1) Rubino F, Shukla A et al. Bariatric, metabolic, and diabetes surgery: what's in a name? Ann Surg. 2014 Jan;259(1):117-22. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182759656. 2) Pok EH et al . Laparoscopic metabolic surgery for T2DM World J Gastroenterol 2014 October 21; 20(39): 14315-14328 3) Rubino F, Moo TA et al. Diabetes Surgery: A New Approach to an Old Disease. Diabetes Care November 2009 vol. 32 no. suppl 2 S368-S372, doi: 10.2337/dc09-S341 4) DePaula A. L, Macedo V et al. Laparoscopic ileal interposition associated to a diverted sleeve gastrectomy is an effective operation for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with BMI 21–29. Surg Endosc (2009) 23:1313–1320. 5) DePaula A. L. Macedo V. et al. Laparoscopic treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus for patients with a body mass index less than 35. Surg Endosc (2008) 22:706–716 DOI 10.1007/s00464-007-9472-9 6) Panunzi S, Carlsson L et al.Determinants of Diabetes Remission and Glycemic Control After Bariatric Surgery. Diabetes Care 2016;39:166–174.doi: 10.2337/dc15-0575. 7) Dixon JB, Zimmet P, Alberti KG, Rubino F on behalf of the International Diabetes Federation Taskforce on Epidemiology and Prevention. Bariatric surgery: an IDF statement for obese Type 2 diabetes. Diabetic Medicine 2011;28, 628–642 . 8) Rubino F. Is Type 2 Diabetes an Operable Intestinal Disease? A provocative yet reasonable hypothesis. Diabetes Care February 2008 vol. 31 no. Supplement 2 S290-S296, doi: 10.2337/dc08-s271.

Deletion of old discussions at Talk:Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

Your deletion of old Talk page discussions from Talk:Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 appears to have been rather clumsy. You cut off someone's comments mid-sentence, and deleted a lot of material that was appropriate discussion of article content that should have been retained. Your edit summary implied that you were deleting a lot less than what you were actually deleting. If you were just wanting to delete old stuff because it was old and stale, there's a better way to do that – it's called archiving. I have just tried to repair the sitation. I suggest to please try to be more careful about that in the future. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BarrelProof You're templating me about an almost five year old edit? Please read this. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was no template used for that comment. That was a hand-written message that was about specific details of a particular edit. It was not boilerplate. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BarrelProof Well it reads rather like impersonal templatish text, but nevertheless the erroneous edit was done 5 years ago, what do you hope to achieve by lecturing me about it now? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if the message was a bit basic. I'm not familiar with you and didn't spend time checking your edit history to see whether that edit still looked like something you might do again. I also wasn't paying much attention to the age of the edit. I had just discovered that something strange had happened to that article's Talk page and eventually traced much of it to that edit. I suppose you've become much more careful and knowledgeable since then. I am glad to hear that is the case. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11:29:05, 11 March 2016 review of submission by Chakrabartimugdha


Sir please let me know where is the exact problem when i am creating this article. Can you specify the exact areas where the problem is and how to rectify it so that this article i have created is upload able.

Draft: Reformat Studios

You tagged User:Mannyrothman/Sandbox for speedy deletion. Please take a look at Draft: Reformat Studios, of which the sandbox is a duplicate. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:18:48, 12 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Omysfysfybmm


Hello, I made a new userbox and wanted to make it community available. Let me know. Omysfysfybmm (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Omysfysfybmm (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cryo-scanning electron microcopy

Please include page numbers? You're rejecting the article because it lacks page numbers? You're kidding me?

Which AFC rejection criterion is that? 2601:283:4301:D3A6:79FB:F747:82E7:C781 (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put in a request for the article and deleted the draft. Go find page numbers yourself. Or let someone else write the article. What a joke. 2601:283:4301:D3A6:79FB:F747:82E7:C781 (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:2601:283:4301:D3A6:79FB:F747:82E7:C781 I left a comment giving you advice based on WP:Verifiability. I did not do a review, I did not reject the draft. Now that you have flounced off in a huff I have removed the references to four entire books that you posted to support a stub of only four sentences. Expecting readers to read four whole books just to check four sentences is unreasonable. So now I'm searching fo verifiable references for the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Books have things called indexes. You don't actually have to read every single word in the book to find and verify the information. In fact, I used books that can be searched through Google books, rather than using a couple of other texts that I prefer. I wrote those sentences based on information from those books. I have no intention of stealing someone else's work product, so I properly sourced to exactly where I got the information. Indexes. They're a good thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:4301:D3A6:A8A8:96CD:72DD:1925 (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@User:2601:283:4301:D3A6:A8A8:96CD:72DD:1925 OK, if you don't want any advice or assistance why did you submit it to AFC at all? I'm not going to waste my time on this any more. Bye Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on my CropWatch draft

Hello Roger

thanks for your comments about my draft. I have been an active blogger for some years, but this was my first attempt on Wikipedia!

I do understand your points and I'll try to fix them, especially "Very few of the cited sources are about CropWatch" and the related fact that CropWatch is to be "notable" to deserve inclusion in Wikipedia. I'll also shorten it!

Can I give some background? There are, at present, very few global systems trying to guess how much food is produced in the world. This is done for "food security reasons" but mostly to know how much there will be to buy and which countries are likely to have to buy because they have a domestic problem (like Ethiopia this year, and Southern Africa, including South Africa). Basically, it's about international food market planning, and there's a lot of dis-information going on. The EC, US and UN have their own monitoring systems... and so does China: CropWatch.

It is important that there should be several independent providers of food production information. They all publish their information (web and hardcopy) for users to compare! This does not make CropWatch "notable" per se, but stresses the relevance of the undertaking.

CropWatch has been going on for 15 years in Chinese, but switched to English in 2013, for several reasons (including international commitments under a G20 recommendation and... propaganda: showing off & making the analyses available to some countries that can't make their own assessments.) This means that there is 15 years of documentation available in Chinese, some of which could help establish the "notability" of the system. Is it possible to quote Chinese sources?

Best regards

R.

Wergosax (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wergosax the language of sources does not matter, though English sources are preferred insofar as they are available. What is important however is that sources must be independent of the subject - this means not written or published by Cropwatch itself or its associates, agents, employees, contractors or any other connected people or entities. That also excludes press releases or advertorials. Basically we need mainstream news reports, magazine articles, scientific/academic papers, and similar quality independent sources that discuss Cropwatch in considerable detail. Once you have a few such sources that devote at least a few paragraphs to discussing Cropwatch, you can then add material sourced from Cropwatch itself for "routine" uncontroversial information such as addresses, dates of events, etc. Controversial or disputable claims must be from independent reliable sources. A reliable source is one that has a reputation for responsible editorial oversight - hence the preference for mainstream news, magazines and academic sources. You could also look for reports by other entities in the global commodity trade system that discuss Cropwatch and its activities. If you can write at least a short coherent article using only the fully independent sources then the subject probably does pass the notability standard for organizations. Be careful of writing from your personal knowledge - if you cannot cite a source for a claim, leave it out. I find it easiest to write about subjects about which I know nothing and have no opinion. Hope this is useful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Wergosax I found a few sources that might be useful:
Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Here is a cupcake to thank you for taking the time to review Sexuality after spinal cord injury and help it get to featured status! delldot ∇. 17:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Battle of Hastings Location

Dear Dodger67, Thank you for reviewing my article "Battle of Hastings Location" I tried to edit the already existing one "Battle of Hastings", but it's locked for edits, I could not make any changes to it. Therefore I started on a new article. How would I go about unlocking the existing article, so I can make a few edits instead of starting a new article on a similar subject? This is the link to the existing article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hastings#Background_and_location Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiley Sage (talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

09:48:40, 22 March 2016 review of submission by CD0060576

Page: Loyal Regiment (North Lancashire) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyal_Regiment_(North_Lancashire)

Section:1.7 Loyal Regiment (North Lancashire), 1946–1970

Hello Roger (Dodger67) Thank you for your comments greatly appreciated. I am hoping my submission is of suitable material for this topic for the above pages. I have tried the de-personalized and create a true story keeping it factual. I hope others will be encouraged to add their contributions to this topic / period

As requested: I have created topic title: Junior Bandsman Wing Fulwood Barracks 1961-63

If you would like to tweak or adjust the language speak or take ownership you have my full authorization.

Yours faithfully Charles Dobson

i knew 3 other great persons biography i want to write about them it was my first day i mixed up i need help if you can help me to write for example i explain every think about them for you & you write it because not different for me . its importent to be write or anotherone jaust help me .thanks my gmail is : melika.diba.1@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eiman.fm (talk • contribs) 19:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: David McBride Edit Conflict

There is a problem with AFC, which is that it doesn't detect edit conflicts. I was trying to decline the draft citing all of the real problems with it, such as no real claim for notability, ambiguity of reference to ECD, BLP violation of not citing the five wives, and you declined it as a hoax. Either would be a valid decline, but it didn't detect the edit conflict, and normally the software is quick to detect edit conflicts. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reported the issue at the AFC review Help Desk, and noted that it is a race condition, a type of bug in electronic engineering and software engineering. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert McClenon, Imho ideally the script should "lock" the page as soon as it is invoked by a reviewer, to prevent another itteration of the script from executing on the same page until it is closed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. At least when the reviewer performs a function that saves the page, such as decline or move. In the specific case, you declined first. Then I moved the page and declined it, both of which were ignored, rather than flagged as edit conflicts. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion tag

Hi, I think the User:Mvgalea page, which is a problem because it appears to be written by the subject and is mistakenly an apparent article on a user page, has the makings of an article.

I'm transferring the content to my own sandbox in the hope of reshaping it. Will this save the user page? Tony (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony1 - The user page is currently a WP:FAKEARTICLE violation, if you can fix that please go for it. It would be great if you're willing to give the user some guidance too, we need subject specialist editors. Unfortunately I just don't have the free time right now to mentor a newbie. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Roger. I moved it and replaced with "Main interests are blah blah". Unforturnately the user has no email enabled. I've made inquiries with someone who might know her. I'm keen that we improve our coverage of female mathematicians and scientists, so I think this is worth it. (The content does need reshaping, though, doesn' it.) Tony (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony1, a STEM specialist and a woman, definitely worth the effort to keep her interested and involved. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Project Comfort

Hi, contacting you about your recent edit on Draft:Project Comfort. The creator of the draft (Redglasses13), back in September 2015 blanked the page therefore it falls under G7 criterion. Auric reverted that edit so I put the G7 tag on. I don't see how it's a "real draft" when the creator of said draft would like it deleted. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion: It hasn't been edited by the original creator since September 2015 meaning they've probably lost interest already, meaning sooner or later it's gonna be deleted under G13. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Anarchyte thanks, so Auric didn't actually take over the draft. Please feel free to revert my edit. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd chime in here, since I was tagged. I reverted to give this a review, since the creator (for reasons unknown) blanked while it was under review. In any case, the name seems to have changed and the project is now known as Equal Period.--Auric talk 11:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:21:33, 29 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by CD0060576


Hello there, I am not sure (please confirm)if my article is being reviewed or declined. My understanding You needed to know the title of my article which is:-

Junior Bandsman Wing Fulwood Barracks 1961-63

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best Regards Charles Dobson CD0060576 (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CD0060576 take a look at the pink box at the top of the page, in the lower left corner there is a blue "Resubmit" button - click it, then the draft will be sent for another review, but I wouldn't actually do that if I were you. I think a better option would be to add your information about the Junior Bandsmen Wing to the existing Fulwood Barracks article. Then there is a section in your draft about recruiting in the Isle of Man, which doesn't seem to have any direct relevance to Fulwood Barracks as such, but might fit into the Lancastrian Brigade article. I think you should consult the topic specialists at the Military History WikiProject, they could help you figure out what belongs in which article and whether a separate article about Manx involvement in the British Army (or Defence Forces as a whole?) might be viable. I'll drop them a note to ask if they could be of assistance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A.C.C.Cigars

I see you have, quite rightly, nominated one of this confusing mess of pages for deletion. I observe that there is also a page Wikipedia:A. C. C. Cigars, which clearly shouldn't exist. I would redirect it, or Speedy it, or something; but I am afraid of just making the mess worse. So I am hoping you will be able to deal with it. Maproom (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom - I redirected it to the mainspace page, which will be speedied soon, then all the redirects to the deleted page will also be deleted - the whole mess will fall like dominoes. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Maproom - The User:A. C. C. Cigars page is also in for the chop as a non-existent user. Soon the whole tangle of spam will be history. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to accept and decline

How do I accept and decline a page? because I have been seeing a Lot of pages hat I want to decline or accept — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavinfu2016 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:08:06, 30 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by CD0060576

{{SAFESUBST:Void|


Hi Roger,

I do appreciate your efforts and suggestions. The Fulwood Barracks and the Lancastrian Brigade pages are very suitable locations for this story. The Military History WikiProject seems a sensible place to go also, but it's a mine field (pun not intended) as where to go to with this enquiry.

Guidance please; as to how I can get this story onto the Fulwood Barrack and the Lancastrian Brigades pages

Your suggestion of going to the Manx involvement in the British Army (or Defence Forces etc might also be a good place to go, if only, to see if there's any interest, thank you very much for this offer / suggestion is much appreciated.

Yours faithfully Charles Dobson

@User:CD0060576 I think the conversation I started at the MILHIST page is a good place to discuss the topic with the subject specialists. You should probably also look at the following existing articles: Manx Regiment, Manx Aviation and Military Museum and Isle of Man#Defence, there may be room for improvement. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


(CD0060576 (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Roger, Many thanks for you efforts it's very much appreciated. Thank you also for getting in touch with MILHIST page. Let's hope there's more opportunities / interest in sharing this story. Best Regards Charles Dobson

@(CD0060576 Just a quick couple of tips: 1. Don't start a new section every time you post - keep the whole conversation together under a single section heading. Use the "Edit" link next to the heading to add your comment to the section. 2. Get into the habit of properly signing your posts on talk pages with four tildes like this ~~~~, or use the signature button in the toolbar above the edit box. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draftification

A few times recently I have seen that you have moved a page from article space into draft space. On the one hand, that does appear to be a proper interpretation of the spirit of the rules, as a way to help a draft that isn’t yet ready for mainspace but might be ready for mainspace. On the other hand, it doesn’t appear to comply with the letter of the rules, and so is a case of Ignore All Rules (when they are too rigid). I don’t recall having seen other reviewers do this. I am wondering whether this should be addressed somewhere, either at Articles for Creation policies as a step for articles prematurely promoted, or at Deletion policy as a form of light deletion for new articles.

I certainly think that Draftify should be added to the alternatives for a deletion discussion, since it is only a more modern version of Userfy to move the page into common draft space rather than user space.

In the particular case in point within the past 24 hours, the real problem is that the editor, after reasonably choosing AFC, chose not only to ignore AFC but to decide that I had wrongly declined the article and to push it through to mainspace. Thank you for pushing it back to draft space. Since the draft was twice nominated for speedy deletion as promotional, and the author deleted the speedy tag, which is explicitly prohibited by the author, I have given the author a Level 3 warning. (I nominated it for speedy deletion because, among other things, it used the ® symbol, which is a blatant claim of copyright. That was my reason. Someone else had their own reason.)

I think that we need to discuss draftification Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Robert McClenon - I drag AFC submitted drafts back out of mainspace when it seems clear that the draft writer has simply been too impatient or "too clever for their own good" and prematurely moved a potentially good draft to mainspace and so exposed it to the risk of speedy deletion for whatever deficiencies the draft has. If the draft is obvious junk I'll not bother to "rescue" it, then I simply let the mainspace deletion processes deal with it. A draft with clear potential to be a decent article should be saved from the bad decision of its inexperienced author - is my IAR justification in these cases, though I don't usually spell it out. (BTW the presence of a single trademark symbol is not, imho, sufficient grounds for G11, it can simply be removed and the draft declined for whatever other problems exist. Newbies are "by definition" not aware of our prohibition against such symbols.) I'm about to drag my weary carcass to bed, I'll be back around 07:00 UTC tomorrow to follow up if needed. Until then, goodnight... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is well taken that a newbie editor wouldn't know that the (r) symbol is promotional. On the other hand, the speedy template explicitly states that it may not be removed by the creator. I would like to talk about draftification, because I think that it is often appropriate. I am not very tolerant of newbie editors who ignore rules that should be easy to read, such as not removing a tag. A newbie editor can contest a tag. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies from CD0060576

Hi Roger, My apologies, hope it doesn’t happen again. For me; it’s all very confusing and unnecessarily complicated. Plainly I don’t know how to return my comments to you, I’m very sorry. Hopefully I’ve succeeded this time. If not please feel free to give me another telling off :-) If you have a tutorial link I would be very grateful. Thank you for your patience. Best Regards Charles Dobson PS: I have been having troubles with mouse copying & pasting. Reinstalling software appears to be working now.

Reviews etc.

Hello, and thank you for your message. I appreciate your advice and apologise for any offence. Just as a bit of background, the F1 project have been battling, for 8 months or more, with the WP:CIR efforts of a persistently disruptive, IP-hopping editor who constantly (amongst other things) submits drafts for insignificant cars which fail notability. They are habitually poorly written and if ref’d at all, they are of the standard you noted.

On the question of talk-pages, one of my colleagues began placing notes on those of sub-standard submissions and others of us followed suit. I would mention that 4 F1 articles were accepted in the last 2 or 3 days by the same reviewer (and were immediately re-directed). In all 4 cases the talk-pages were edited by the reviewer - placing AFC banners etc., but also in some cases placing incorrect or duplicated project banners. All four had notes on the talk-pages and this sort of thing has happened before. The project has lost patience with the IP editor, admin. can’t, or won’t, assist and we feel let down by the review process over a fairly substantial period of time. I'm not the only project member who has concerns about the review system, (as that page clearly shows).

I'm sure one or more of my colleagues would welcome the chance to assist with AfC. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eagleash, the banners are placed on the talk page by the reviewing script, the reviewer does not see it. You really must place your note on the draft page itself, reviewers do not look at the talk pages, unless someone tells us to. I think it would be useful if you contacted the reviewer concerned, pointing out your concerns about his acceptances, but please AGF, he really is completely unaware of what's on the talk page. In my experience he is a completely reasonable editor, he wouldn't deliberately ignore you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Eagleash, I've raised the issue of AFC's procedures not including a look at draft talk pages at WT:WikiProject Articles for creation#Checking draft talk pages during review, please feel free to join the discussion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again and thanks for your advice and assistance. Trust me, the F1 project appreciate it! It did occur to me that the banners might be placed by a bot or similar. I note that the Ensign draft was re-submitted without fixing (as expected) and again rejected. This is par for the course and will go on until it is deleted by one means or another. If he even sees your message on 'his' talk-page before the IP changes (at least daily) the IP ed. will likely just blank the page. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again; the Ensign draft, which you rejected again today, has been nominated at MfD here. I did not see your post on the IP's (today's) TP but had already discussed poss. MfD with a member of the F1 proj. who has reviewed and rejected the draft in the intervening period. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zapološko

I am telling you that villages cannot have alot of Information, because they are not famous. Like Albertinovac, you hardly ever see information on that article! If you wish to talk to me about this issue then feel free to!

Audi1merc2

13:17:32, 5 April 2016 review of submission by Triftgig


Hello Dodger67, thanks for reviewing. Due to my article is a totally new rewrite, I thought moving would be the better way to get an new and current on Christian Stangl. If editing the live article is the way to go, I will do so. Triftgig (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Triftgig, do it in small chunks and leave an edit summary explaining what you're doing. Stating your intentions on the article talk page is also a good idea. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Ok, I removed all the bolding.

Thanks!

Raymond Trencavel (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

04:12:04, 6 April 2016 review of submission by 786wiki

Hi Rodger, I didn't know how to respond to your comment on my draft, so I posted it there and am copy/pasting it here as well:

786wiki (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Hi Rodger. I couldn't find a "Reply" button so I hope this works! You are quite right: in Arab countries, "Sheikh" is an honorific (for an old person--the word for "old age" in Arabic is shaykhūkha!); in India and Pakistan, however, it is used as a proper name. So, unlike in an Arab country, when Ikram would have been admitted to primary school, his name would have been registered as: "Sheikh Muhammad Ikram" (which would be unthought of for a child in the Arab world), and that is how he is known! May I request therefore that in this case his actual name, as it would appear on his birth certificate had there been one at the time, be given as Sheikh Muhammad Ikram. Thanks.

PS Please, for future reference, can you educate me on the proper way to reply in this situation. Thank you! 786wiki (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Beijing Centrel Sky Tower

Hi Dodger67 you said it is humorous rather than factual wich is not the Beijing Centrel Sky Tower is real because I am currently in Beijing,China and I have went there.The Beijing Centrel Sky Tower is not on the list List of tallest buildings in Beijing even it is the tallest building in Beijing 405m.Beijing Centrel Sky Tower is not fake it is real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.205.8.167 (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on draft of Bumper Cars

Hi Roger, thank you for your comment on my draft. The Rosenstock quote comes from the back cover of the book - can I reference the book for this quote? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doinggreatthings (talk • contribs) 11:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doinggreatthings, yes please cite the book, giving "back cover" as the page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, will do, many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doinggreatthings (talk • contribs) 11:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:LemonLDAP::NG proposal

Hello,

I don't understand what is the problem with this page. Looking at OpenAM (which is younger than LemonLDAP::NG), I don't see more external references that what I proposed: all OpenAM links points to article written by ForgeRock. So what is the real problem, free softwares are banned from en.wikipedia.org?

--Guimard (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guimard, OpenAM is a rather poor example to follow, it has a tag at the top for exactly the same issue, and if it isn't fixed soon it could be deleted. However, your draft article is still in draft-space so it is safe from deletion. To fix the issue you need to find a few mainstream press or magazine articles that discuss LemonLDAP::NG in considerable detail. If you need further assistance the WP:TEAHOUSE specializes in assisting new editors. BTW, there's an entire category of articles about free software and a WikiProject dedicated to the subject Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Free Software, you can get help from topic specialists there too. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. Most of the press articles are written in french, is it possible to use them ? --Guimard (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the language of the source does not matter, use whatever you have. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Declining Draft:Wryst

Hi Dodger67 I removed all promotional text from the Draft:Wryst. Could you review this draft once more? Buhram (talk) 10:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buhram, it's better to get a fresh opinion from a different reviewer. We don't want the article to become biased towards a single reviewer's preferences. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance with adding references to draft/additional articles

Hello Dodger67, thank you for reviewing my submission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:World_Figure_Championship, as always I value your expertise as I am new to this and still learning.

I did find other articles from About.com about this event, but could not understand how to add them to the reference list. The following was under the reference list, so I don't understand how to edit or add to it:

. If nothing else I would appreciate advice on how to edit with this type of tag, for future reference.

Here are the articles, I'm not sure if they would add any notability.

http://figureskating.about.com/od/competitionsandtests/tp/About-the-2015-World-Figure-Championship-Judges.htm

http://figureskating.about.com/od/famousskaters/fl/World-Figure-Championship-Gives-a-AIDS-Sufferer-Hope.htm

http://figureskating.about.com/od/historyoffigureskating/fl/Summary-of-the-World-Figure-Championship-and-Figure-Festival-2015.htm

http://figureskating.about.com/od/competitionsandtests/fl/About-the-Inaugural-World-Figure-Championship-2015.htm

The event will be in Toronto this year so should receive more press attention; can I resubmit after that?

Please advise. Lakeplacidskater (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lakeplacidskater, I'm afraid about.com is not accepted as a reliable source, see the disclaimer on their "Terms of use" page. I think putting it on hold until the Toronto event is probably the best option. If you like I can move it into your userspace where it can be kept undisturbed until you're ready to work on it again. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dodger67 Yes, if you can please move it to my userspace and then tell me how to access it when I am ready? I will certainly wait for Toronto's event, then try again. Lakeplacidskater (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input and expert advice.

Thank you for the input on my submission of Articles for creation: Niko Tsonev (April 13). I hope most recent edits of proper references can help out the process! It is not easy to find news in mainstream media, since independent musicians, even accomplished ones, usually get close to no coverage. Any additional expert advice would be deeplyl appreciated! Thanks, Ddadian. Ddadian (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ddadian, for expert advice you should ask at WT:WikiProject Rock music. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Roger! Ddadian (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disability studies in education

Hi Roger, Just wanted to say thank you for reviewing the article Disability studies in education. The changing of the title from all caps to this is satisfactory and I appreciate your rectifying of this issue. More research is currently being done on the topic and will be added as it comes forth and is appropriate to add. Msustudent2016 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Msustudent2016, I've started a conversation on the article talk page about the lack of and the age of sources used. Most of the sources are really old, up to 50 years! They actually predate the establishment of disability studies as an academic discipline and of course have nothing in terms of the social model. There are also entire sections and paragraphs that have no sources at all. This is the most urgent problem that needs to be addressed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks and replies re comments on draft 14 April

Many thanks for you comments on the draft page for Draft:Giles Richard Cooper. Very helpful in helping me understand how Wiki works and what is required for good articles. I have made both the suggested amends that you asked for and would be grateful if you could now please review and approve. Many thanks Rodeocowboy36 (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

08:37:19, 15 April 2016 review of submission by Kchatzia


I have improved the content and the citations. I also added more references on the subject. Can you make sure it is ok now to be published?

It's in the queue for review at AFC, it may take a few days to get to it though. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion for Mount Zion Baptist Church in Greensboro, NC

I need more specific information about what I need to do to make this article acceptable. I have used citations, where available. Is the Ministry section too much? Do I need more verifiable data in history? This is my first article. I saw many other churches with less information, but I did notice they were historical landmarks. Does the church need to be a historical landmark to be included? I need help, please! Thepropheticscribe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thepropheticscribe to prove that the church is Notable you need to add information about it by writers and published in reputable publications that have no connection at all with the church. Mainstream news or magazines are usually a good place to look (but not press releases), academic journals and books are generally considered to be the best. The current "Ministry" section is unsourced and entirely promotional, take it out. Most church articles are based entirely on historical information, current activities are of no real interest unless they are discussed in the news at more than local level - frequently that means disasters, scandals or misdemeanors involving fires, choirboys or misappropriation of funds. Ordinary routine church events and activities are almost never newsworthy. Hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This helped a great deal Thepropheticscribe (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TSD Corp Article

Hi I have rewritten the content also set the reference links.. kindly approve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arvindtamrakar (talk • contribs) 09:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the draft is still clearly written like an advert. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South African spellings

Hi Dodge,

There's an editor on Talk:Rhodesia who claims that South Africans spell words like "recognize" (per the US spelling) as opposed to "recognize" (UK), favouring the "ze". This apparently extends to the following words, too: "organization", "nationalize", "colonize", and "civilization". Now, I was under the very distinct impression that as a Commonwealth country RSA observes typical Commonwealth spellings, which favour "se". As a long term South African editor could you confirm this?

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Katangais, indeed the "ise" form is standard, but the "ize" form is becoming more common as people are increasingly exposed to American media and spellchecker software that only recognises the "ize" form. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Re-Check and Approve Article

Hi there Dodger67,

I have edited my submission of "Hogoh Pahang" a few days back and added some reliable references already. Please check back and approve. Thanks.

Cheers cwipixel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwipixel (talk • contribs) 09:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request to recheck my submission

Hello Roger,

I have added all references that I used for writing the Returns Management page. Could you please re-check the page. I hope it is ok now.

Thanks a lot for your help,

Stef — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.38.17 (talk) 10:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfC Draft

Roger, I was working as the technical adviser at an edit-a-thon a couple of weeks ago and, after hearing my spiel on the use of sandboxes, a relative newcomer there asked if I could help her move her draft of an article out of the draft namespace into her sandbox, which I did in this edit. I see that, without leaving a message on her talk page, you moved it back to draft and then another user moved it back to where it had started. I don't understand why. Doesn't she have the right to edit the draft in her sandbox rather than in draft namespace if she cares to do so? Why would another editor have the right to move it back after it had been moved? I don't mean those as a challenge, but only as honest, direct questions seeking to be educated. Should there have been some templates removed or something? Should I have just copy-and-pasted it to her sandbox and had her abandon the copy in draftspace? She's not approached me with any of these questions and has edited the draft back in draftspace, so I'm not asking for anything to be changed back. Neither did I ask her why she didn't want to work in draftspace; I just figured that it was her right to work on her draft wherever she wanted to work on it. Was I wrong? I just want to know what to do should the issue come up again. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:TransporterMan, the move to Draftspace is a standard initial step of the AFC reviewing process (unless it is summarily declined, usually for not actually being a draft article). When an editor submits a draft for review and it looks like a legitimate draft, it is taken to Draftspace where the reviewing process takes place. As far as I can figure it out it seems at some point there may have been two separate drafts of the same article. Unforunately I can't follow what happened after that - moves without redirects make it hard (actually impossible) to keep track - perhaps an admin can help you find it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS User:TransporterMan In future when you're assisting newbies tell them "Don't even think of submitting your draft to AFC before it is as complete as you can make it". Premature submissions area frequent problem at AFC that basically just waste the author and reviewers' time. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the background, I appreciate it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 8

Newsletter • March / April 2016

This month:

Transclude article requests anywhere on Wikipedia

In the last issue of the WikiProject X Newsletter, I discussed the upcoming Wikipedia Requests system: a central database for outstanding work on Wikipedia. I am pleased to announce Wikipedia Requests is live! Its purpose is to supplement automatically generated lists, such as those from SuggestBot, Reports bot, or Wikidata. It is currently being demonstrated on WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health (which I work on as part of my NIOSH duties) and WikiProject Women scientists.

Adding a request is as simple as filling out a form. Just go to the Add form to add your request. Adding sources will help ensure that your request is fulfilled more quickly. And when a request is fulfilled, simply click "mark as complete" and it will be removed from all the lists it's on. All at the click of a button! (If anyone is concerned, all actions are logged.)

With this new service is a template to transclude these requests: {{Wikipedia Requests}}. It's simple to use: add the template to a page, specifying article=, category=, or wikiproject=, and the list will be transcluded. For example, for requests having to do with all living people, just do {{Wikipedia Requests|category=Living people}}. Use these lists on WikiProjects but also for edit-a-thons where you want a convenient list of things to do on hand. Give it a shot!

Help us build our list!

The value of Wikipedia Requests comes from being a centralized database. The long work to migrating individual lists into this combined list is slowly underway. As of writing, we have 883 open tasks logged in Wikipedia Requests. We need your help building this list.

If you know of a list of missing articles, or of outstanding tasks for existing articles, that you would like to migrate to this new system, head on over to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Requests#Transition project and help out. Doing this will help put your list in front of more eyes—more than just your own WikiProject.

An open database means new tools

WikiProject X maintains a database that associates article talk pages (and draft talk pages) with WikiProjects. This database powers many of the reports that Reports bot generates. However, until very recently, this database was not made available to others who might find its data useful. It's only common sense to open up the database and let others build tools with it.

And indeed: Citation Hunt, the game to add citations to Wikipedia, now lets you filter by WikiProject, using the data from our database.

Are you a tool developer interested in using this? Here are some details: the database resides on Tool Labs with the name s52475__wpx_p. The table that associates WikiProjects with articles and drafts is called projectindex. Pages are stored by talk page title but in the future this should change. Have fun!

On the horizon
  • The work on the CollaborationKit extension continues. The extension will initially focus on reducing template and Lua bloat on WikiProjects (especially our WPX UI demonstration projects), and will from there create custom interfaces for creating and maintaining WikiProjects.
  • The WikiCite meeting will be in Berlin in May. The goal of the meeting is to figure out how to build a bibliographic database for use on the Wikimedia projects. This fits in quite nicely with WikiProject X's work: we want to make it easier for people to find things to work on, and with a powerful, open bibliographic database, we can build recommendations for sources. This feature was requested by the Wikipedia Library back in September, and this meeting is a major next step. We look forward to seeing what comes out of this meeting.


Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation: Personal Comfort

Dear Dodger67,

I am new to Wikipedia and have seen this posting declined because it sounds too advertorial. Do you have any suggestions that will help reduce the advertorial portion so this article can be properly posted?

Any help here would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, Moural42 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moural42 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Disability, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Handicap (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) 09:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ube delicious enterprise

Hi there!!!! I would like to clarify my article create that you put into subject of deletion that provide important information into the details provided let this issues urgently given a moment of time to be review. Thank very much. Patrick 12:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dodger67&oldid=716384066"