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 IFyles (talk | contribs) at 18:19, 4 November 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

neolithic carved stone balls

Hi,

I appreciate your crits re my submission. I have I hope attended to them. I am happy that my submission be somehow included in the existing Wiki entry, but I can't find how to this. Wiki remains a very confusing friend. A simple step-by-step set of instructions would be very useful to those of us not really 'into' computereeze. I'd appreciate your further good advice.

Bless,

T (ex Rhodesian).

Further to Dodger: I noted in one your comments that Wiki only includes verifiable material, that is material supported by valid research and by the relevant academic community. I want to suggest that sensible though this demand is, it may exclude material that the academic community finds anathema for reasons(?) of prejudice. I have found that my interest in neolithic metrics is regarded as 'not fashionable' in the archaeological world and woe-betide the career of any academic who is willing to publish or discuss papers and/or research in that area. Certainly I can find no one willing to support publication of my research findings, yet the findings themselves are unarguably correct even if some subsequent discussion about them in contentious. I rather hoped that Wiki would be different and give some space to heretical/ non-conformist/ unorthodox viewpoints. After all a crank is sometimes required to create a revolution. I now know how Galileo may have felt!

Best,

T

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the DRN regarding the use of Harriet Hall's blog post in the Michael Greger article. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Michael Greger. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

help needed

Hello Mr Dodger67, 

        Thank you for viewing my submission. I am sorry it was not up to code , but I am very new to this. I have seen other   of my fellow Horror Hosts have pages about themselves up on wikipedia and the shows that they host. I have tried a few times to be included on the page Horror Host on wikipedia . I think that my story is worth reading , but I am not sure how to get it across. I am 55 years old , and my real name is Bobby L . Gammonster. I have been collecting monster memorabilia since I was 5 years old. I turned my uncles two room cabin which later became my haunted playhouse as a kid into a 10 room home and museum called Gargoyle Manor -The Monster Museum which I opened the year my daughter was born to the public in 1988. In 2010 I became a Horror Host on the Internet  using old Public Domain films of Horror and monster movies as well as independent films. I have over 130 episodes and counting and am in my 7th season. I do not charge or seek to make money from my shows, I do it out of love for the lifestyle I and my family has chosen to live. I use the artifacts of my collection on my shows. I need help getting my story out Can you help me? Thank you for your time , Respectfully, Bobby Gammonster- Internet Horror  Host of Monster Movie Night  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gammonster- Bobby (talk • contribs) 21:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Dodger67, thank you for your review on Laura Crispini page. This page was created to be included in the SCAR Wikibomb event, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/SCAR_2016, a group of women working in Antarctica. As you can see there are several profiles, inlcuding non reasearchers and researchers (not only full professor). I'll write to SCAR organization to ask how to solve this, since other profiles have been included. Thanks MNA Siena 7/09/0216 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNA Siena (talk • contribs) 09:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dodger67

I returned to my draft today and saw you left a message. Sorry it took me a while. Just got discouraged I guess following so many rejected drafts! Anyway, I happened to come back today and saw you referred me to Teahouse. So I paid a visit to Teahouse today and asked for help. Awaiting a response. Thank you. Sobemnwoko (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Climate-Alliance Germany

Also in reference to" User talk:RobbieIanMorrison#Your submission at Articles for creation: Climate-Alliance Germany (September 10)

Hello Dodger67. Thank you for reviewing my draft article Draft:Climate-Alliance Germany. And for leaving a substantial comment regarding your assessment. Your remark that none of the references are "actually independent" is not correct. The CLEW reference is properly independent, CLEW being a news service. Notwithstanding, I will search the German language media for additional secondary references and resubmit using these. The notability requirements for Wikipedia can be quite restrictive but I guess some form of screen is necessary. I also note that the German Wikipedia page on the same subject has less references than my draft. Once again, thank you for your efforts. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manie Maritz

Thanks for your help. I am afraid I do not quite understand how to fix the references. Please do just one (or rather two) on this page and I will try to fix the rest. Regards Vaaljapie (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've got it! Regards, Vaaljapie (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

09:18:23, 20 September 2016 review of submission by 61.12.45.154


Request on 20:01:08, 20 September 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Davememtn


Information on why article was rejected Hi, thank you for reviewing my article, Draft:George_N._Schlesinger. I was dissapointed that the article was rejected, however appreciate the opportunity to learn how to author an acceptable article.

Is it ok that I keep the sources I have, and just add more sources that are independent and reliable, or would you suggest starting this article from scratch?

Do you have any other suggestions on what updates and/or changes should be done?

I would very much like to author an article about Dr. Schlesinger, who is a well known philosopher.

I appreciate your help,

David Kellerman


Davememtn (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davememtn, look for independent sources (such as magazine, news articles, or possibly critiques by other academics) about Schlesinger and his work, then add material from them. In other respects the article looks pretty good. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, I'm going to work on the article some more. David Kellerman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davememtn (talk • contribs) 18:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:55:43, 23 September 2016 review of submission by Mannyadebayo


Well there's another Link now http://rccgcanada.org/parish-directory/675/the-lords-cedar/

Hi Mannyadebayo, unfortunately it's also not an independent source. You need to find sources such as a mainstream news or magazine articles that contain substantial detail about the subject and are written and published by people who have no direct connection to the church. That excludes press releases and routine announcements. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mannyadebayo you need to also remove the "Beliefs" and "Service times" sections as they are purely promotional. Wikipedia is in any case not interested in the routine day-to-day activities of organisations, rather concentrate on the history of the church as that might make a worthwhile article - provided it is properly sourced. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comair

I made a whole bunch of good copyedits to this article, fixed formatting per Wikipedia's Manualnof Style, cleaned up links, etc. You reverted these edits carelessly. I've restored my last version. If you want to take one accident out, take it out, but don't undo my work. That's just rude, and does not improve Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 18:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Review of Article - Kwong Weng Yap

Dear Dodger67,

Thank you for accepting my previous article on Koh Heng Leun.

While I moved too quickly to put up another piece on Lim Teck Yin, I thought I should have taken some time to improve my edits first so as to develop an entry of higher quality.

So I have tried to spend some time to do up the latest piece on Kwong Weng Yap as well, which can't be moved again because I'm new to Wikipedia.

Hope you can take a look at it.

With much appreciation, Superwifi (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to Paramount Group

Hi Dodget67,

Thank you for offering to review updates to the Paramount Group page. In full disclosure, Paramount Group have asked me to review the page acknowledging all the cultural and credibility nuances of Wikipedia. The exercise is only aimed at bringing relevant objective information to the page and not promotional content. I work for a communications agency FleishmanHillard Fishburn which abide to the Council of Public Relations Firms and Institute for Public Relations guidelines for managing Wikipedia.

I noticed on the talk page you expressed interest in expanding on the company acquisitions. I've listed credible media results of acquisitions for consideration. Please let me know if you would prefer this content in an alternate format.

Acquisition of Nautic http://www.bdlive.co.za/companies/2013/11/07/paramount-acquires-majority-stake-in-nautic-africa http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/paramount-secures-naval-capabilities-through-acquisition-2014-02-21/rep_id:4136 https://www.enca.com/south-africa/world-class-naval-vessels-be-produced-sa

Acquisition of ATE http://www.bdlive.co.za/companies/2013/06/06/paramount-acquires-ate-for-undisclosed-sum http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/topstories/Paramount-Group-Acquires-ATE_79454.html#.V2AHTryPX8s

Acquisition of DCD Mobility factory http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/latest-paramount-acquisition-marks-a-major-consolidation-in-the-sa-defence-industry-2015-04-10 http://www.iol.co.za/business/companies/paramount-buys-leading-armoured-vehicle-maker-1843029 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FHF Christopher Onderstall (talk • contribs) 21:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FHF Christopher Onderstal Those are good sources, also take a good hard look at defence specialist media such as http://www.defenceweb.co.za http://www.africandefence.net http://www.janes.com - they generally report significantly more detail, and also cover stories that don't catch the attention of the general news media, such as export deals and partnerships with companies in Kazakhstan, Jordan, etc. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Chiang Rayleigh Ping-Ying

Hello Dodger, please note that the draft you commented on is a copy of an article that has been recreated multiple times and deleted after this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiang Rayleigh Ping-Ying. the user has been warned for using multiple accounts for promoting the article and to avoid scrutiny. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Crystallizedcarbon, I've hit it with the {{db-g4}} stick, though you could have done so already. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help, I did not want to step over without first talking to you just in case you had some reason I missed to merit its recreation. Best regard. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honor 8

Hi, Dodger67. Thank you for reviewing and moving the Honor 8 draft into the main space. I was wondering if you would be willing to add Honor 8 to the Huawei Honor article and Template:Huawei on my behalf? I think these edits would be helpful to Wikipedia, but I prefer not to make direct edits to articles given my conflict of interest. Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inkian Jason I've done the additions you requested. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thank you so much for your time and assistance. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The future of NPP and AfC - progress

Thank you for joining the The future of NPP and AfC Work Group

There have been been recent discussions and some special task pages have been created. for your attention and input. Please visit the following pages to get up to speed and add your comments, particularly the straw polls and priority lists. Please also add these pages to your watchlist.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ask for help

Hi Dodger67, I am new in WP and my English is very bad. Can you help me to bring my article draft "Harald Specht" in the main space of WP? Thank you very much!!!Mr.Newjers (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC for page patroller qualifications

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article submission

Hello, Dodger67, many thanks for reviewing the article on translation marketing I'm putting together. Could you give me a few pointers as to what kind of sources are required? I've looked at the linked 'Content marketing' article and it follows a similar pattern, with sources for business concepts being a little awkward to come across. It'd be best if I found out now what kind of sources/references are ideal before adding to the submission.

Many thanks.


luxpir (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmission of page for Gayathri Khemadasa

Dear Dodger67,

I authored an article on the Sri Lankan composer Gayathri Khemadasa in Aug 2014. It was subsequently deleted for not satifying one of the list of criteria for notable musicians. Since that time, she has won all the major national awards for her film music for Thanha Rathi Ranga (Derana, SIGNIS and Hiru TV) making her the first female composer to win an award for film music in Sri Lanka[1]. She has also conducted a major perfomance of Prinivan Mangallaya at the Nelum Pokuna Theatre.[2] I would like to resubmit the article by adding the recent information and links and would like to see what you think about this?

References

  1. ^ http://www.sundaytimes.lk/151206/plus/award-for-gayathri-173466.html
  2. ^ http://www.sundaytimes.lk/160814/plus/rebirth-of-pirinivan-mangallaya-204562.html

Many thanks,


DML UK (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)DML UK[reply]

Hi DML UK Music and musicians or film are not really my specialities so I'm not sure whether those awards are sufficient to pass notability standard for music-related subjects. I think you should request assistance at the [[WP:Teahouse}} for advice from someone who is more familiar with that topic area. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

02:55:25, 12 October 2016 review of submission by Mannyadebayo


So a news article is not a notable source?

Hi Mannyadebayo, that news article doesn't even mention the parish in Ontario so it's of no use at all. You need news or other mainstream media sources that contain significant discussion of the specific subject of the article for it to pass the notability criteria for organizations. I think you might do better to try to expand and improve the existing article about the church as a whole, Redeemed Christian Church of God, rather than trying to build an article about just one parish. For example the article doesn't have any explanation of how the church spread outside of Nigeria to have a presence in so many countries. I presume it spread along with expatriate Nigerians who have settled all over the world, but an actual explanation of that process could be a useful addition to the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WMF waiting for our NPP short list

Hi, It's now been three weeks since we created the NPP Work Group and we are hoping for a dynamic push forward for the urgent updates and required improvements to the quality control of new pages.

We now have the attention of the WMF and their development team has made page patrolling a top priority. They are already working hard to address some of the major issues.

The success of this depends on our team being able to keep the developers supplied with the feedback they need - if we relax on this they will move on.

If you have not already done so, please complete your list of 10 preferences here as soon as possible from the list at To do - the WMF is waiting for our shortlist. Please note that No.8 (NOINDEX) has already been addressed.

Thanks for all your help. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Association for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Support - Draft

Thank you for comments re: APOPS draft
The "Controversy" section does not actually show that any controversy exists. It states the subject's position about an issue but fails to demonstrate that the issue is in fact controversial. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I have made edits.
Thank you Mbpippen (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dodger...is there anything else I need to do? I am new at Wiki and do not know the ins and outs...thank you for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbpippen (talk • contribs) 11:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mbpippen there's a whole lot you can do while you wait for the next review (which I'm afraid has a severe backlog currently so it might take as long as a month). If you wish to stay within the same topic area take a look at Uterine prolapse, follow some of the links, particularly those in the large navigation box at the bottom of the page, and see if you can improve any of those articles, even minor edits such as fixing typos are valuable contributions. Do also look at the Talk pages of the articles, you might pick up something there. Be bold in editing, nothing you can do will break the 'pedia, any action can be reverted. Just be mindful of other editors who might respond (positively or negatively) to your edits, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, discussion solves most problems. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ORCP

Hi Dodger, I’ve just been having another look at your entry at WP:ORCP. It may well be time for you to take a serious decision now. Let me know what you think. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung Yes, it's time I took the plunge. I just need to get a chunk of academic work done and dusted before, so that I can give it proper attention. I will have time to do it next month. I think a suitable schedule would be to take the first week or so to get the nomination and initial three answers sorted, launch by about the 10th. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11:42:42, 20 October 2016 review of submission by Paprsky


We would like to assure that this is not an advertising article. We are a company, and needs to listed in Wikipedia as a source of information. Wikipedia is a bank of information & knowledge source and that's the reason we would like to be stated here.

We request you to kindly go through the article and please suggest us how to improve the article.

Paprsky, I'm afraid you are mistaken about the purpose of Wikipedia. It is an encyclopedia, not a marketing medium. Neither is it a catalog of every company that exists. You must read the following policies and guidelines: WP:PROMO, WP:PSCOI, WP:PAID and also the notability standard for companies WP:CORP. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Grammar fix)

thanks for the Grammar fix on Afrikaner nationalism. just wondering are you interested in Afrikaner nationalism. Afrikaner02 (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Afrikaner02 I actually have a long-neglected draft in my sandbox - User:Dodger67/Sandbox/Afrikaner identity politics, if you're interested it would be great if we could work on it together. I have collected a list sources and discuss a few ideas on the talk page too - User talk:Dodger67/Sandbox/Afrikaner identity politics - please read it and respond if you're interested. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:24:28, 24 October 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Kaitlynnemoody


I need help on how I should change up the wording on this article. I have changed it multiple times and do not understand why it keeps getting denied.

Kaitlynnemoody (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPP - Last call for work group comments on stage 1

Hi Dodger67,

The future of NPP and AfC:

To take full advantage of the WMF developer time that has been allocated to this project, we must now quickly submit the short list of our priorities before the end of October, otherwise we may lose the attention of the WMF.
If you have not already done so, please visit the page at Suggested Improvements and select your personal choice of 10 features (excluding the ones the devs are already doing) and list them in your order of priority at Priorities.

Thanks. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

07:08:12, 28 October 2016 review of submission by PierLuigi Gentili



Dear Dodger67 I have submitted a new version of my contribution title "Chemical Artificial Intelligence". I have improved its content by taking into account your comments. Best regards Pier Luigi Gentili

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello Dodger67. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria.

  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator.

information Administrator note You have been grandfathered to this group based on prior patrolling activity - the technical flag for the group will be added to your account after the next software update. You do not need to apply at WP:PERM. 20:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Samuel Neaman Institute page

Hello Dodger67

We added references to everything on the draft for Samuel Neaman Institute, could you explain what is missing?

thank you Samuel Neaman Institute.Neaman (talk) 09:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neaman, the problem of notability still remains because all of the references you have included are from the institute itself or written by people closely associated with the institute. To prove the notability of an organization you need references that were written and published by completely independent sources such as professional journalists writing in mainstream newspapers, or by academics who have no connection with the institute or any of its projects at all. These independent sources must contain substantial detail about the institute and its activities. Basically Wikipedia does not really care what a subject itself or its associates or employees have to say, we really need evidence that at least a few total outsiders actually care enough about the existence of the subject that they would be motivated to publish significant information about it. If the only people who have ever said anything significant about a subject are the people directly involved in it, then it is by definition not a notable subject. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Disability and Wikipedia Visiting Scholars

Hi there. Thanks for offering your support at the WikiProject Disability talk page. Responding to something you said, Visiting Scholars positions almost never require academic qualifications. The basic qualifications are being a user in good standing with the community, with experience improving article quality, and having a shared area of interest with the sponsoring institution. For that reason I'd like to encourage you to apply, too. I think that SFSU is open to working with multiple people, and the experiences the two of you have may be complementary. Even if I'm wrong and they cannot create a second position, the program is such that when an experienced Wikipedian like yourself applies and, for one reason or another, isn't a good fit with the current openings, we work with our connections in higher education to try to form a connection elsewhere. The application is here if it's something you think you might want to do. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about it. Thanks again. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ryan (Wiki Ed), but I'm just far too busy with too many other things to do justice to this project. I'm happy to be a "background" supporter through the WikiProject.
While I have your attention there is something else I hope you might be able to help with. At WikiProject Disablity we have a project (that's been running slowly for quite some time) to create a brief introductory article about "Disability in (Country)" for every country on earth - see this Navbox. I think it may be an ideal project for an undergrad Disability studies class to try to create a large number of such articles. If you look at a few of the existing articles in the Navbox, you'll see that we have established a roughly "standard" pattern for such pages. I know it's more usual for a college professor to arrive at Wiki Ed with a class project idea already worked out, but do you think we could actually do it "backwards" and suggest this idea to the professors? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Submission rejected

Hi There, thanks very much for reviewing the submission - Lumo App - it refers to a newly launched product that has limited information available online. You mentioned that there are no references, as being the issue associated - what type of references will you accept here? I assume references of pages on www.lumoapp.co.uk are still relevant in verifying details? or does it need to come from external sources? for a new product / service, how do you typically achieve this? Or is it better not to have 'references' on the page at all? Thanks, Mark_i3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark i3 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark i3 - References are absolutely essential, without references there can be no article. See the Referencing for beginners guide. The company's own sources can be used for uncontroversial claims, such as release dates, product specifications, etc., but such self published sources are no good at all for supporting the notability of the subject. If no external sources such as news or magazine/e-zine articles about the product exist then the product is simply not notable yet. If you can find independently written and published professional product reviews (not simply user blogs), or news stories about the product's development (but not press releases by the company itself), then we might have an article. Without such sources we have nothing to sustain an article on the English Wikipedia. BTW sources do not need to be online, any form of publication is acceptable - as long as it is at least in theory accessible to our readers. Though of course offline sources are rather strange in terms of a present-day IT product. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Farm Forward

Hello,

I would like to thank you for your review of my draft. I have recently re-submitted the article for review. I revised the text in accordance with revised sources, and it should no longer sound like advertising. I am wondering if you might be able to take a look at it once more. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoutkm (talk • contribs) 17:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18:19:52, 4 November 2016 review of submission by IFyles


Hello. I recently had my article (Paper: Environmental Impacts, Controls and Industry Performance) refused and would like to know how to fix it so it can be publishable. The comment you sent was: "This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner."

In response to the above, I only used what I considered to be secondary and reliable sources - no original research or opinions were included. Occasionally it was necessary to use information put out by the the pulp and paper industry as they are the only ones to collect certain data. I assumed if Wikipedia readers took issue with anything that was written, they would provide information and sources that could rectify the problem. The current 'Environmental Impacts of Paper' article is out of date and incomplete so I thought I was improving the availability of information.

Also, I am not sure what you meant by 'reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article' Does it cover too many subjects? Maybe it is too long-winded?!

I would appreciate your comments. Thanks

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dodger67&oldid=747844356"