User talk:Dodger67

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Curious coding[edit]

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.


  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Fairbridge was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Just putting a timestamp in this to get it archived. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

06:53:55, 10 August 2015 review of submission by Cheshiredave[edit]

We went to very great lengths to write an impartial bio of Mimi Silbert with many sources to back up the statements in the bio. The statements about Dr. Silbert are factual and would not be out of place in a journalistic article about her. Furthermore, none of these sources comes from the Delancey website. Almost all of them come from top news sources such as the New York Times, LA Times, major ABC and CBS programs, etc. Hours and hours have been spent creating this. Please give more detail as to what exactly is objectionable, and please feel free to edit as you see fit to get this article to your satisfaction. The bottom line is that Mimi Silbert is a major figure in rehabilitation with tons of national recognition, and she deserves better than a summary rejection such as this.

Cheshiredave (talk) 06:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cheshiredave It seems to me that you might not have fully understood the decline reason or the linked pages of explanation and guidelines included in it. The decline has nothing to do with the sources you cited, neither does it say anything at all about Ms. Silbert herself - she may very well be worthy of praise and adulation but Wikipedia is not the right venue for such hagiography. Wikipedia is not a news site, it is an encyclopedia, thus the journalistic style is exactly the problem - Wikipedia wants only the cold hard facts, stated plainly. Unfortunately I do not have sufficient time to spend on this draft, but you can get excellent advice from the WP:Teahouse where experienced editors specialize in helping new contributors. Hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
@Roger (Dodger67) I have reedited and resubmitted, rearranging copy and cutting out pretty much anything that might be considered commentary rather than fact, except where the commentary seems vital and is backed up with sources. I hope this meets with greater success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheshiredave (talkcontribs) 22:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Electric motor efficiency: user: Brennige has not been accepted[edit]


Dear Roger, you just declined the page: electric motor efficiency on my user page. I just want to inform you, that I have already send a copy right permission to the address: where we declare that I'm the owner of this article. This article about - electric motor efficiency - EU regulations of ecodesign of electrical motors is published at the CAPIEL web site and the team of autors are identical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brennige (talkcontribs) 13:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brennige, you can ask the admin who deleted it RHaworth, if he is willing to return User:Brennige/sandbox/Electric motor Efficiency to your sandbox so that you can further improve it. However, it is very rare for texts taken from other websites to ever be acceptable for Wikipedia. Such texts are usually written for promotional or instructional purposes which means that the tone does not fit well with Wikipedia's requirements. Thus there is probably quite a bit of work ahead for you to rewrite the source text in appropriate encyclopedic style - unless there are other factors mitigating against acceptance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

10:56:26, 12 August 2015 review of submission by Eddiepops[edit]

Hi, thanks for your feedback on this article (it's my first one, so your assistance was really appreciated). I've added a number of references from some major and independent news sources which I think help to establish the subject's notability. Would appreciate a reconsideration and any other feedback you have. Thanks!

Eddiepops (talk) 10:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Eddiepops, the news media references I could check were unfortunately all simply quotes of statements made by representatives of the organisation about environmental issues they are concerned with. Wikipedia's notability standard for organizations needs material that originates from completely independent sources, such as journalists or academics, writing about the organisation itself, not just passing mentions of the organisation in articles about ocean pollution or over-fishing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Dodger, I think I understand now what's required. I've found some academic journal sources which I should be able to integrate in. A full media profile piece is a high bar to set for an NGO, one that comparable bodies such as Transport and Environment and Oceana were not able to meet! I just hope the way I have integrated the new references is correct.Eddiepops (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Harry W. Braun III[edit]

Hello Dodger67.

I hope this is the proper space to communicate with you about your speedy deletion of my entire Harry W. Braun III article, which contained 60 references and many more links to other Wikipedia articles. You state that the article was too self serving, but I have no idea of which parts of the article you are referring to.

If you read my article, you are aware that I am a Democratic presidential candidate that has registered with the Federal Elections Commission, as well as the senior scientist of an international hydrogen scientific and engineering society, I only deal in verifiable facts in the research that I have been doing for the past 40 years, but you deleted everything.

Is it self-serving to refer to published reports of my past congressional campaigns? When I documented the chemical contamination of every man, woman and child worldwide, or shifting from toxic oil to clean hydrogen, or the fact that the sixth mass extinction event in the Earth's 4-billion-year old history that is now entering its final exponential stages, is that self-serving? Given you deleted everything in my 10,000 word Article, does that mean the all of the information in the Article that was written cited was self-serving?

Could you please help me understand why my entire article was deleted, which effectively puts an end to my presidential campaign.

Sincerely, Harry Braun If you are able to give me a call, my number is (770) 905-7000 Harry W Braun III (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Harry W Braun III, I merely proposed that deletion should be considered, the admin who actually deleted it is Jimfbleak, you're welcome to contact him about the decision. The reason I proposed deletion is that Wikipedia does not do promotion which includes political campaigning.
Comment: If your "entire presidential campaign" really consists of a single article on Wikipedia I have to wonder whether you're actually real or a joker. I'm not American and have only a very superficial interest in US domestic politics. One thing I do know is that Presidential campaigns are multi-million dollar operations run by large teams of professionals, a candidate attempting to write their own campaign article on Wikipedia simply doesn't fit the pattern. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Roger (Dodger67). Harry W Braun III, if you are genuine, also read this and this. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a platform to promote yourself or your views. If you would like a more detailed explanation, let me know on my talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


Hello, Roger - nice seeing your name pop up again - it's been a long time (re:The Wikipedia page Large Group Capacitation has been changed on 14 August 2015 by Dodger67). Thanks for the edit. I have now done 4 wiki:en and 3 wiki:es articles but I have still a lot to learn. So, trust ol' H to give me a hand again with article wiki:en #5. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC))

Draft:45,X/46,XY mosaicism[edit]

Maybe clumsily worded, as far as I can see the draft is a fuller version of the article, and there is material here that needs copying across that hasn't been yet. Rankersbo (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rankersbo, I think I might have alerted Wikiproject Genetics at the time, but it's probably a good idea to drop them a note anyway. (Apologies for the prickly tone, will redact right away.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

10:11:25, 25 August 2015 review of submission by Jue31415[edit]


Dear Editor,

I've made some changes to the page I created for "EU SME Centre", including changing some descriptions and adding a few more links.

Responding to the subject's notability guide, I added links to the EU SME Centre's interview with China's major media China Daily and CCTV in the reference.

Could you please help taking another look of the updated draft again and let me know which parts still need improvement?

Thank you!


Jue31415 (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jue31415 - The press sources need to be used as actual References, as External links they are quite useless. But as they are interviews they are not really independent sources. The person being interviewed is still someone involved with the Centre or it's work. Look for sources that are INDEPENDENTLY written by actual journalists, not spokespersons, actual NEWS reports, not PR pieces. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

György Buzsáki[edit]

Just a heads-up I've accepted György Buzsáki outright, as he's one of the most cited neuroscientists today. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Good :) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Review of submission by Chersiphron 09 August 2015[edit]

Hi Dodger -- Just wanted to say thanks for reviewing my article submission so quickly earlier this month and to ask a quick question: do you think there is a "notability" issue with creating a page for a small firm like OLI? Thanks again for your help. Chersiphron (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Chersiphron, proving the notability of a company, or anything else for that matter, depends entirely on what sources you have. If mainstream news, magazines, or academic publications have written about the company in sufficient detail, you can write an acceptable article. If such sources don't exist, forget it and rather write about something easier and definitely notable such as brief stub about a plant or insect species. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Leadership[edit]

You are invited!World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in LeadershipCome and join us remotely!
World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Leadership
Dates: 7 to 20 September 2015
Love Heart KammaRahbek.SVG

The Virtual Edit-a-thon, hosted by Women in Red, will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in Leadership to participate. As it is a two-week event, inexperienced participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in leadership. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and find more details →here← --Ipigott (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Re Draft:Facial Nerve Decompression[edit]

thank you so much for your review and guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medicalphyls (talkcontribs) 14:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Murray Library Draft[edit]


I attended a webinar hosted by the Utah State Library on the topic of creating a Wikipedia article.

The moderator reviewed this draft and thought it looked ready to go.

I compared this article to similar submissions by the the Salt Lake City Library and Utah State Library.

I'm not quite sure what makes why Murray Library is considered less important than these other two libraries.

Could you help me with researching or suggesting a favorable reference that would meet the importance requirements.

Murraylibrarian (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Murraylibrarian, basically the draft needs sources that show that people outside of Murray itself have taken note of the library to the extent that they have published significant coverage about it in independent reliable sources. Comparing to other articles is not really useful, particularly if the comparison is with articles that are quite poor quality. I'm actually surprised that the State Library article is so weak, because as a state library it's notability should be easy to establish. By the way, "importance" is irrelevant, the standard is actually Notability, -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Request on 03:07:24, 1 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Wheelisengineering[edit]

What did you find wrong with the Article?

Wheelisengineering (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wheelisengineering, I have posted my reasons on the draft. I think WP:WikiProject Engineering might be able to give you more specific advice. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


You reverted my edit that the Kuwaiti Centurions took part in the Yom Kippur war. I served as a loan advisor from the British Army to the Kuwaiti Defence Force (KDF) 1980-82, partly with 15 Brigade, then armed with Vickers tanks. Whilst there many of the senior members received medals for their part in the Yom Kippur war. The KDF apparently sent a squadron of Centurion tanks to the southern area of the Suez to show 'solidarity' with their Arab cousins. I believe they ended up in the path of the Israeli flanking movement into Egypt and received a 'bit of a pasting'. Before I arrived in Kuwait the Centurions were 'presented' to an African country (Sudan/Somalia?) as Kuwait replaced them with Chieftain tanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boggy2 (talkcontribs) 14:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Boggy2, I'm afraid "I was there" personal knowlege is not acceptable as it cannot be verified. If you can find a reliable source for the information you can add it to the article. From what I could find it seems that Kuwait contributed money and some troops but not much "hardware", but your bookshelf may well be better stocked than mine... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Anwar Maun[edit]

Hi Im just trying to upload a page of my Professor i uploaded references as well and somehow you still seem to think their not reliable sources what else do you require? cause to be honest links of the University site and Newspaper articles on him are all I can give. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asad.al101 (talkcontribs) 22:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

IMDB not a good source?[edit]


You recently rejected this draft:

With the notation that IMDB is not a good source. What would be a good source for a filmography? I am completely new to wikipedia and you help would be appreciated.


Nona — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nona Urbiznez (talkcontribs) 02:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

11:23:26, 3 September 2015 review of submission by Sarah13BM[edit]

Sarah13BM (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Roger Dodger

I've been meaning to bring to your attention the fact that the article I submitted today contains a reasonable mix of primary and secondary sources. There is no reason for you to rule out references that have been cited by widespread and authoritative Mauritian media groups. I couldn't put more stress on that, especially given the fact that the Wikipedia pages of other Mauritian Banks have been validated with mediocre references. Some of these banks even have 90 % of their references cited from their institutional website. This poses a serious threat regarding the fair and equal nature of the vouching process. Finally, BPCE is not Banque des Mascareigne's website and should not be considered a biased source of information

I am making a solemn appeal for our team's article to be reviewed fairly.


14:03:11, 3 September 2015 review of submission by TCVCJ[edit]

What other kind of references do I need - I cited reputable newspapers and web sites.   Thank you for looking at the article - I would surely like to get it approved!TCVCJ (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

TCVCJ (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi TCVCJ, the problem with your references is that none of the links actually work, so it's impossible to check the sources. Please fix the links by making sure you have included the entire URL correctly, including the "http:// " at the start. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Page a mess[edit]

Sorry, I was fine I must have deleted a tag by accident. I've now fixed it so the layout is correct.

Good, I couldn't find the cause of the problem. (It would be easier to reply to you if you'd signed the post) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you for approving the Gail Bell entry much appreciated! Wizard30 (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but please don't give barnstars for routine actions, it devalues the award. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

07:17:12, 7 September 2015 review of submission by Larryesbee[edit]

I need some guidance here: I understand that some of the references are produced by the company and therefore cannot be considered "impartial"; however there are others which are external, impartial, independent reviews. I don't believe that the content of the article is any more "advertising oriented" than Microsoft's submission ( or that of Apple MacIntosh ( Please give me some guidance of where you believe we have gone wrong here. Larryesbee (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Larryesbee (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Ernesto Hernandez (UK author)[edit]

Dear Dodger67, I received this notification of speed deletion: 06:25, 7 September 2015 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted page Microbial enhanced oil recovery (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of

I need to tell you that we published that Wikipedia article during my tenure at Durham University in 2009. Please notice that there is no possibility to infringe copyright of a document that was published four years later (2013).

I have seen the article in conflict, which: 1) contains very similar information to that of our deleted Wikipedia article, the authors went a bit far by copying even one mistake from our Wikipedia article!

There a other flaws in that PDF, it 2) omitted several peer-reviewed review-papers on microbial enhance oil recovery (pay per view type). 3) was published in a non ISI, scopus journal. 4) lacks of proper citing and referencing.

Another thing you need to know is that to avoid plagiarism we use crossref and turnitin. I think the person that runs the plagiarism checking tool on your side needs to be aware that others may copy Wikipedia content and thus we may not be the wrongdoers.

Could you please undelete our article? Ernesto Cpp02jeh (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Cpp02jeh

@User:Jimfbleak, could you handle this please. I don't quite follow the sequence of publications described here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for ping. I had the same message. Difficult to make sense of, but he seems to be saying that the other site copied Wikipedia. this is my reply and action. What's left is still a mess, and needs filleting at some stage, but not today. The "we" and "our" in his message suggest that there is [[WP:COI}} as well Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
User:JimfbleakThe apparent source of the copyvio is dated 2013 so it cannot be a copy of the draft here.
User:Cpp02jeh a copy cannot be older than the original, where and when was the text originally posted or published? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

15:07:32, 7 September 2015 review of submission by Roy Bateman[edit]

Thank you for your comment about merging sandbox draft into the existing article "Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests". Please see the discussion in the latter and NOTE that "tropical forest" redirects here! Roy Bateman (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Roy Bateman, perhaps you could ask WikiProject Ecology for advice. It seems to me there may be quite a few short articles about varieties of (sub)tropical forests that could all be merged. (By the way, your signature comes at the end of your posts, not at the start.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Roger (Dodger67) - I understand why point about the plethora of pages on forests - but then, why tropical rainforest and rainforest, which mostly describes the tropics? (I would reply, not enough yet on temperate). As things stand when you type in the (obvious?) tropical forest you will be forwarded to "Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests" which links to sub-categories, of which "seasonal tropical forest" is missing: despite many scientific papers. I am offering to develop it into a full article over the next few weeks. Roy Bateman (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
@Roy Bateman, please take this up with the folks at the WikiProject as I advised above. I am not a subject specialist, discussing it further with me is a waste of time and effort. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The Nine Degrees of Autism[edit]

Hi Dodger67,

This is quite a late follow-up but I'm sending you a message regarding a now-deleted draft entitled "The Nine Degrees of Autism." I work for Philip Wylie, the researcher who, in conjunction with other specialists in the field of Autism, has created a new developmental model dealing with the stages of Autism. Remarks on the deleted draft indicate that it was flagged for plagiarism, although given that I have the express permission of the content creators to at times quote directly from their work, I'm not clear on how this is plagiarism. Please let me know what I can do to get this article published on Wikipedia. Thanks for your time!

Nmizrachi1990 (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Nmizrachi1990 9/9/2015

Hi Nmizrachi1990, I believe WP:WikiProject Autism is the best venue for you to get assistance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Roger! Nmizrachi1990 (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)Nmizrachi1990

Rmujaahida Re: intersex article[edit]

Dear Doger67 so a court case explaining the terms of the agreement is not verifiable? You do know that this type of article can only be partially verified, because if you tried to contact the Department of Veterans affairs you would be declined do to medical privacy issues. The government really doesn't want this type of settlement common knowledge, so in reading some, it does appear I complied with the requirements. Thankful for any bone you wish to throw this way to correct the current concern.

RmujaahidaRmujaahida (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rmujaahida, please give me a link to the article so that I can see what you're discussing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I could laugh a bit at the need to send you a so busy denying articles you can't yes I will grab the link thank you Rmujaahida (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello here is the link to my sandbox Rmujaahida (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Rmujaahida your draft still has no references at all, which is what I pointed out when I reviewed it. Please see the Referencing for beginners guide for how to insert proper references. By the way, I really do not appreciate your "joke" about my activity here, if you really want to know how much work I do here see Special:Contributions/Dodger67, then you might understand how I would not remember some unspecified draft I reviewed at an unspecified time. I've done well over 50,000 edits over more than 8 years here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

14:12:45, 13 September 2015 review of submission by EmmaCook2015[edit]

Hi Roger,

Thank you for reviewing my first article. Could you please be more specific on the areas on my article that read too much like an advertisement?

EmmaCook2015 (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC) EmmaCook2015 (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Rejection of Article[edit]

Thanks Roger ,will correct the mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exceedresourcing (talkcontribs) 16:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Exceedresourcing - Your sandbox page currently contains only a somewhat mangled link and part of a signature. You need to write an actual article, as complete as you can, before you submit it for review. The Your first article guide contains useful advice, read it before you start. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dodger ,that was my mistake .I was actually trying to create a page and only realized after i saved . I already have an article (draft) pending under review but got tagged stating it is duplicate on articlebase. The fact is,i have written the same article and posted it on articlebase which got accepted and in the directory. When will this be cleared.I already send a challenge note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exceedresourcing (talkcontribs) 16:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Exceedresourcing - please give me a link to that article. I do not understand what you mean by "articlebase" - I've never seen that term before in the English Wikipedia. (By the way, please do not add a new heading, simply edit the already existing topic section here.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Links as requested[edit]

The link to articlebase is i believe blacklisted The Link on Wikipedia is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exceedresourcing (talkcontribs) 17:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

what the crap[edit]

why did u do this — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have no idea what you're referring to, please provide a link to the relevant page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Review of draft, saturated phenomenon[edit]

Hi Dodger67, many thanks for prompt review of my draft article, admittedly a premature submission. I'll be working on it in the coming weeks. Kind regards, Ynappddhs (talk) 07:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Central Park Station (Denver)[edit]

Could you return the page Draft:Central Park Station (Denver) to Draft:Central Park (RTD) See for old (RTD) naming matches previous created pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:61:76E2:A200:AD1C:F908:92FD:35FB (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It should be done soon, I've put in a request for an admin to reverse the move. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Request on 21:22:00, 18 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by[edit]

HI, I'm not sure you're the right place for this question, but.... I just created a Wiki page, Central Arizona Museum Association, and had, a while back, been asked to use a name other than Camamember. I selected Fiberartist42 and completed the page. I received confirmation of acceptance of the page with the admonition "Camamember", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, or website." I'm hoping that the Fiberartist42 is the correct name, but Camamember seems to still be associated with the page. Help! (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Woodlawn High School[edit]

Nice catch on the draft, but it was about Woodlawn when I moved and declined it. The user managed to sneak in an edit in between those two actions. AFCH should really give warnings when that stuff happens. Primefac (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Primefac - wow that is sneaky! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

12:26:27, 20 September 2015 review of submission by Bwgunia[edit]

Do I now resubmit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwgunia (talkcontribs) 13:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I have listed new resources and citations but I'm not sure I've entered the citations properly.

Hi Bwgunia, your citation format isn't "pretty" but it is acceptable, tidying can be done later, the important thing is to get the sources in there. Concentrate on mainstream press, music magazines, books and other reputable independent publications. What independent "outsiders" say about a topic is far more significant for notability than what a subject or the subject's friends agents or associates have published. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


Dude tell a article i can make Fun Cake (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fun Cake, I see from your earlier edits that you are interested in cyclones, so how about asking WikiProject Tropical cyclones if they could suggest a suitable topic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

i am[edit]

yes i`m intrested in Hurricanes,Cyclones cause i`m from HHW Fun Cake (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Article submission declined, due to insertion of " Marathi " in parts.[edit]

Hi !, here.I am creating an article for my Grandfather, Late Mr. Michael Mathew Colaco- a recipient of " Pro Ecclesia Et Pontifice " award. I created the info box in English and entered some of the main contents viz. person's intro; marriage; death; external links in English. As for the Biography, I entered the content in " Marathi " ( Indian language ), because my grandfather wrote his Biography in his own words, in his local language. I wanted to keep his personal touch, here- I didn't want to translate that in English, as it would lose the flavor- because of my inexperience in translation. I understand, that it is precisely because of this ( Marathi insertion ) that the article was not approved.

     How do I go about this ?

If the English Wikipedia requires English translation, about my grandfather's Biography, I'll do that to the best of my ability. But, I also wanted my grandfather's original text , side by side on the same page.So that, native English speakers as well as people from India could read the information on the same page.[ ]

     I hope I have put my question in clear words.Saumiguel (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Saumiguel, I see the question has been answered at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Article submission declined, due to insertion of " Marathi " in parts. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
hello sir, i have gone through your wiki page and am really imprest with most of your articles. they are indeed great articles, i hope i will someday be able to come up with something substential as those articles you did. have a nice day ahead. John roger1 (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi John roger1, I appreciate the gesture but this particular barnstar is meant specifically for admin actions, and I'm not an admin, so I'm not eligible. If you like you could replace it with a more apropriate one. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Am so sorry sir @Dodger67, i am new here thats why sir, please accept my apology. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John roger1 (talkcontribs) 14:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Am very sorry sir @Dodger67, am new here thats why i used a wrong banner. please accept my apology. Thank you.John roger1 (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks for the help and Tea invite! AChrisTurner (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Contest your opinion at Miscellany for deletion[edit]

Hi Dodger67 – I recently noticed your involvement in this draft Accredo Business Software Ltd, I have put up this article for deletion debate, You might want to post your vote at Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Accredo Business Software Ltd. Thank you!  MONARCH Talk to me 13:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Request on 20:28:53, 24 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by LAmmons911[edit]

LAmmons911 (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Dodger67 left a message on your talk page in "Speedy deletion nomination...".

A tag has been placed on User:LAmmons911/Monge & Associates, P.C., requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under... View message View changes

Received this message, My other paged I created was deleted, I was then directed to create it here, I did that. I updated and was adding my references. Not spam or promotional. Can you please explain.

20:35:59, 24 September 2015 review of submission by Damien Camny[edit]

Dear Dodger67:

I am Damien Camny and I have already written and posted on 8 July 2015 the proposed article on Ruth Wolff.

The 10 September 2015 post that you reviewed was intended merely as an addendum to this previously posted article providing additional archival references to reinforce the information contained in the original.

As you can see, I am new to this procedure as my ineptitude in posting this proposal clearly demonstrates. So, if you, Dodger67, can possibly assist in directing or redirecting into the appropriate channels my up-to-now feeble efforts to create a long-overdue article on Ruth Wolff, I should be most grateful. The few scattered references to Ruth Wolff already in Wikipedia do not do justice to a career of almost four decades.

Thank you in advance for your patience in considering all this,


Damien Camny

Hi Damien Camny, I have managed to recover the "8 July" content and have returned it to the draft page, above the newer content. My advice to you is to really intensively study the Your first article guide, because your draft complies with literally only one of our standards - it is written in English. The Referencing for beginners guide should also be useful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Articles for creation: Thomson Geer (2) (September 26)[edit]

Hi Dodger67,

I note that my article was declined for lack of the subject's notability. I have amended the article and added new information.

However, an article for the predecessor firm already exists: Herbert Geer. Many other Australian commercial law firms have pages, such as: Gilbert + Tobin Clayton Utz, Minter Ellison, Corrs Chambers Westgarth, Mills Oakley, so I think there is precedence to support the article being notable.

Please let me know what else I must do.


 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alstah (talkcontribs) 08:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC) 
Hi Alstah, it seems you're on the right track now adding references from the mainstream press. Unlike in law, precedent has no value here at all, every article stands (or falls) on its own merits. It is however very easy to find articles that do not comply with the current standards; we have almost 5 million articles, many predate the current rules and even more have simply never been reviewed. I've seen suggestions that as many as 15% of current articles are actually eligible for speedy deletion, fortunately we have no deadline. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Roger (Dodger67), thats for that feedback and for explaining this to me. I have tried my best to rewrite the article with proper references to put it back into compliance, and resubmitted it. Do you have any further thoughts you could offer for improvement, to ensure it goes up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alstah (talkcontribs) 07:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
@Alstah it seems to me the problem is that sufficient sources simply do not exist yet. The independent press articles you've cited do not actually contain much about the firm, it's simply mentioned as being involved in cases. The firm has only existed since March last year, so it's not really surprising that in-depth independent coverage about the company doesn't exist yet. All you can really do is keep watching the news for when an article about the firm comes up. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Ruth Wolff article[edit]

Wed., 30 September 2015

Dear Roger (Dodger67):

Thank you for responding so promptly to my posting of 24 September 2015 and especially for retrieving my misplaced 8 July attempt at an article.

As you can no doubt surmise by now, my 20th century mind is of little help in negotiating the complexities of 21st century technology.

Since your response, however, as you suggested, I have carefully perused the referencing for beginners guide as well as revisiting the first article guide. I now can at least distinguish between valid and invalid references and now know that sufficient verifiable sources do exist both on the internet and beyond to justify the creation of the article.

The various books, magazine publications and films by and about the subject as well as reviews and commentaries on all of this abound. In fact, just yesterday, I encountered an academic book entitled ROYAL PORTRAITS IN HOLLYWOOD by Ford and Mitchell (University Press of Kentucky, 2009) that devotes its first chapter to a detailed analysis of THE ABDICATION film (Warner Bros. 1974) citing both Wolff's film script and her stage play.

In addition, all of her essays for the NY Times are retrievable on the Times website. Also, a 1968 front-page Sunday Theatre Section about the O'Neill Theatre Center mentions her as a then-fledgling playwright along with a photo. The Sunday Times Magazine feature on the Italian premiere of THE ABDICATION (1977) is also available as well as reviews on EMPRESS OF CHINA (1984 and the revival of 2003). Broadway Play Publishing website features synopses of plot and production histories of nineteen of her published plays (Broadway Play Publishing Inc./Ruth Wolff). Etc., etc.

Thank you for getting me this far in the process. It is obvious that what I really need is expert assistance in going the rest of the way.

In deepest gratitude,

Damien Camny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damien Camny (talkcontribs) 20:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Damien CamnyI think WP:WikiProject Biography, WP:WikiProject Theatre or WP:WikiProject Film might best be able to assist you with various aspects of your draft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

proper references[edit]

Recently, I submitted an article for review on a new TV series on Opera, and it was not accepted based on lack of independent referencing.

I have quite a few references available, but they are not in English (Mainly in Spanish). Would these be ok to use for an English page? Thanks!! Jeremy Devisedtv (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC) October 1, 2015

Hi Devisedtv, if the Spanish sources are independent and reliable such as mainstream press or magazine articles, not written by or on behalf of anyone connected to the tv show or its agents, distributors or broadcasters, they are indeed usable. It's fairly easy to find a reviewer who can read Spanish if neccessary. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sarah Hyndman[edit]

Hi Roger

You reviewed and declined my article on Sarah Hyndman. I was wondering if you'd be so kind as to clarify a bit more what I need to do make the article acceptable?

This is my first time writing one. Is it merely a case of making the text more objective and matter of fact? I tried to include loads of resources to back up what I wrote, so is it just a tone of voice thing to make it less of a 'sales pitch'?

Luke — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeMSGils (talkcontribs) 09:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi LukeMSGils Almost all your sources are WP:Primary, the problem is that Wikipedia doesn't really care what a subject says about themself, we're far more interested in what neutral independent commentators have written about the subject. I have also posted a comment about the inline external links on the draft page. (BTW, I did not notice your post here before because you did not give it a heading, it was simply added to the previous unrelated topic.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to rename categories[edit]

Please see my proposal to rename Category:American disabled sports organisations and Category:United States disability organizations Hugo999 (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

page deletion for "Blatant self-promotion"[edit]

I created a user page because when I clicked on my own username up top, it said such a page does not exist, but if I am that person and I am logged in, I am welcome to create one, so I did. Wouldn't all such pages "about me" i.e. user profiles, fit the "Blatant self promotion" definition? I basically wrote my bio, I am not sure what else I should have done differently? It does say I am supposed to write it, not someone else writing about me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edesyatnik (talkcontribs) 18:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Chichewa tones[edit]

Thank you for your comments on my article Chichewa tones, which have been very helpful. Mind you, I was a bit surprised to find that after I submitted the article for review, and it was accepted and transferred to the main space, it was then immediately flagged up with 'Has multiple issues'. Surely the time to iron out the issues is when an article is still at the review stage and before it gets published. It was a bit embarrassing! Anyway, I have now rewritten the introduction - and you yourself have deleted two unacceptable sentences which opinions - so I have removed those tags. If there is anything else that doesn't seem to you to be written in the proper style, let me know. I have also rewritten the references so that they don't contain comments (although I notice that even some featured articles, such as Swedish language, have references and footnotes mixed up).

There remains one issue that has been mentioned, that it goes into too much detail on minor matters. Perhaps you could advise me as to ways to resolve this. At what point does the article cease being of general interest (for example of interest to students of other Bantu languages who wish to compare one with another, or who wish to be made aware of things to look out for in their own field that they might not have noticed - or indeed to native speakers, who know the tones inherently but perhaps have never thought about them consciously or realised how complicated they are) and start to get too nitty-bitty? There are of course plenty of linguistic articles already existing on Wikipedia which go into even greater detail, such as Swedish grammar for example; so I don't think that detail is necessarily a bad thing. My aim has been to take all the bits and pieces, which at present are scattered in a number of sources, and put them together in a coherent whole. There was also the intention to put all in one place all the information which a person learning Chichewa (few though these may be) might need if they want to learn the language properly. I personally find it annoying when you read in a book that there are say lots of different tonal patterns, but only two or three of them are given as an example and you are expected to find out the rest yourself. Kanjuzi (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kanjuzi - the rules for reviewing drafts requires us to aprove a draft as soon as it complies with the minimum standards, and this article by far exceeds the minimum, it is in fact quite a good article already. Maintenance tags are routinely used, even on articles that have been around for years. None of the issues pointed out by such tags are even close to being serious enough to require removing the article back to the drafts space, so there's really no reason to be concerned. The idea behind such tags is to get the attention of other editors who can help fix and improve the article, it's a fundamental aspect of the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. As far as the various content issues are concerned, I think the best option is to request assistance from WP:WikiProject Languages, just post to the Project's talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
All the same, there isn't much that anyone can do about the article, if it's too detailed, other than delete part of it or else make suggestions on the Talk page. I put it to a philology expert at the University of Oxford to see what she thought, and she wrote: "I've just read a good deal of it and to me it looks excellent--really clear, and interesting. Perhaps more detailed than Wikipedia usually is, but it's not clear to me why that should be a bad thing". But there are plenty of very detailed linguistics articles on Wikipedia - for example this article: Otjiherero Grammar. It's even longer than mine and on a more obscure topic (I don't believe I have ever heard of Otjiherero before now!) - and yet it doesn't have any flags. I would be grateful if you would remove the flags (especially the one that says 'multiple issues') and put a comment on the Talk page instead, especially now that I've dealt with the most salient issues - the introduction and the opinion sentences and the mixed footnotes and references - and so the issues are no longer multiple. The problems discussed in the article (such as whether or not the tone of a certain verbal infix will spread) may seem obscure and trifling to some readers, but they have attracted the attention of scholars of the calibre of Larry Hyman, so they must have some academic interest to people who study Bantu languages. Kanjuzi (talk) 11:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Kanjuzi, this level of detail you really need to discuss with WP:WikiProject Languages, I am not a linguist so I really cannot help you further. Please also understand there is nothing pejorative about maintenance tags, they are there to help editors, not to shame anyone - hiding the issues on the talk page helps nobody. Roger (Dodger67) (talk)
OK thanks, I will certainly do that and ask their advice. Meanwhile I have removed the 'multiple issues' tag (since three of the four issues have now been dealt with) leaving just the 'overdetailed' tag. Kanjuzi (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@Kanjuzi Meanwhile I had dropped a brief "heads up" on the WikiProject Languages talk page, so you can add to the topic there. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I've just noticed it and added a request for advice. Kanjuzi (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Central Park Station (Denver) not moved yet[edit]

Hello I am really new to this could you please help get this back on track. 2602:61:76E2:A200:3E:C309:9637:E6E7 (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


Dear Dodger67,

In action to your message yesterday regarding promotional material I removed the links to the Henley Business School website.

Please would you be able to give me further guidance on what amends need to be made to ensure that I am complying with Wikipedia's guidelines and rules?

Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henley Business School (talkcontribs) 12:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Henley Business School - All the relevant policies and guidelines are already posted on your, talk page. You are in violation of two policies: 1 Your username is not allowed because a username may not represent any organisation or person, editors may only contribute to Wikipedia in their individual personal capacity - WP:ORGNAME and WP:ISU. 2 You are not allowed to directly edit any articles related to the Henley Business School - WP:COI and WP:PROMO. In such articles your contributions are restricted to requesting or suggesting changes on the article's talk page. The fundamental issue is that this is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for promotion or social media. Wikipedia does not care what a subject (or its representatives and associates) have to say about itself. With very limited exceptions only information and opinions written and published by uninvolved independent reporters and commentators matter and are suposed to be the basis of articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


I had been thinking about nominating you for RfA #2 on the following grounds:

  1. The RfA failed primarily due to a lack of experience with deletion policies, which can be learned.
  2. A number of voters said "come back in a year's time".
  3. Your current AfD stats are just under 80% called correctly. That's a reasonable figure for an admin candidate.
  4. Your CSD log is pretty good. There only obvious recent mistake I can spot is Space Shots (trading cards), and even then that was a partial copyvio anyway - a lack of attention towards copyvios is a regular complaint on RfA so at least if you err, you're doing so in the opposite direction.
  5. DGG led the oppose arguments and gave (imho) the strongest argument against you becoming an admin, but also said "I think in only a very few months I'll be glad to support you".

Based on all that, I think you would have a good chance of running for RfA if you stood in November. I'll need to look over a number of other things, such as a track record of civility (I've seen you around on AfC for years and can't recall any problems, but I don't go looking for trouble). I would definitely get DGG's opinion as well, as I think if he is on your side you will find it easier for people to accept you have changed and improved.

If this all sounds food for thought, drop me a line. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

ACC Page[edit]

Hey man,

Thanks for looking over the page. Can you give me feedback on the draft now? And I spoke with moderators the other day, the OTL link, I can remove that if necessary to comply with Wiki's policies.

SaschaIllyvich (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi SaschaIllyvich, please give me a link to the draft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey there, I resubmitted the draft after what I think is cleaning it up tremendously. Maybe you can help me, I really need to get an account approved on the Cigar Wiki but I have not heard back from those folks yet?

Thanks again and sorry for the delay.

SaschaIllyvich (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi again SaschaIllyvich, don't worry about delays here, I've sometimes delayed some of my activities for months - we don't work to deadlines on Wikipedia. I actually found your draft earlier today and in the light of the changes you'd made I withdrew the deletion nomination. However it still needs some work to get into acceptable shape. Firstly and most importantly you need to find some independent reliable sources that discuss the company in considerable detail. Articles in magazines and mainstream news media (but not press releases or advertorials) are what you should look for. They are needed to demonstrate that the company passes the notability standard for companies. The most important thing to keep in mind is that Wikipedia doesn't really care what a subject (person, company, club, whatever) has to say about itself, the statements and opinions of neutral outsiders (particularly journalists and scholars) are what really matter. Secondly the section about products needs to be trimmed quite a bit, it still reads like a company brochure. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Social model of disability[edit]

Dear Roger, I am new to Wikipedia and I now realise my attempt at editing the article on the social model of disability lacked evidence. I imagine this is the main reason my edits were not allowed?

I am concerned however, that they are some basic errors in the explanation of the meaning of indirect discrimination and in how the UK Equality Act provides protection for carers. The protection for carers under the Act only extends to direct discrimination and to harassment (Hainsworth v Ministry of Defence, 2014, Court of Appeal). Under the UK Act, carers cannot claim reasonable adjustments and they are not protected from indirect discrimination. Indirect discrimination occurs when an organisation applies a general provision, criterion or practice without realising that this will have a discriminatory effect in relation to a person with a protected characteristic (section 19, UK Equality Act).

It also seems strange to me that an article about the social model then leads the section about law and policy by discussing the UK legislation which is probably best described as a hybrid model.

Some jurisdictions believe it is unnecessary to provide a definition of disability within their discrimination legislation at all(the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and the Netherlands Equal Treatment Based on Handicap and Chronic Diseases Act, for example). Others define disability widely, without requiring an impairment to produce functional limitation and without needing the impairment to exist for a certain length of time. Jurisdictions which fall into this second category include, for example, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong and the Republic of Ireland. These forms of legislation allow tribunals and courts to have an initial focus on whether there is a prima facie case of discrimination to answer. Whereas, complainants under the UK Act have an additional burden of proving disability in accordance with the UK definition, before a court or tribunal is able to consider the alleged discrimination (except in cases concerning associative and perceived disability). There is evidence (American Bar Association Survey on court rulings and the UK's Legislation Monitoring Report) which demonstrates the difficulty which complainants have in establishing this proof.

These are really important issues which should be appreciated more widely. Please could you give me guidance on, or point me to where I can learn about, how to edit this article in the correct fashion. Best wishes Rob Robplatts (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robplatts, you're touching on topics that are covered in various articles about disability discrimination, relevant legislation in various countries and perhaps even others. It doesn't seem to me to be all that directly relevant to the social model article, which is really about the social theory itself. I think we should take this discussion to WikiProject Disability talk page so that other contributors may also participate. This is far broader and more interesting than just editing one article, I think your ideas can improve a bunch of articles. I'll start the discussion by coying your post to WT:WikiProject Disability#Improving "Social model of disability" and related articles. Welcome to Wikipedia! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Kenguru article[edit]


This is my first attempt at creating a wiki article. I was assigned for one of my classes to research an assistive device and create a wikipage based on my findings. Please let me know how I can make this article seem less like an advertisement and more like an informative article. I do not work or have ANY affiliation with the Kenguru I am simply trying to complete my assignment while giving the public some general knowledge on the assistive technology available for those in wheelchairs.

Thanks for your input, Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott0430 (talkcontribs) 21:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Scott0430 I'll be able to reply more fully in about 10 to 12 hours, I'm on my way to bed now. Meanwhile take a look at some of the articles about similar vehicles - such as those linked in Cars for wheelchair users. Basically you have to cut out all the language that praises the investor and how wonderful it is that the car helps wheelchair users get around. The tone needs to be factual, unemotive and without opinion (unless it is directly sourced). I can help you with sourcing and referencing too, which is seriously lacking. Please don't resubmit it for another review before these issues have been fixed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)