User talk:Dodger67

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

23:47:46, 25 July 2017 review of submission by Waihekedon[edit]

I am not a relative nor do I have any financial or ulterior reason for persisting with this task. I am interested in the history of this person who has a terminal illness. Hence it is certainly not an advertisement. That said, I definitely 'get' what you are saying.

Third party references to verify her life and contributions are used frequently and a few more have been added

She was very active from her 20's as a woman leading from the 'front' in international protests - not very popular with many governments of course. Now we realise in the South Pacific that the residuals of nuclear testing still remain. Rainbow Warriors are considered quite heroic here.

I'm not sure how to re-write this because it is so interwoven with the politics and social fabric of the 1970's Should I remove all of the material under Life and Career?

Many thanks for what must be a very difficult and time consuming task as a volunteer. As a consolation Susi certainly stepped-up in her prime too.

I'm very grateful to both of you! Don



You recently moved this page to Draft... it's back! --Salimfadhley (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

See also Ejembi J. Onah. Certes (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Certes if you find such a situation again simply tag the page with {{db-g4|The AFD discussion page}} then it will be cleaned up soon thereafter. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Will do! Thanks for dealing with the page this time. Certes (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I have created a new disability article by nation[edit]

Sir,I have created a new article on Disability issue on a particular country(including Zimbabwe). Disability in Zimbabwe,which I tried to create it using the draft page Draft:Disability in Zimbabwe.I am not sure about the notability issues,but I provided citations for this article.I am also working hard to create article on Disability in Sri Lanka.So I definitely need help from you as well as from fellow Wikipedians.Thank you. Abishe (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Abishe, I found Disability in Zimbabwe, thank you for a good start. I have editedit to improve the language a bit and also fix a few minor errors. Thanks for your contribution. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Undo controversial move[edit]

Can you undo the move you did on Gun laws in the United Kingdom per the contested move at Talk:Firearms policy in the United Kingdom. I started the procedural RM without realizing you had already executed a move. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni Done, I had a suspicion the move would end up being disputed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Brenda J. Sell[edit]


WHAT THE ACTUAL HELL?!?!?! I've submitted several times, and done everything I can. Waited 2 bloody months for this.

What do you want me to freaking say about someone with the clout that she carries? Good God! I provided links, proof, evidence, timelines, and everything to prove, as well as possible, that what was posted was true. What more do you people want? This is the most ridiculous denial I've ever heard of!!!

You people need to give better advice than "it reads like an advertisement"

That is the POINT of a person of interest. To give their history and accomplishments! I've written, re-written, approved, revised, worked on, edited, re-edited, only to have you tell me, what, its too interesting of a read? Advice, please. This is a part of a project of mine for my own Taekwondo career, and these vague, and ridiculous denials (after waiting months on end for any response) are infuriating!!!

Mastercourington (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mastercourington, a neutral tone can be quite hard to achieve, particularly for editors who are close to, or have strong feelings about, the subject. Hopefully the Writing better articles guide may be useful to you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Investment[edit]

Hey there! Id like to invite you to the WikiProject Investment

A1 Houston Office Oil Traders on Monday.jpg

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation WikiEditCrunch, but I'm afraid the topic is way outside my comfort zone. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Alright. Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter[edit]

Hello Dodger67, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

  • Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
  • Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

For Rodger[edit]

I came across this and thought of techno-savvy you in SA - "A fox is cat software running on dog hardware" Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 11:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

William Harris That's very clever! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Template:Paramount Group[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Template:Paramount Group has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Legacypac (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Request on 13:28:38, 30 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Jane Kardi[edit]

Added links to sources about awards and portfolio, can you chek it? thank you! Jane Kardi (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion for Global Business Consultants[edit]

Hi, you have placed a speedy deletion tag on a page that I submitted. I re-wrote the complete page but cannot seem to find teh "contest speedy deletion" button. Please help. User:Samleemohan/sandbox/Global Business Consultants — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samleemohan (talkcontribs) 12:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Samleemohan, the speedy deletion of your sandbox way back in April is of no relevance to the current content. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).


Administrator changes

added NakonScott
removed SverdrupThespianElockidJames086FfirehorseCelestianpowerBoing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
  • Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
  • In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.


  • Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Easiness effect[edit]

Hello, Dodger67. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Easiness effect".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Musician notability[edit]

Please disregard, I think I understand now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProgSpheres (talkcontribs) 17:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi ProgSpheres if there's anything else you need help with, feel free to drop me a note here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Disability in literature[edit]

Hello. I noticed this Draft page while sorting through very old unedited Draft pages. It looks like there's still some effort that needs to be made (or sections collapsed) to finish this off. Would you like to continue working on this or are you willing to let it be deleted. Please feel free to ping me when you reply as I don't have your talk page on my watch list. Hasteur (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hasteur, it's a major topic that definitely needs an article. I will userfy the draft as I'm the only significant contributor (so far). Thanks for the heads-up. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Re: Draft:Ejembi John Onah[edit]

Thanks for your interest on the above article; the subject resolved the issues raised by you earlier for deletion with reliable references which are verifiable with citation from high impact journal for notability in the academics. Since the article was deleted, it underwent significant revision to address your concerns, please undo the deletion since the facts for notability has been established according to wiki on notability: . "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.To count towards satisfying Criterion 1, citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books". The subject met this condition so the article was recreated after extensive discussion in the community discussion channel with many editors and moved by Primefac to draft space to be worked on. It will be appreciated for you to undo the deletion because of the above facts, thanks Ejembi12 (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Primefac Please would you handle this matter, as you appear to be familiar with recent developments. Do also take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ejembi John Onah before deciding whether to undelete. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks alot and for your speedy response as I await Primefac response
Ejembi12 (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Until a few days ago I was watching the draft, but other than seeing that references were being added I didn't really check the content of the changes. In looking over the page history, the AFD, and the most recent AFC comment on the draft, the question becomes "is Onah notable". Obviously, the AFD said no, and the draft as it currently stands says no, but I'm generally of the opinion that drafts shouldn't be G4'd unless they are very clearly never going to be notable, or we've hit the point of tendentious editing. Given that the entirety of the draft is supported by primary sources, and the creator has had multiple (very large) IRC conversations with apparently no suitable improvements, maybe this draft should stay deleted; I can't find anything other than the three press releases found in the draft, indicating a lack of notability. In other words, my reply is "meh". Primefac (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Primefac for your response: Since you did not find anything indicating lack of notability other the 3 press releases, undeleting the article will be appreciated, then the 3 press releases will be deleted and the article reformatted, once more thank you your usual prompt attention [[Special:Contributions (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC) Ejembi12 (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Ejembi12, that's my fault for using a double negative, but I mean that I had not found anything to demonstrate notability. The entirety of the sources were those three press releases. You're welcome to request that the page be undeleted, but it looks like neither I nor Dodger will be undeleting it. Primefac (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Primefac, I have pasted several citations from journals from references 6 and 7 as an example of the subject article on the AFC help desk for further review to proof criterion 1 on notability as in notability academics as stated above. Those are hundreds of citations from secondary sources, so it is not only the 4 press releases as you stated. Now how do I request undeletion as you advised? Ejembi12 (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Those hundreds of citations as pasted on the subject article are coming from secondary sources also come from peer review journals Ejembi12 (talk) 02:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft submission on Emerging Markets Institute[edit]

Hi Dodger67, thank you very much for your feedback on the draft about Emerging Markets Institute. Sorry if I didn/t get all your points from the first time. Can I put this reference back - It was in the text you deleted. Can you please clarify if I understand correctly the comment that you left after the review - "submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources...". Does it mean the same - I should write the new text - or it is another kind of comment that there are not enough references in the article now even if I add a new text about "approach" and delete the section "history"? Does this comment "The tone of the draft is too promotional, probably because it paraphrases the source language too closely" mean that its better to check the whole text again to change the style? Thank you very much for your time!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaSolodova (talkcontribs) 06:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi MariaSolodova the references you have used are acceptable, so do continue using them. I have noticed that I mistook a different website for the subject's own. When you write from sources do take care that you do not paraphrase the source too closely, Wikipedia takes copyright and plagiarism very seriously, so recast the information so that it does not look copied.
The tone issue can largely be avoided by eliminating adjectives, only keep those that are truly necessary. Also avoid expressing or even implying any opinions, unless you are quoting the opinion of neutral reliable source - which you then reference directly after the quote.
About referencing, you have one paragraph that contains several references, basically the entire article should look like that. Every substantive fact or claim should have a reference to "say where you read it". The referencing standards of WP are basically the same as academic writing, except that we never accept "pers. comm." or unpublished sources. Luckily WP's definition of "published" is fairly broad - if a source can be accessed by the public (regardless of expense or preconditions) it is regarded as "published". However, you can only cite what you have actually read. I should stop here, this is far more detail than you really need this early in your "career" as a Wikipedian. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very very much for the answer, Dodger67! I will continue to work!)

Thanks, Dodger67[edit]

Dear Dodger67,

Thanks for getting back to me via the help desk on my question about in line citations. You were very helpful -and I agree with you that the published guidelines need updating.

With ebest wishes,

Linnaean Street (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Linnaean Street

Invitation to Admin confidence survey[edit]


Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Carl Simon Fried[edit]

Dear Dodger67, Thanks for the feedback. I’ll try one more submission.

Since “Sister Twister” gave me the duty to prove Carl Fried’s notability, I have made the mistake of straying a from a neutral point of view.

I was trying to convince the Wikipedia Community, that in my opinion, Fried deserves more understanding: He was forced to flee, his language was forbidden, he did a (great) work and unfortunately, his deeds did not receive recognition due to the politics of an inhuman state.

Since you wrote in such a nice way I felt encouraged to tell you the following story. Once there were two radiotherapists working in the same region (Frankfurt/Main), who knew each other and were very creative. Fried and Rajewsky. Where do we learn something about Boris Rajewsky’s awesome career? In Wikipedia. Rajewsky had in fact an unbelievable career: He received honorary doctorates in Berlin, Giessen, Hanover, Innsbruck, Naples and Turin. He was the chairman for Radiology in Frankfurt, Director of Kaiser- Wilhelm- Institute and much more. His boss F. Dessauer had to flee Nazi-Germany. Guess who took over his position as chairman? Rajewsky himself. He was a man of extreme political talent. Why is his colleague Fried mostly forgotten? At least for a time we have an explanation: He was in the Buchenwald Concentration Camp. Not so Rajewsky. His Wiki-article says: “He was a member of the Nazi Party from 1937 to 1945.[1] However, he later maintained that he had always been an opponent of National Socialism.[2”] His Wiki-article contains two References. Wiki cites reference Nr.2. (Klee) in an extremely patchy way.  The full text says: Rajewsky was a member of the Nazi-Organization SA (since 1933); he was a member of the NS University Teachers Union. (Some people suggest: someone who had so many Nazi-memberships obviously could not have always been “an opponent".) The cited source gives more details, which are suppressed in the Wiki Article: his NS-assessment stated: "very excellent national socialist". Collaboration with the Kaiser-Wilhelm Institute for brain research in radiation induced genetic experiments. The fact is suppressed, that he was detained by the Allies in 1945. Rajewsky started a second career as head of Frankfurt University, Director of Max Plank Institute, Chairman of the German Roentgen Society. He received the highest medal of the German fed. Rep., the Lenin Medal in Gold and many more honors. Rajewsky’s honors are listed in the Wikipedia article but his dark sides are not mentioned. These are my observations regarding a review of the existing Rajewsky article in English. The German version of the article in Wikipedia is different. Excuse my excursion into the history of Fried's contemporaries. I want to return to my duties and improve my article


Wolfgang G.H. Schmitt — Preceding unsigned comment added by WGH Schmitt (talkcontribs) 16:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Please remove the submission declined tag from Draft:Outline of galaxies[edit]


I noticed you rejected a draft outline I'm working on for addition to the set of outlines at Portal:Contents/Outlines, on the grounds that it already has a root article dedicated to the subject.

Note that all outlines have a corresponding root article about the same subject. For example Outline of forestry corresponds with the article forestry, Outline of cell biology corresponds to the article cell biology, and Outline of Iceland corresponds to Iceland. Outline of sharks goes with shark. Outlines are topic lists while root articles are comprised of prose.

Outlines (short for "hierarchical outlines") make up one of Wikipedia's content navigation systems; it's main page is Portal:Contents/Outlines. Outlines are topic lists created in addition to the root articles, doubling as both a topic tree for the subject as well as a table of contents for the coverage of the entire subject on Wikipedia. The idea is to list the titles of all articles on the subject.

There are many articles about galaxies, so, naturally, Draft:Outline of galaxies is being designed to navigate Wikipedia's entire coverage of the subject galaxy.

Outlines are lists typically of much greater scope and more comprehensive than the corresponding root articles.

Instructions for building outlines can be found at Wikipedia:Outlines. Outlines are lists, covered by the WP:LIST and WP:STAND guidelines.

The outline drafts are just sitting in draft space until they are ready to be moved to article space. They weren't put there as articles for creation candidacy, as outline construction is routine - every major subject is slated to have an outline. To avoid confusion in the future, I'll create new outline drafts in another workspace or in an offline wiki until they are ready for article space. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines for more information.

Please remove the submission declined tag from Draft:Outline of galaxies.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 23:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi The Transhumanist you clearly know exactly what you're doing and have far better knowlege of Outline pages than many others (including some AFC reviewers!). So I'm wondering why you are going through AFC at all? AFC is really meant for newbies who are not sure of the rules and standards, not experienced Wikipedians who are comfortable with creating new articles. So I'd recommend that you remove all the AFC material from the page and go ahead with creating the page by yourself. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
This was a AfC submission to postpone G13 deletion on a page that had not been edited for 6 months and push it toward being published. I'll clear the AfC stuff off if it's not done already. Draft space is fine to hold these pages, just put a note saying don't delete or edit them occasionally. Can someone ju promote the Draft:Outline of galaxiesto mainspace? It's not complete but it's going to get more attention in mainspace to move ahead. User:The Transhumanist Legacypac (talk) 07:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The Transhumanist Legacypac I moved it to mainspace. I also hid two empty sections, unhide them as soon as they have meaningful content. Some of the category markup is not working, I don't know how to fix it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I didn't know drafts had a shelf life. Well, that clears up that mystery. Thank you. The Transhumanist 17:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

17:55:01, 18 September 2017 review of submission by Uriahjamesgd[edit]

Can you please explain to me precisely why this wikipedia page was rejected. Which references(s) specifically triggered the rejection? Uriah James Rittenhouse 17:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Uriahjamesgd the references that "specifically triggered the rejection" are the ones that are not on the page. You need several independent sources published in reliable sources such as newspapers or magazines, that have a reputation for editorial independence and integrity, that discuss the subject is significant depth and detail. I must emphasize the independence of the sources - nothing written or published by anyone who has any kind of connection to the subject is of any use at all to prove the notability of the company. Currently only one of the referenced sources (the last one) gives significant information about the subject, but it is actually a press release by the company itself published in an industry magazine, so it has no independence at all. On Wikipedia we do not really write about companies (or any other subjects), we actually write about what independent commentators have said about the subjects. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Uriahjamesgd I did a fairly comprehensive Google search (including News and Scholar searches) for "Aradius Group" but found nothing usable, so it's probably not worth pursuing any further. However, it may be possible, and more productive, to write an article about the Omaha Printing Company. Given its long history you might be able to find sources such as history books or academic journals that discuss it, try the Department of History of the University of Nebraska Omaha and the Nebraska State Historical Society. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all of your work. I agree that writing a wiki page for Omaha Print may be a better solution. I will regroup and get back with you once I have more information. Uriah James Rittenhouse 19:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter[edit]

Hello Dodger67, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

  • On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
  • Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

16:01:33, 19 September 2017 review of submission by Bu11man7[edit]

This page was created with similar content and format to other one-of-a-kind diagnostic tests offered on the market. Some of these are in the colon cancer space and could be considered competitors.

For a consistency purpose, Epi proColon should be accepted similarly. It provides readers information regarding taking a scientific concept, backed by clinical data, and accepted by key societies FDA & USPSTF.

Allomap - Cologuard -

If there is a specific statement or wording you feel needs to be changed to enhance acceptance, please let me know.