User talk:Tazerdadog/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Thank you

Hi, thanks for your review.

I actually have never felt so disgusted with people's behavior, new to Wiki, tried to do something challenging, but definitely correct, had it been a success. But kindly pass on to others that when you start out on Wiki and in under two hours people have deleted what you started, regardless of whether I'd succeeded in method, it was work just commenced and I have felt physically irate at the stupidity of people, not allowing for a newby to find their way and complete what they started out to do.

Several attempts and people repeatedly destroyed my attempts, which I would have got looking good in the end and would have been a great contribution....but you can't learn it all and do it all before vultures, bullies delete, so thanks for your kind help, but I actually GIVE UP FOR NOW as since you messaged, it appears someone deleted what you redirected me to...........useless! I am exhausted and learned that I now despise Wiki and can not recommend! Logging off! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Storm013 (talkcontribs) 19:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey. I'm sorry to hear you're leaving. Wikipedia has a very steep learning curve, unlike almost every area of life. If you just keep your contribution in userspace, it will be more or less safe from deletion. I hope you can give Wikipedia another chance, but I understand; wikipedia is frustrating. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

George James Roskruge

Hi Tazerdadog,

Please restore my sandbox so that I may edit and correct the problems. There was a lot of original work in there besides the offending pieces.

Thanks Henry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hreschk (talkcontribs) 05:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey! Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot allow any copyrighted material to remain on the site. I am going to assume that this was simply an honest mistake that will not be repeated. Before we do anything else, I want to get one thing quite clear. Do you understand that you cannot copy and paste copyrighted text into Wikipedia, nor can you closely paraphrase that text?

Regarding Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ DICE

Tazerdadog: I'm trying to post my first article and I have just received declined notice on your behalf. I completely understand your arguments and I agree that my article needs more explanation. I rushed to publish it because I had of understanding that I can edit it while it is being reviewed for a few days (didn't expect you will revise it in less than 24h). Anyways, I do thank you for your prompt response and I hope after I finish editing new revision will happen again without delay. --Fiscal Justice (talk) 07:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey! Good luck with the revisions, and I also hope that we can get to your submission promptly again, although I can't offer promises in that regard.

Regarding Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Howard Schoor

Hello Tazerdadog:

Thank you for your comments on my draft of a Wikipedia page for Howard Schoor. I would like to ask for your assistance in how I can complete this submission and receive approval. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Barbara Noviello — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey! There appear to be three separate issues here. First, your references are malformatted. Fixing those will make everyone's life a lot easier. I can help with that if you would like. Second, I still am not sure how Mr. Schoor is notable. See the policy on notability for more information. Third, the text is still ever so slightly promotional. While it is much better than it was it still needs work. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/U.S. Army Engineer School is not copyvio, US .mil has no copyright

Hello, the alleged copyvio for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/U.S. Army Engineer School should be undone and the draft restored. US Federal organisations such as Department of Defense (note the .mil ending) do not hold copyright, which is why you see so, so many US military photos and other US federal images on Wiki. Therefore even if it were a pure-copy paste, the draft should not be copyvio'ed. It may still need work, but it should be restored. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, just saw this. Hope you don't mind, I reverted the decline after finding the copyright notice on the site. (I was going through old copyright declines). - Happysailor (Talk) 18:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, I will be more careful next time. I didn't see the .mil ending. (and if I had seen it, I wouldn't have been 100% sure it mattered). Thanks for the heads up.Tazerdadog (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Lou Grant (Editorial Cartoonist)

Hi tazerdadog- Thanks for reviewing my never-ending corrections- i went on the wiki help and go alot of help- i do hope this time i am approved-

Thanks for clariflying what need to be done- This is all new to me- and i started this last year- very frustrating to novices - and those whodon't spend all day with these symbols! I have copyright permission to use the the portrait photo i uploaded - I contacted the photographer who is indeed in his 80's and now retired- his wife takes care of the business- They approved the usage for this site, with the understanding that it is in the public domain.I downloaded the permissions page but it is greyed out- and saved it to a word file but not clear on if they need to get it back to you or i can do so -how come? please note that the references are NOT articles, which i was informed that they should be in reference to- as this is for Daily Cartoons - a single one in a box, not a strip, that appear nationally and internationally and did so for 40 year- Also not sure why one line is turning up in blue ink-I did not do that-and need to know how to undo thanks- 23:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)~jo-z — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo-zgrant (talkcontribs)

OK, I am looking into it now. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the file, the easiest way is probably to have the photographer post the photograph on the web somewhere else and explicitly release it into the public domain or under an appropriate creative commons license. We could then take it from there The types of sources that you need to cite are not the papers in which his work appears. What we need are secondary sources (sources written by others about his work). The cartoons themselves are primary sources, and their use is discouraged. Regarding the blue line, you had a closing brace instead of a closing square bracket ( } instead of ] ). However, I can tell you now that your markup is not good. I can go ahead and fix it if you'd like. I hope this helps. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Why does my article not show up in Search although having been validated?

Hello, thank you for editing and validating my article on Although you have given this article the green light with a "first start", when I type "cradling" in the wikipedia search bar it does not come up.. Is there a reason for this ? I have created hyperlinks from other articles to place it in a network of information but it hasn't solved my issue.

Thank you for your help. Kind regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by H.L. Stokes (talkcontribs) 08:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey! "cradle" is a redirect page; it points to another article. I have retargeted the redirect to point to the disambiguation page Cradle (disambiguation). This lists possible meanings of the word "cradle"; your article is listed among them. Cheers! Tazerdadog (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


Hello, Tazerdadog! Thank you so much for moving those drafts into the mainspace. There are just two remaining issues I see, and I hope you can follow up these: first, I had disabled categories on both articles while they were in my userspace, and they still need to be re-enabled. Second, "The" in Texas vs The Nation should be capitalized; right now the article is at Texas vs the Nation, so wikilinks from the other article are currently redlinked. Can you make this update as well? And then everything should be all set. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will do that now. Thanks for sticking with it; we really need to find a way as a project to recognize editors with a coi who do things right. Tazerdadog (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Done; please tell me if I missed anything else. Tazerdadog (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
That'll do, thanks very much! As for doing COI right, I've follow Jimbo's "bright line" to the letter since he first explained it, and this was probably the most frustrating experience I've had doing so; most requests just take a few days, or maybe a couple of weeks. Resolving this issue was far more difficult than I expected. The project does have a few places where COI editors can go for help: WP:CO-OP and WP:COI/N, though the former is not terribly active, and the latter is focused more on stopping the bad actors. I do wish there was more attention given to those who follow the rules, but it's tricky. Probably always will be. Thanks again! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Robert_Stokes,_architect

Hi Tazeradog Was slightly puzzled to find my article on Robert Stokes architect had been declined a second time (incidentally, with the identical comment to that used the first time), despite extensive reworking and multiple references being added. I recognise there is some reconciliation to be done between the subject's early years as architect and latter years as New Zealand politician, but was expecting to be able to sort this out once posted. Anyway, I see someone has recently added a stub for Robert Stokes politician, so will follow this lead as it will reduce ambiguity all round. Onwards and upwards. regards Monty2ra (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Oops, my apologies. I had no way of accessing any of the sourcing, unfortunately, so I had to go based on the tone of the article, which for the most part read like that of a non-notable architect. I completely missed the reference to him serving in the New Zealand legislature, this makes him instantly notable per WP:POLITICIAN. My fault and many apologies. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
no hard feelings. Actually your intervention has prompted some further research and more tightening of the article, so it was beneficial after all! Monty2ra (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

NFLPA Game redux

Hey again Tazerdadog, sorry to bother but I just noticed a couple of things, looking at the disambig page—currently, it says:

This is technically incorrect, though I realize that it's an error introduced by my own misstatement on Jimbo's Talk page. The game is actually owned and operated by the NFLPA, and not just sponsored by them. I'm hoping you might change the wording here so that it reads:

Second, that "the" vs. "The" capitalization issue for Texas vs. The Nation also appears on this Talk page. While it does redirect, it probably would be best for the correct name to appear here. What do you think? And lemme know if you have any questions. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey! I absolutely agree on the capitalization issue for Texas vs the nation, and will fix that now. I'm going to have to look further at the NFLPA bowl one however. If you have a source, please do post it. Nevermind, done.
After checking out the sourcing in NFLPA Collegiate Bowl, I agree with the proposed change, and will make it shortly.Tazerdadog (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks! Really appreciate your help on this. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Zesty Health Ltd

I have taken your proposed changes under advisement and edited the page. Tell me what you think OkayNellykins (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey. The bigger problem with that article is notability. The best thing you can do right noew to save it would be to provide references to other independent reliable secondary sources. Tazerdadog (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Oceanogenic Power

Dear friend Tazerdadog, as discoverer of what I called oceanogenic power, reestablished what I wrote in my article, in open consultation, which you wanted to fix (thanks) but, you walked away from the truth of the matter. I understand you when you used the word "hypothetically", that being a new concept, you need more information. If you have sufficient training, you have to use one of the links you'll find the quotes I used. There you will find enough information, that no one, from readers of articles from Scientific American magazine, found something wrong. Preceding unsigned post added by User:Oceangenic (talk)

Hello Oceangenic. My main concerns with the article in its original (and now current) state revolve around Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Lines such as:
Oceanogenic Power[1] is an innovative hydroelectric energy solution
Its scalability and versatility are limited only by the practical benefits of the project that is selected.
It is now emerging as the only source of renewable energy that can displace the use of all dirty fuels (carbon-based and nuclear) on our planet.
Note also that exratordinary claims require exceptional evidence
These are the three lines that jump out at me, but other more minor issues exist. The article is interesting, and probably notable, but is highly unlikely to pass in its current state. You also identify of the discoverer of this idea. This gives you a severe conflict of interest. While you are doing the right thing by going through AFC, you do need to be careful. Cheers! Tazerdadog (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tazerdadog, I have added evidence of what I say, and according to what you told me. I hope it's enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oceangenic (talkcontribs) 12:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Your edit to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 113

Hi, re this edit: it's an archive page, so the discussion is closed. If you want to comment, please start a new thread at the parent page, including a link to that archived discussion. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Huh, I could've sworn that edit was to the Wikiproject AFC talk page. Oops, apparently not... Sorry about that. Tazerdadog (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I moved your recent addition to an archive from there to the current page (and saw this topic/section afterwards). You may want to retitle the new topic/section and add context or otherwise edit. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC) (Made link more specific: 17:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC))
Thanks, but that was in the wrong spot in all circumstances. I went ahead and just removed it, as it is really minor. Tazerdadog (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Silver Bridge

I have added a comment regarding the possibility of "plagiarism" and/or "blatant copyright violation" in the article Silver Bridge at Talk:Silver Bridge. As you recently deleted the paragraphs in question from the article your input would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Oratory Sources

Hi Tazerdadog, Thanks for the quick review of my submission. I hope you find the topic interesting. Our family members of the KUAN clan are now spread across different continents now. A lot of these old history of our clans are passed down generations after generations verbally. The bulk of the information now resides in the minds of the senior relatives (some of whom have passed on). We are trying to capture these bits of information on a common public platform which enables any of the dispersed member at any location to contribute whatever information they have to build up this story (our history). As to your suggestions to add sources. Do these oratory knowledge count, and how should I reference to them in the article? Some of these information do come from our family annals and I will reference to that source too.

Appreciate your advice. Thanks. YC Kuan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuanyc (talkcontribs) 16:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey! It's going to be a few hours before I can reply "properly" to this, but in the mean time, a couple things to keep in mind are our Policy on verifiability (someone from outside the clan must be able to check the sources), and that wikipedia is not a free web host. While it is possible that an article can be made, sourcing oral histories will be very tricky. Tazerdadog (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for you speedy advice. I agree that it'll be difficult to have some 3rd party verify these facts. I'll give it further thought. In the meantime, I made some attempt to cite the sources.
I do also acknowledge that wikipedia is not intended as free web-host for the public, but I thought that this topic will be interesting to the public, as the story of my family is set against the backdrop of some of the more tumultuous period in modern China history. As wikipedia is a fantastic platform to solicit and gather the facts from different parties, I do hope to see this piece evolve into a discussion on the political and socio-economic developments of that era in this region, amidst the global events of the 18th to 20th century. In any case, I do appreciate your further advice if indeed this article is suitable to be hosted in Wikipedia.
Cheers Kuanyc (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Question For Tazerdadog

Hello Tazerdadog, Thanks for taking the time to review my submitted article: As it was my first attempt at a wiki, I rally appreciate your input and I will take your comments into my next edit/post. I understand how you felt that the topic was not too notable, but I have seen many other articles that seem way less notable then my topic (i.e. Oakland Aviation Museum, which has 2 sentences of content, nothing really special about it and is far less notable then other museums in the Bay Area). What makes an article like that OK for publishing? I also wanted to ask you your thoughts about the overall formatting of the article. Did I provide good sources and links in your eyes? Any suggestions in that area? It would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks, PeterVeestword 00:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey! It's good to see that you are still here trying to make a difference. First, the easy and fun stuff. The formatting is quite good. The issue does not lie there at all. Unfortunately, this article is about a non-notable subject. In order to be included in the encyclopedia, an article must be about a notable subject. Notability is judged against a set of criteria, the most general and important of these being the general notability guideline. This requires significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. However, all of your sources primarily address the statue. A statue is not enough to make you notable. More sourcing would help, but I don't think they exist. I know it's hard to have an article rejected, but those are the policies. I would recommend reading the link above, as well as the notability policy, and The policy on people who are known for only one event. After that, if you still think the article is notable, go for it, but unless you can produce better sources, the result is likely to stay the same.

Regarding your example on the Oakland Aviation Museum, this argument is addressed in the essay WP:OCE. However, I will be the first to agree that that article is in a sorry state.

I hope this helps.

Tazerdadog (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Tazerdadog, Thanks for reviewing my article: Since you mentioned that it was close to acceptable, can you point out what exactly I can improve on? Is it just the tone of the article or the references as well?

Thanks so much! Shreyzie (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey!. After reviewing the sourcing of the article, I would say that it looks like you have clearly demonstrated notability. One thing to think about is whether it is the company, kony solutions Inc, or their product that merits an article. I would be inclined towards the company, but this is hardly my area of expertise. The good news is that the article has passed the only hurdle that can't be fixed - notability. The bad news is that the article still needs a lot of work to comply with other wikipedia policies. In particular, I have concerns over whether the article is written from a neutral point of view.
I also notice that almost all of your contributions are related to this product. If you are in any way related to this product, now is the time to read Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest, and disclose any conflict of interest you may have.
The problem with the article is that it reads more or less like an advertisement. Wikipedia articles must be fair, unbiased, and represent all significant views on a topic. sentences like this:
Industry specific apps include banking, automotive, insurance, travel,
brokerage, retail, hospitality, healthcare, CRM, field service, HR, and more.
are not really acceptable in articles. If you can rewrite it, while being as painstakingly neutral as possible, that would go a long way. If any of my talk page stalkers have anything to add, please do so. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed feedback! Shreyzie (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Tazerdadog

I've got another question for you. I have an idea for an article i want to right, and wanted to run it buy you and get some feedback on its notability. I wanted to write about an ongoing debate about the potential oil drilling project proposed to the city of Hermosa Beach. One side argues the potential economic windfall for the city, others argue the negative environmental impact it will have. It has become quite the hot-button topic in my community. Do you feel this subject is notable enough to warrant an article? If not, is there anything I can do to help it achieve that status? I ask because I would like to know before I spend the time crafting the article. Thanks again!

PeterVeestword 20:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterVeestword (talkcontribs)

Hey! The answer is yes, it is notable. A quick google search tells me that there are reliable sources aplenty, so you shouldn't run into problems there. However, you are going to have to be very careful in how you write the article. Firstly, wikipedia is not a newspaper. This means that just because news sites aree talking about it doesn't necessarily make it suitable for inclusion. However, as I see an election has been called, you should be fine. The next thing to consider is neutrality. Can you write an absolutely, painstakingly neutral article on the topic? Controversial articles are not expected to be perfect, but they are generally held to a higher standard. If you would like to write this one as a collaboration, I would be interested in attempting to do so.

In conclusion: Go for it.

Tazerdadog (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


I'm happy you agree that the topic is good. As a resident in the area, I was originally quite opposed to the plan, but after doing more research about it about it, I'm kind of on the fence about it. I'm hoping the article could give an accurate view of both sides of the debate. As to your offer to collaborate, I would be happy to! It cant hurt to have someone well versed in Wikipedia helping out. Let me know when you want to start.

Thanks! PeterVeestword 22:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I have started a page where we can work on it as a collaboration. It is located here. The first step is to gather sources. If you have any offline (print) sources, those would be excellent, but not strictly necessary. We need to gather every reliable source about the controversy we can in order to establish notability. We have to bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This is the biggest hurdle for this type of article. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for all your help with getting my article on the Hermosa Beach oil controversy published! I definitely could not have done it without your guidance. I just wanted to ask if you could take the collaboration page down, as many of my friends who I have invited to check out the page keep finding that one instead of the published article. Thanks again for all the help!

PeterVeestword 18:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterVeestword (talkcontribs)

Absolutely. I will do that now. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments on Article

Hello Tazerdadog,

Thank you for reviewing my article and the helpful suggestions on how to improve it (I am new here so am still learning how things are done). I have taken your advices to add a few more citations, links and also clean up the potential link rot issues. I believe the article is looking better now (and I will keep improving it over time). However, I notice that the original comments of all these issues are not going away even though I have addressed them. Am I supposed to do something about it?

Thanks again for your help.

Bonnienealey (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Bonnienealey 08/26/2013Bonnienealey (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey! Those comments are placed on what is called a template. They will not go away until the template is removed or changed. If you have addressed the concerns raised by those commens, simply add the {{subst:submit}} template again, and the article will be reviewed again. Thanks! Tazerdadog (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

My recent RfA

I should have said thanks for your support sooner. ```Buster Seven Talk 03:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


I am new to the whole wiki process. I understand that you require more verifiable (reliable) sources than Arizona Republic Newspaper, US Patent and Trademark Office, and Dunn and Bradstreet. As all of these appear to me as reliable sources, I wonder is the difficulty in the number of sources? Any direction would be helpful. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey! Sorry for the delayed response, College just started. of your 4 sources,, 2 of them (dunn and bradstreet and the US patent office) did not even mention as far as I saw this sport. is not independent of the subject, and is therefore a very poor source. The article in the Arizona Republic newspaper is excellent; one more like that and this article will be accepted. There references are also malformatted, fixing this up will make life easier for everyone. I hope this helps, Tazerdadog (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. I have added a couple more sources and have also found and linked to the Patent Trademark source. Hope this helps and thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for reading my comment. I am a bit confused by this process. I have researched and added references including several news sources, yet my article continues to receive rejections. On a whim I looked up Tchoukball which has a wikipedia article and this sport mentions no news references. It does mention dozens of clubs and organizations associated with the main governing body of tchoukball as would be the case with Sabakiball if they were deemed to be news worthy. Perhaps I am missing something, but it seems that a completely unique patented sport that has grown in just 4 years to include participation by people across North America would warrant notability on Wikipedia. Perhaps, as an avid Sabakiballer, I am too close to the subject but I am curious as to what makes one subject notable while another is not. Is it number of years in the public? For example, more than 250,000 students in the Dallas/Fort Worth/Richardson area are playing Sabakiball through their Physical Education classes. This is in one state out of thirty three states that have implemented the sport in schools. I would imagine someone somewhere is wondering "what the heck is Sabakiball?" Isn't what wikipedia is for? Anyway, I will stop researching information for this article if it is just a matter of time in the public eye that is needed as eventually it will become more notable and someone else can write the article. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey! First of all, I understand where you are coming from, I had an article I wrote turned down in much the same way despite having 67 sources here. That one took me a long time to swallow, although I can now see both sides of it. It isn't just having sources, or having x number of sources, it is the quality of those sources too. Right now, your article is right on the boundary for me. It really is, in my opinion, close. The problem is, I can't find any more good sources for your article. If there are any good, reliable sources that are independent of the subject and (preferably) are not very local, I would add them. Regarding the other article, Tchoukball, I would note that while the sources aren't in the article, they do exist. A quick google search was enough to convince me of this. If the sources exist but aren't in the article it is a problem, but a fixable one. If the sources aren't there, then there is nothing that any of us can do. I hope that this helps. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Article for creation


I have had the Chifley Business School article rejected, but I am not sure why as I can't see any comments.

Can you please clarify what I need to do to get the article live.

Thank you,

Linda Lstaud (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey! You can find, and read the reviewer's comments here. The article was declined due to the quality of the sourcing provided. The only source that is independent of the subject is the second source. This source, however, only mentions Chifley trivially and in passing. Without better sourcing, this article cannot go live, as it cannot show that it is notable. Another issue is with the tone of the article. The tone is positive to the point of being quite promotional. (I can elaborate on this if necessary). Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. If you still are dead-set in getting an article about this school into the encyclopedia, the first thing that you should do is find all of the sources that are independent of Chifley and cover it in depth. A quick google search tells me that you have your work cut out for you. It's possible that there simply aren't enough such sources to write an article off of. In that case, the school will almost certainly not have a Wikipedia article until such time as the sourcing is available. I hope this helps. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alabha may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • four [[temple]]s inside the village, which is primarily [[Hindu]]. The main temple is grama devi (village goddess. Maa Budhiani is the mother of the village and is said to protect the village from

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

2013 Manning Cup Football Competition (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Kingston and St. Georges College
Aisa Karay Ga Toh Maray Ga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Express News
Anita Thompson Dickinson Reynolds (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Model

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Carolyn Korsmeyer

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Carolyn Korsmeyer, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, please to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if you feel it should be deleted. Fbryce (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, I will see whether there are any other sources I can use.

Thank you for clarifying, much appreciated. I will see whether there are any other sources I can use.Lstaud (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Treasure TV Series by Bill Burrud Productions

For, please see 40 seconds into the video where Bill Burrud announces the name of the series, "Treasure" at The series in fact did exist as listed on producer Bill Burrud's page at Please also look at the rolling credits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikihouse (talkcontribs) 09:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey! Just because something exists, it doesn't mean it's suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I declined your submission because it was not backed up by reliable sources. In general, Youtube and the IMDB don't usually count. See if you can find third party secondary sources that provide in-depth coverage. Cheers! Tazerdadog (talk) 09:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message and for your feedback. The 16 mm film was converted to DVDs and I have more of the collection in my possession, since my father worked on the series. What kind of third-party sources do you need, please? The Treasure series, at the very least, may qualify as a stub. Please advise. Thank you. Tikihouse (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Tikihouse

Also, the videos on Youtube were not added by me. I am citing those. Can they not be cited? Please help. Tikihouse (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Tikihouse

Additionally, Bill Burrud's son can provide more insight, since he took over the production company after Bill passed away. Tikihouse (talk) 10:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Tikihouse

Hey, the ideal source for this kind of thing would probably be an independent review of the TV series, or a newspaper article, or similar. Youtube videos are self-published sources, and therefore are almost never good sources. While they can be cited, they should only be used to support uncontroversial facts within an article with other sources. The problem is that we need sources to evaluate whether this film series is notable. While bill burrud's son could provide more insight, that insight would probably need to be published somewhere else before it would be included in Wikipedia. I hope this helps! Tazerdadog (talk) 10:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for your feedback and encouragement. I shall seek out more resources and endeavor to cite them in the article. I appreciate the suggestions to improve this, because it was during the early days of TV and I've gone to great lengths to acquire some of the footage without yet posting my own on Youtube (thus having cited another's video), so I'd hate to see 20 years of saved TV history go to waste. Bill was a mainstay in Hollywood and a very nice man, from my father's memoirs about the show. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikihouse (talkcontribs) 10:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Sexual selection in lizards (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Stress, Fitness, Territory and Traits
City of Racine Fire Department (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Racine, North Bay and Elmwood
Condition monitoring of transformers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Impedance, Insulation and Bushings
Community College Research Center (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Thomas Bailey and Financial aid
Phytogeomorphology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Yield and Spreader
Cresta International Advertising Awards (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Criteria
Enoch Douglas Davis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Usher

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Mensch5.png The Barnstar of Integrity
Thank you for your integrity, fairness, and encouragement, providing your insight and judgment. Tikihouse (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Article on circle constants

I've seen that you're working on an article about . While I think the current redirect of Tau (2π) is unfortunate, I'm not sure if the new article will be accepted by the community under that title. Have you considered writing a more general article circle constant which could contrast τ with π (and possibly other proposals such as π/2) including any available historic references? It would be of particular interest to scrutinize references prior to 1706, i.e. when the symbol π was first used to represent the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. Isheden (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey! This discussion has more or less already been had;see the talk page of that userspace draft. The community consensus, which I disagree with but accept is that tau is not (yet) notable. Renaming the article to circle constant is a definite idea, but if we do, we must be very careful to avoid a WP:COATRACK article. If you have any new sources that you could bring to my attention, that would be extremely helpful. In absence of those, however, this draft is probably going to stay dead.
I created a new section on the talk page of that userspace draft. I don't think more sources are needed about the recent τ proposal, rather it would be interesting to look closer at historic references without the standard assumption that they imply a value for π, the ratio circumference to diameter. Isheden (talk) 08:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

New RFC on draft namespace


As one of the participants in the previous related discussion, you are requested to comment on the RFC on creating a new Draft namespace at the Village Pump.

Thank you, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Parallel Worlds Chess

Hi Tazer, what were you trying to do, and what was wrong the the orig layout? Thx, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the very late response, school is chewing me up and ejecting me out the other end. There was an image that was forcing the text into a very narrow band, and my edits forced the text to the next line. It was a very inelegant solution though.Tazerdadog (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Thx for the explain (screen width issue). I tried something. Let me know if it's better now. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
It is much better now.Tazerdadog (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Centrosema pubescens Benth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Axillary and Liming
Dick Dorworth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ski racing
Salman Akhtar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Khairabad
Srinivasapuram (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Adyar
Thanaipur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Hardiya

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2014 WikiCup!

Hello Tazerdadog, and welcome to the 2014 WikiCup! Your submission page can be found here. The competition will begin at midnight tonight (UTC). There have been a few small changes from last year; the rules can be read in full at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, and the page also includes a summary of changes. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work, and nominated, in 2014 is eligible for points in the competition- the judges will be checking! As ever, this year's competition includes some younger editors. If you are a younger editor, you are certainly welcome, but we have written an advice page at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Advice for younger editors for you. Please do take a look. Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! J Milburn (talk · contribs), The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 17:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 January newsletter

The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail), The ed17 (talkemail) and Miyagawa (talkemail) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

John Gledden

Hi Tazerdadog,

Thank you for your review.

Can you please tell me how I can find the resylts of your review of 4th August ?

As you can see I am a complete novice and seem to be making a complete mess of what should be an easy submission !!

On top of this - I have recently found out I have a chronic illness condition and I'm struggling with both things

Any any help / advice would be very much appreciated x

Jan x

~~Tennisbuff12345~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennisbuff12345 (talkcontribs) 11:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey! You can find the review here. I asked you to use referencing templates so that the sources that you used can be easily evaluated. Right now the submission is honestly kind of a mess. Cleaning up the references should help enormously however. If you need any help fixing the submission or using the templates feel free to drop me a line here. I'm sorry to hear of your illness. Good luck! Tazerdadog (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi again,

Yes I agree its a total mess !! and I'm not sure how to sort it out now....

Can I take you up on your offer of help please ?? xxxx with fixing the submissions and using templates..

I am clearly not picking up how to use Wiki at all well....

Thanks TD - You are my star xxxx

Jan x — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennisbuff12345 (talkcontribs) 10:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will spend some time tomorrow trying to figure it out. Cheers! Tazerdadog (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Morning Tazerdog - Hope you are well. - Many many thanks for taking the time to look at it for me.. I REALLY REALLY appreciate your help.... Have you had joy in sorting it ? - Tennisbuff12345 (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Tennisbuff12345Tennisbuff12345 (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey! sorry for the delayed response, i got slightly burnt out from wikipedia. A quick google search for John Gledden turns up very little. Would it be possible to email me scans of some or all of the print references that you have? Print references can be wonderful, but are hard to verify. This will also make it easier to convert the sources into acceptably formatted references. I could do it with what you have, but given how little there is online about him, I want to be cautious. Sorry for all of the hoop-jumping, I promise that this is not how things typically are around here. Cheers! Tazerdadog (talk) 07:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi there - Sorry I couldn't get back to you straight away ( Hospital I'm afraid :( - I have got loads of old and current newspaper articles sent by John himself and I can either e-mail them to you or ask him to e-mail them to you - There are some I hadnt seen before too and not referenced so thats good. Again THANK YOU SO MUCH for your offer to help - It is so much appreciated.... Jan x - Where shall I get them e-mailed to ?

I can send them immediately... Tennisbuff12345 (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Tennisbuff12345Tennisbuff12345 (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you are unwell. My email address is Thanks for sticking with it.Tazerdadog (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Morning Tazerdog - Hope you are well. Did you get my e-mail with the huge bundle of press articles ?? Tennisbuff12345 (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Tennisbuff12345Tennisbuff12345 (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Apologies Tazerdog - Just seen your e-mail and replied with detailed response etc. Look forward to hearing from you once you've waded through it !! - Jan x Tennisbuff12345 (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Jan12345Tennisbuff12345 (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there - Did you get my e-mail with all the referenced newsclippings as requested ?? thanks Jan xTennisbuff12345 (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Tennisbuff12345Tennisbuff12345 (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I am working on it, but college and education has to come before Wikipedia. Please bear with me! Tazerdadog (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, That's great Tazerdog ! - No problems, as long as I know you got all you need from me... As I said before - ANY and ALL help gratefully received ! x Tennisbuff12345 (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Tennisbuff12345Tennisbuff12345 (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey! Sorry that it's not done... School has me utterly swamped right now and has to take priority over wikipedia. I will get it done as soon as I have time. Sorry for being slow.Tazerdadog (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem - I'll wait to hear from you Tazerdog...Tennisbuff12345 (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Tennisbuff12345Tennisbuff12345 (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Any joy my little Tazerdog ?  ;) Jan xTennisbuff12345 (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Tennisbuff12345Tennisbuff12345 (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey - Have you had any joy looking at my little project since I sent you the articles at the beginning of September Tazerdog ? 15:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Tennisbuff12345 (talk)

16/11/13 - Just looking in.... 13:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Tennisbuff12345 (talk)

Sorry!!! I have been swamped at college, and i have had next to no time for Wikipedia. I would look for something to go up over the Thanksgiving holiday. Sorry again;this is not how things should go around here.Tazerdadog (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey there - thats no problem - Thanks for keeping me in mind - I will have a look after thanksgiving - Thanks again... 10:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Tennisbuff12345 (talk)

Afternoon Tazerdog - Is the workload any easier. I keep looking at my project and realising its now been 18 months since its first submission and would really like / need some help.. Jan 14:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Tennisbuff12345 (talk)

Good Morning Mr. Tazer Dog - I just thought I'd give it "one more throw of the dice " before I give up on this project to see if you'd had the opportunity to look at the article ? - Maybe after 18 months its telling me its not meant to be - If you could let me know either way as I feel like I'm chasing you now which isn't fair, but I could really just do with knowing if its not happening. Jan 10:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Tennisbuff12345 (talk)

Hey. Your article will be fairly difficult to write. I think he meets the WP:GNG, but only just barely. Others are bound to disagree with me. He doesn't meet any other notability guidelines. It is a difficult article to write, but it should be possible. I'm not sure if I have the skills to write the article. This is not my area of expertise. If an article is to be written, it would wind up being very short, probably 3 sentences to two paragraphs. In summary, it is a lot of skillful work required for a very short article which will likely be challenged. I would look to the people at the tennis wikiproject to see if they have other opinions. I'm sorry to have given you the runaround, but I have tried and failed to write that article to my satisfaction multiple times. Sorry. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Good Morning - Ok I understand - Could you please just upload your best shot - from what you have written - If it gets accepted great - if it doesn't - then fine - we tried.... Thanks very much Jan x[1]

Hello - I've just received this from Wikipedia as my article has been with you for 5 months now "Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Gledden, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)" Can you PLEASE tell me where I go from here ?? Tennisbuff12345 (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)JanTennisbuff12345 (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC) 15/01/14- TAzerdog - I'm getting the impression you want to wash your hands of me - after your offer of help 6 months ago - If thats the case - please just tell me that - so I can move on and find someone else who may be willing to help me .. I'd rather not just spend ages on here waiting and get no reply ? 12:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Tennisbuff12345 (talk)

Hey! Sorry for the delay responding, and doubly sorry for the runaround I've given you. The problem is Mr. Gledden's notability. At the time when I offered you help writing the article, I thought Mr Gledden would be notable, albeit barely. After looking at it more carefully, I think I was in error earlier. The notability criteria at WP:NTENNIS do not include Mr Gledden from what I was able to tell, and there just doesn't seem to be enough non-trivial coverage of him to make him notable under Wikipedia's general notability guideline. I hold no special status on the project to make a determination on whether he is notable; I can only give my personal judgement. Another place to look might be the tennis wikiproject. If you have any questions, or would like a more thorough explanation of any of the points I raised, please let be know. By the way, you can stop the speedy deletion of the AFC draft by simply making any edit to it; the criterion is simply to prevent stale drafts from mouldering. Cheers! Tazerdadog (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
    • ^ ~~~~~~~~