Jump to content

User talk:Dodger67/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

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


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

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 The current 'Environmental Impacts of Paper' article is out of date and incomplete so I thought I was improving the availability of information.

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

I would appreciate your comments. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by IFyles (talk • contribs) 18:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

IFyles per the advice at the AFC Help desk by NewYorkActuary you cannot replace an already existing article with a separately written new one, you need to directly edit the existing article at Environmental impact of paper and other relevant articles. However, when you add your material to the existing articles take care not to add unsourced opinion per WP:NOTESSAY. The writer's (your) opinion about the topic should never be discernible in a Wikipedia article. Don't "prompt" readers towards what they should think about the subject, let them make up their own minds. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment in an article

I saw you left a message to the draft i submitted today. Thank you for that!

The content in the older draft doesn't need to be incorporate into this draft.

Thank you again :)

Theo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalted (talk • contribs) 11:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Samuel Neaman Institute

Hello Dodger67

we are referenced to in another wikipedia page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_tank#Israel, as soon as you will approve the page we can link it to the think tank page. there also at least 3 other references that are not from the Samuel Neaman Institute website: 1. "MAGNET". MAGNET website. 2. Lemarchand, Guillermo A.; Leck, Eran; Tash, April. Mapping research and innovation: in the state of Israel. UNESCO Publishing, 2016. ISBN 9789231001475. 3. Prof. Maital, Shlomo (4 October 2016). "The 5776 mirror: Looking back over the past Jewish year". The Jerusalem Post. do we need more? thank you Samuel Neaman Institute. Neaman (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Golan789 Let us look at those three references:
  1. I'm afraid I cannot give an opinion about the content of http://www.magnet.org.il/ as I cannot read Hebrew. However the statement about the website in the draft implies that the Samuel Neaman Institute (SNI) is actually directly involved with the website - thus it is by definition not an independent source.
  2. The UNESCO publication is described on page ii: "A study prepared for UNESCO by the Samuel Neaman Institute for National Policy Research at the invitation of..." thus it is not an independent source.
  3. The article in The Jerusalem Post says nothing at all about the SNI, the only mention of it is in a footnote: "The writer is senior research fellow at the S. Neaman Institute..." thus even if it did actually say anything about the SNI it is also not an independent source.
The short answer is - there are still no independent sources, and the third one is not a source at all.
You really need to understand what WP:INDEPENDENT really means. An independent source is when a professional journalist is ordered by his editor to "Go find out what this institute is all about, I want your first draft by Monday". It is not something written by a person who has ever worked at the institute or whose wife, father, boss, or any other connected person has ever worked there.
Quite frankly, because it is obvious that you work for the institute yourself, it is almost impossible for you to write an acceptable article about it. It is far easier to write an acceptable article on Wikipedia if you know absolutely nothing about the subject (and have no opinion about it either) before you begin your search for sources. Then you also deliberately avoid sources that are connected to the subject itself. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Re : Tony Heaton assessment

Greetings and thanks for your input. This article was the result of an editathon, and there has been some email traffic between the course leader, myself and the newby editor. I wrote the following: (sorry to be so gushing!)

Right- I have gone back to the article and added an image and changed a little of the formatting with edit source. Next I researched the assesor Roger (Dodger67) and he has excellent credentials and is a far better writer than me- so with a little personal respect I re-read the article looking for what exactly he meant. A lot is down to personal style and if you read it at one go it looks like a list- giving the impression that a catalog has been transcribed. So that is so easy to correct- and will take out the comment (un-encyclopedic style). It also gives the false impression that there is a POV- paradoxically reinforced by the text being so authoritative and strong. Alerted to a potential POV- you notice the abundance of adjectives- like major work, leading practitioner-- You share one of my failings- starting every sentence eith a subordinate clause or phrase (Germanism) rather than just jumping in with the main idea first. I don't agree about references- they are normally fine. Whether therearetoo many exhibitions listed is arguable but they do need to focused, and in fact Wikipedia prefers prose to lists, so some lists can be compressed into a couple of paragraphs without losing any data. Performance lists do need a written source- not unsurmountable. Leave a comment to say you are looking. I am going to copy this email to Roger (Dodger67) and ask him if this advice is on the right lines.

Is this on track? The newbies had been encouraged to use VE which added a new element to the mix! We are very keen to work with this organisation Disability Arts- particularly as they are initiating and directing their own training. ClemRutter (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi ClemRutter Your advice looks very sensible, you've explained the issues well. I particularly like what you say about adjectives. My feeling is that if an adjective doesn't have a strong justification it's better to remove it - let the readers make up their own minds about how "important" or "brilliant" the subject is. The line between hagiography and biography can be very thin, particularly when the subject really is objectively "important" or "good". Using simple declaritive sentences help to reinforce a neutral tone.
BTW please tell the Disability Arts organisation about WP:WikiProject Disability, it's a useful venue to connect with other interested editors and discuss ideas about further projects and articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Disability and Wikipedia Visiting Scholars

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

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

Pinging Ryan (Wiki Ed) - not sure if you've seen this yet. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, and thanks again for your interest in these projects. I will say that a Visiting Scholars position does not usually require a lot of time. The primary goal is for some of the articles you improve to reach B-class or better over the course of a year. The position itself is typically limited to improving Wikipedia and tracking/discussing/reporting on that work, but for those who want to get more involved with an institution/department/library, it can also be useful for building such a relationship (any other duties, however, would be supplemental to rather than a requirement of the Visiting Scholars position). All that said, I certainly understand feeling too busy to take on any extra project, so again, perhaps sometime in the future. :)
Regarding the class project idea, I'm going to ping Pommette1789, who does incorporate Wikipedia into disability-related classes like this one. She may have an idea for what sort of class the country-specific articles may fit into. I thought it would also just be a good idea to connect you two (assuming you have not previously), given your shared interest in improving disability-related content on Wikipedia. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
That's great Ryan, creating a decent "country profile" could be done in a few hours, for most countries. IMHO it could be a good intro to research and WP-writing for first-year Bachelors students. I'd be very happy to share ideas with Pommette1789 about such a project. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Request on 05:11:47, 11 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Realpen pencil


please can i send you my content to help me out with new wikipedia creation?


Realpen pencil (talk) 05:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Realpen pencil, the draft was deleted because it was advertising. You will have to ask the admin who deleted it, RHaworth, to assist if possible. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding explanation of the word east indian

--Tiven gonsalves 03:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC) Dear sir the Term east indian has many meanings and I have given the Term east indians in the article which clearly explains the meaning of the word so there is no confusion over the word — Preceding signed comment added by Tiven2240 (talk • contribs)

For more information about my draft Tu Maza Jeev see the films section in the main article east indians (to verify my article) Tiven gonsalves 03:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Tiven2240: Unfortunately it is not quite clear what it means - you have linked to the article East Indians which is fine, but a Wikipedia article cannot be used to verify information in Wikipedia, and in any case the section "Films" in that article is also very unclear and mostly looks like promotion for this particular film. Does "East Indians" in your draft refer to the language, which is a dialect of Marathi according to one of the sources (and also this source which you have not addd to the draft), not all the Marathi-Konkani languages as claimed in the East Indians article? Or does "East Indians film" refer to the cultural setting - which seems likely, but again it is not sourced? Or is it both language and culture (those are of course closely related, but not the same thing)? "First of its kind" seems to be used as a promotional buzz word in the sources, there is no real explanation of it, and so it remains confusing to the readers. --bonadea contributions talk 10:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear sir to make the topic clear I think the best way is to make a Wikipedia disambiguation page. To make u clear about East indians it is a culture as well as language of the people of Mumbai (India). I am sure that the article East Indians does not clearly explains the film as it focuses on overall concept not the film on which I tend to produce on Wikipedia.As I am not too good in making Wikipedia pages do assist me in making disambiguation page. --Tiven gonsalves 07:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiven2240 (talk • contribs)
Hi Tiven2240 the page you're looking for is at East India (disambiguation). -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
So sir there is nomore doubt in the article and I think it should be added in main space Tiven gonsalves 07:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiven2240 (talk • contribs)

17:36:38, 13 November 2016 review of submission by Jonathan A. Coles


Thankyou for the speed of your response. However, 'Animal reflectors' is definitely a subject of its own. Land's review on animal reflectors has been cited 313 times. Animal coloration is different from reflexion in both its structures and its purposes. I will put in a link to tapetum, but fish scales and elasmobranch tapeta are very similar, and so need to be in the same article. I propose links from 'Tapetum' and 'Animal coloration' and 'Photonic crystal' to 'Animal reflectors'. I am also working on getting copyright permission for more interesting figures. Best Regards 

       Jonathan A. Coles (Jonathan [no A.] Coles is a different person.)
Hi Jonathan A. Coles I look forward to watching the article develop. At the moment it looks like separate bits thrown together, but if you're confident you can pull it together into a single coherent topic, go for it! A tip you might find useful is to write the lead last. After you've got the body of the article basically complete, you compose the lead, much like an academic article's abstract. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Request on 13:53:21, 14 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by E rosen


Hi, I am not sure why my submission page for the Lurie Institute for Disability Policy keeps getting rejected. Could you please help me figure out how to best edit in order to publish this page? Thank you.

E rosen (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi E rosen the problem is the lack of independent sources. You need to find sources that are written by people who have no connection at all to the institute or even the university as a whole, that discusses the institute itself in significant detail. Look for mainstream news sources, magazine articles and similar sources. Nothing that is written or published by the institute or the university, or any of its employees, agents, representatives, sponsors, beneficiaries, friends or relatives, contributes to the notability of the institute. Basically if the only people who even care that the institute exists are the people who work there, it is simply not a notable organization. It's only when complete strangers have written about something that it meets the notability standard. All I could find through a quick Google search was a few "sound bites" from institute spokespeople in news articles about the issue of care for disabled adult children of aging parents and other social security policy issues - nothing about the institute itself.
If you cannot find sufficient independent sources you might still be able to add a section about the institute to the article about the Heller School for Social Policy and Management because then it would not need to demonstrate independent notability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


Draft:Jonathan Rosenblum

Dear Dodger67,

Thanks for reaching out re. my submission --- the feedback is pretty clear, and should be easy to remedy. I realize creating my first submission on a person is likely to be given additional scrutiny, as is appropriate.

One question I have is how to best deal with disambiguation for entries on living persons? In this case the person that I am writing about (Jonathan Rosenblum, a seattle-based organizer and social justice activist) is starkly different than the Jonathan Rosenblum currently listed in wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Rosenblum). Clarification and disambiguation between these two individuals is important as their perspectives and careers are definitely different.

As full disclosure, I am a friend and colleague of the Seattle-based Jonathan Rosenblum and see value in getting his entry into Wikipedia done well and objectively. Happy to get any advice or suggestions from you or the wider wiki community. (oh, and also, would it be better to put this thread onto the draft page that I am trying to submit?)

Cpsarason (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cpsarason, firstly disambiguation is not a problem - the accepting reviewer will see to it. While the page is in Draft-space disambiguation is of no consequence at all.
The real problem you have it that Rosenblum is identified as the author of all the sources you have referenced. Wikipedia does not actually care what article subjects have to say about themselves. Neither do writings by friends, relatives, associates, employers, employees, agents, representatives or any other connected person, carry much weight. Notability, as defined in the English Wikipedia policy depends on there being sufficient sources, written and published by disinterested observers (such as journalists or academics), that contain sufficient information about the subject to sustain an article. Sources by the subject or connected people can be used to add uncontroversial detail, but only after sufficient independent sources have established the subject's notability. So, go forth and search for mainstream news media or magazine articles that discuss Rosenblum and his activities in significant depth and detail. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Request on 04:14:52, 15 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Neha.duggal


I have tried to write about a new eCommerce. It is almost similar to pages that already exist related to different eCommerce companies. Why is it declined?

I have now edited it completely. Is it good now?

Neha.duggal (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Norbert Stachel

Hi, my name is Norbert Stachel. I'm a veteran saxophonist and woodwind player, composer, and arranger. I'm an established professional musician, and there is clear documentation of me recording, performing, and touring with many extremely famous artists during my career as what is referred to as a "sideman" in the music business. Some names to mention are Boz Scaggs, Roger Waters, Tower Of Power, Tito Puente, Celia Cruz, Dream Theater, Prince, Freddie Hubbard, Aerosmith, Zigaboo Modeliste, Sheila E, Roy Hargrove, Andrew Hill, Don Cherry, and many many more. I'm looking for writers to write articles about me (Norbert Stachel), my flutist wife Karen Stachel, and our music group LehCats.

You can look up my name on Wikipedia, as well as google me for reliable sources like allmusic.com.

Some links to verify what I'm talking about:

http://www.allmusic.com/artist/norbert-stachel-mn0001311378/credits

http://norbertstachel.com

http://lehcats.com/home https://twitter.com/nstachel

https://https://www.facebook.com/LehCatsMusic/

https://https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4yTUAd7OiWmlqskZmzJO-49GjTcmX_9d

I can't deal with the aggravation of trying to figure out how to write articles myself, and it goes against Wikipedia guidelines anyway.

Please Help Me!!! Norbert Stachel 08:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LehCatsTrebron (talk • contribs)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi Dodger67,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

12:31:19, 16 November 2016 review of submission by Auchiries

. Thanks for your comments. Could you possibly give me some examples of where I need to add citations? This is all new to me. Many thanks. Auchiries (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
my user in article Shankarwar R Rohit (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
No idea why I'm getting this. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Huawei Honor article

Greetings! Since you implemented my Huawei Honor 8 article at AfC, I thought I would give you a heads up that I submitted an edit request to implement and expanded and updated Huawei Honor article, too. If you are interested, you can view my edit request at Talk:Huawei Honor. Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

08:01:22, 10 November 2016 review of submission by Duskrider


Unfortunately sources for this event are scarce. Some of the information are either covered by one TV network or in Punjabi newspapers. ♠DuskRider♠ 19:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Duskrider, you haven't actually referenced any Punjabi newspapers yet. If you can't find sources in English please use whatever you do find, in any language. If necessary we can find a reviewer who can read the language(s) of the sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I added some references from the event, they have pictures on them. ♠DuskRider♠ 19:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

15:24:39, 17 November 2016 review of submission by Martinjbrand


I suggest a re-review as 655 Park Avenue objectively meets the notability standard as outlined in the Golden Rule, which is "Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic.".

Below is evidence of SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE in RELIABLE SOURCES that are INDEPENDENT OF THE TOPIC

As noted, in https://www.cityrealty.com/nyc/park-fifth-ave-79th-st/655-park-avenue/review/7914, Andrew Alpern "devotes an entire chapter in his fine book, "Historic Manhattan Apartment Houses," (Dover Publications Inc., 1996), to the "Battle for Suitable Scale at 655 Avenue." This chapter, which is referenced in the draft article, is a five page essay on the history of the building in a book by a notable authority on historic buildings of New York.

The building has multipage sections devoted entirely to it in other books, for example there is a section in each of "Manhattan Classic: New York's Finest Prewar Apartments" by Geoffrey Lynch (https://www.amazon.com/Manhattan-Classic-Finest-Prewar-Apartments/dp/161689167X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1479395064&sr=8-1&keywords=manhattan+classic), or " The New York Apartment Houses of Rosario Candela and James Carpenter' https://www.amazon.com/Apartment-Houses-Rosario-Candela-Carpenter/dp/0926494201/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1479395209&sr=8-1&keywords=candela+carpenter

The New York times features a nearly 1000 word article on the history of the building, http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/22/realestate/streetscapes-655-park-avenue-letting-the-sunlight-in.html. This article is also referenced in the draft.

There are also of course multiple articles on the web that have detailed discussions on the building.

So does this meet the test for significant coverage? Yes - you have multiple sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. Not: passing mentions, directory listings, or any old thing that happens to have the topic's name in it. The sources are clearly independent of the topic (books by experts on New York building history, the most revered news paper in the world), and they are considered reliable.

Beyond the golden rule, I would note that the sister buildings 620 Park Avenue or 625 Park Avenue, by the same architect, across the street, from he same time period, are included in Wikipedia. There is no reasonable argument to make that those buildings are more notable but 655 Park is somehow not (they are actually less notable as they have a less unusual architectural history). So if there is a desire to be consistent, it would also argue to clearly include 655 Park Avenue.

I will resubmit, making the reference to the Alpern book more prominent.

I would appreciate your kind reconsideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinjbrand (talk • contribs) 15:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Martinjbrand, that looks pretty good. Clear referencing citing strong sources is certainly useful. When you reference a book, do not cite amazon.com (or any other retailer) cite the book itself not the bookstore, and remember to include page numbers. The {{cite book}} template is a good easy way to do it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Dodger67, I have edited the resubmission to use the {{cite book}} template. Appreciate your help, thank you for your guidance!

User group: New Page Reviewr

Hello Dodger67.

Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed.

New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

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

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:In Transit

Roger,

Good afternoon. Regarding the rejection for my newest entry IN TRANSIT which will open on Broadway within the next few weeks, I'm a bit confused as to reliable sources for IBDB.com as well as PLaybill.com are reliable sources and I did cite my entries. I added the production's own website. Should I wait until the show opens and then use The New York Times as a reliable source? Please advise.

Drew Sachs§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Sachs (talk • contribs) 20:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andrew Sachs, do you have any sources that discuss the 2004 and 2010 productions? As soon as you have sources more substantial than routine listings or announcements, and particularly if you can find mainstream critical reviews, then the draft can be accepted. You seem to be concentrating on the upcoming season, but the previous productions are what actually make the play already notable. I found a few reviews of the 2010 production - http://variety.com/2010/legit/news/in-transit-1117943794/ and http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/theater/reviews/06intransit.html With a bit more digging you might find sources about the 2004 festival production too. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Roger,

I'm still a bit confused. I've cited Playbill.com that verifies the 2010 production. In addition, Wikipedia has an entry that verifies the 2004 production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Musical_Theatre_Festival . The fact that you found a source in "Variety" that verifies the information should be enough, yet you've stating to me, "With a bit more digging you might find sources about the 2004 festival production too." At this point, this is feeling a bit more academic, when all I'm trying to do is document a production with reliable sources to enhance the website. I'm not sure I'm willing to put that much more energy into a short article about a new musical, that's already been cited. So, if the article isn't up to your standards you can delete at this point. Respectfully, Drew Sachs

Andrew Sachs (talk) 02:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Drew Sachs

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dodger67. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Please move my article back to article-space

Hi, I moved my article Wooden Toys of Varanasi to article-space because I wanted to submit it for review via the Wikipedia Asian Month (WAM) review tool (https://tools.wmflabs.org/fountain/editathons/asian-month-2016-en) I could not submit a draft-space article there. Matrix1919 (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Please revert the move to draft-space. My article is not showing up on the WAM tool! Matrix1919 (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Matrix1919 Done. I have removed the AFC review template, please do not add it again. Now that it is in mainspace you must be aware that it may be subject to speedy deletion for a variety of possible reasons, or it may be edited by anyone at any time. IMHO the editathon's plan to do reviews in mainspace is very unwise, but luckily that's not my problem. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
BTW I couldn't find anything resembling a "review tool" at the page you linked. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick response! On the WAM page that I linked, if you expand a user's submission, you can see that the articles have been marked as accepted or not by the WAM Jury. I believe the jury reviews the articles using Wikipedia standards plus the editathon rules. That's why I referred to it as "review tool". Maybe, I should have said "submission tool". I agree with you that the submissions should be in draft-space. I'll bring up this issue in the WAM talk page. Thanks again! Matrix1919 (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer - RfC

Hi Dodger67. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Request on 19:37:06, 24 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Runman826



Runman826 (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Rosenbloom V.Metromedia

Hello, I sat down and added more sources and a little more content. Is there anyway you could review the article again, this is my first article that I have created so feedback is very welcomed.Js14761 (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Js14761 I've accepted it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Ramtirath Temple

My edit has been rejected. I don't know why . Paraskhanna (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Paraskhanna have you actually read the review? It's in the pink box on the draft page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter

Hello Dodger67,
Breaking the back of the backlog
We now have 811 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.
Mid July to 01 Oct 2016

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .

11:22:08, 27 November 2016 review of submission by GerlindeBehrendt



Hello Dodger67, at first, thanks for the quick review! For your requests there are 2 problems: 1. Most theatres and orchestras in Germany do list their principals and directors but not their musicians (for example Hamburger Staatsoper: [1] )and 2. Faust has retired 2012 and therefore is not listed among the actual musicians any more. Besides the fact that many sources are only available in German language ... [2] What to do? Cancel anything without English sources? greetings from Berlin, GerlindeBehrendt (talk) 11:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.staatsoper-hamburg.de/en/people/directorate/delnon.php
  2. ^ https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Faust_(Cellist)
Hi, GerlindeBehrendt, Item 1 is not really a problem as the theatres and orchestras would be primary sources anyway, rather look for newspaper or magazine articles about the orchestras that discuss Faust. For item 2, if you can't find English sources please use the German sources. On the English WP we accept sources in any language. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Annette Elizabeth Clark

I hope I'm putting this in the correct place. If not, please tell me where to write it.

I have a number of questions to ask you. The first is about Conflict of Interest. The page on CoI says one shouldn't write about family. I am Elizabeth Clark's great niece and I have the copyright to her work, it was passed on to me by the previous copyright holder by means pf a 'Deed of Gift'. As a consequence I also hold her archive.

I absolutely understand the need for more citations and many I can provide. Indeed I have been through the British Newspaper Archive (BNA)from 1912 to 1951 which provided a number references to her. And the BBC sound archive shows how she herself was telling her stories on children's programmes 1924-25 (sadly no recordings though). Many other things I can clear up on this front. Except sadly the ES article which she used in publicity material and omitted the year although she did include the day and month cannot be found in the BNA; the ES archives are absent for the period I think it was published 1912-1915. I have written to the BNA to ask if they know anything about the absence of these back copies.

Other matters clearly need resolution like what appear to be my opinions on her work, but I think the first thing we must resolve is the matter of possible Conflict of Interest.

There is a renewed interest in her work in the UK and in Germany; there have been three new publications of her stories this year. A number of people have urged me to write this entry in Wikipaedia. Nobody else is going to provide it. It would seem retrograde if we can't find some way of including it.Pogga D (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pogga D, first rule of referencing - if a source is not available to the public in a library or archive collection, it cannot be used. So it may be necessary to trim some of the detail currently in the draft if it is not verifiable. Have you considered donating your documents to a library, archive or university? As far as filtering COI, one tip is to avoid adjectives as far as possible - if it's not really necessary, kill it. I'd be happy to assist you further, so if you need more advice, you now know where to find me. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. It'll be a few days before I get it all done, I'll contact you if I need more help. Can I show you again before requesting another review?Pogga D (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. BTW is she better known as Elizabeth Clarke or Annette Elizabeth Clarke? It seems that at least as far as her books are concerned she dropped her first name. If that is the case we should change the article title (but not the intro, as that is supposed to state the subject's full name). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi She's much better known as Elizabeth Clark (no 'e' on the end of Clark). Her 'trade' name was definitely 'Elizabeth Clark'.I'll change the article title now. I will presumably have to put an entry in a disambiguation page when the time comes.

I've a couple of questions. The first is about letters in my possession, and not available to the public. I guess you're saying that they can't be used. Is that correct?

The second is a technical question about referencing. I copied this from the Introduction to Referencing "Often you will want to use the same source more than once in an article to cite multiple facts. In this case, you can click the clipboard labelled "Named references" in the toolbar, and select a previously added source to re-use." I can't see the clipboard labelled "Named references" Pogga D (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC) Whoops! I can't see how I can change the article title. Does somebody else have to do that for me?Pogga D (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Dodger67 I've done quite a bit to this draft and I would be vey grateful if you could have a look and tell me how much further I have to go. Pogga Pogga D (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Sanfine International Hospital

Tatanoc (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)2016/11/25Tatanoc (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sanfine_International_Hospital

Would you care to explain why you think it reads like a brochure？ I modeled the article off this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OASIS_International_Hospital and they seem similar to me.

What do you think I need to change?

Thank you for your advice,

Cheers

Tatanoc (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)TatanocTatanoc (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Tatanoc, don't follow bad examples, I've just tagged OASIS International Hospital for being written like an advert. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Tatanoc (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)2016/11/28/Tatanoc (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift reply! I also based it on this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_United_Family_Hospital . To be honest, I think it sounds even more like an advertisement. My article only contains facts, whilst also contains opinions "Their 24-hour emergency and intensive care services are among the most advanced in Beijing." Do you mind pointing me in the direction of a similar article that doesn't read like an advertisement? It'll give me an idea of what I need to do.

Thanks again. Tatanoc (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)tatanocTatanoc (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Independent sources

Hey Dodger67,

I saw that you critiqued my submission because it was lacking "independent sources." I read what that means, and it seems like it just means references that aren't from only the author themselves. However, I included many links showing that the author is published where the page says. Can you help me understand this?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorbenson (talk • contribs) 09:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Thorbenson, actually "not independent" is much broader than just the subject individual. His employers, employees, agents, representatives, clients, relatives, fanclub, or any other close associates, are also not independent sources. A non-independent source is perfectly acceptable to establish the existence of something (he writes for the Daily Blah), but existence does not equal notability. There are thousands (or even millions) of journalists in the world, but Wikipedia can obviously not have articles about everyone who has ever been published in a newspaper or magazine, thus we have the notability standard which basically says that: A subject is notable if multiple, independent and reliable sources have published significant coverage about the subject. Thus Benson will only be considered notable if at least two independent parties have written and published substantial information about him. Hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Lonnie Ledford

Thank you for the notation on my first draft of my personal wikipedia page. I've edited it. Will you please approve? Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonnietampa (talk • contribs) 16:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

No, it's been deleted as spam. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:The Bronx County Historical Society

then am I supposed to put citations for a news article, but cannot upload the actual immage of the article itself? makes no sense and its frustratin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas1639 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jonas1639, it looks like you've fixed the problem. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Drashok

Thanks for looking in my sandbox. I am learning editing. I wish to edit some medical topics. I didn't manage to get citations right on the article. I will learn from your tutorials and tips.

Thanks for the attention. (I am not sure if this is the right place to thank you. Please correct me.) Drashok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drashok (talk • contribs) 15:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Drashok, this is the English Wikipedia, we only write in English here. You can write in Hindi at the Hindi Wikipedia, not here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

22:01:44, 30 November 2016 review of submission by 鷲獅


Hi, I would just like to know what part sounds like an advertisement! I'm new at editing Wikipedia articles and had no intention of creating an advertisement so I do not want it to read that way. However, most of the information is just translated from the Japanese Wikipedia page after reviewing the sources. If this is a bad practice, please let me know. Thank you so much! 鷲獅 (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Noae Naganuma

Dodger67, What if all the sources for facts presented in paragraph 1 are the same? Is all you need several page numbers in that one source? This source is a Japanese (written in Japanese) personal history that probably does not have page numbers. ArborgateAborgate (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

04:38:34, 2 December 2016 Ask For Help by Dr. Ashok Koparday 04:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)Drashok



Kindly help. I am not able to write references. What mistake am I doing.

Thank you drashok Dr. Ashok Koparday 04:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

  1. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]

References

  1. ^ Sandeep Grover, Natasha Kate, Ajit Avasthi, Nikita Rajpal, and V. Umamaheswari. "Females too suffer from Dhat syndrome: A case series and revisit of the concept". PubMed. Retrieved 2016-11-29. {{cite web}}: Text "PMCID: PMC4279300" ignored (help); Text "doi:10.4103/0019-5545.146537" ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ {{cite web |url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11348516 |title=Cultural and biomedical meanings of the complaint of leukorrhea in South Asian women.|author=Trollope-Kumar K|publisher=Tropical Medicine & International Health |date=2001-04 | PMID: 11348516 |publisher=PubMed |accessdate=2016-11-29
  3. ^ {{cite web |url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2800886/ |title=DHAT SYNDROME: A REAPPRAISAL |author=|last=Mehta |first=Vandana, |last=De |first=Abhishek, |last=Balachandran |first=C |publisher=Indian Journal of Dermatology. |year=2009 |doi:10.4103/0019-5154.49002 |publisher=PubMed |accessdate=2016-11-29
  4. ^ John Howkins, Gordon Bourne (1971). "Gynecological Diagnosis". Shaw's Textbook of Gynecology. CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE Medical Division of Longman Group Limited. p. 105. ISBN 0 7000 1457 6. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)

Article Review

Since you have viewed my article, Allan Robert Phillips, can you please possibly remove the tag that says my article is unreviewed? Thanks! RileyBugz (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

What is this about?

Hi Roger

I am afraid I have been remiss editing my article ( > 1yr :( )

You had noted ---- Comment: This is almost ready to be accepted, just expand the lead to properly summarize the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this the section I should expand?

A gene of uncertain significance (GUS) is a gene that has not been associated with a phenotype in humans or it is a gene connected with a phenotype in humans that previously had not been connected to that gene.[1]

Regards,

David 12-5-16 38.66.217.251 (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi David, please indicate explicitly what this is about. It seems to be about a review at AFC but please give me a link to the actual page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Dodger67,

Thank you for your help with the article on the Estonian Museum of Natural History. It is much appreciated.

Layka100 (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Article Terminology

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rush_Alzheimer%27s_Disease_Center&diff=753341204&oldid=753339617

Hi Dodger67, thank you so much for editing my draft above. I would like to suggest that we change "monks" back to "brothers" since this is the terminology used in the RADC research literature.

https://www.radc.rush.edu/docs/studyDesignSummaries.htm;jsessionid=DF13863733F1EEB710F6448E165A6EE9

Best, PowellROSMAP (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi ROSMAP I agree, please go ahead and change it back. "Follow the sources" is generally accepted best practice on Wikipedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center

Hi Dodger67, I added an outside reference as you suggested to your followers for "National Institute on Aging." It came up red and claimed there is no Wiki article. However, if you do a search Wikipedia entry, it comes up https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_on_Aging

I tried to talk to "Audacity" but it didn't work.

Thoughts?ROSMAP (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

ROSMAP, you added a category to the page, which is what you get when you insert [[Category:National Institute on Aging]]. There is already a wikilink to the National Institute on Aging (made by typing [[National Institute on Aging]]) in the first paragraph of the article. Primefac (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Alzheimer's_Disease_Center

Hi Dodger67, I'm going to actually take one off your list! One of your expert colleagues pointed me to the Contribution Instructions on how to add contributions once you get the "red" link response. As I told him, I had already struggled to draft the article, so I will leave the additional Contributions to others.

If you like, I can make some recommendations for other contributions for more seasoned Wikipedians to use, though. Best wishesROSMAP (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

ROSMAP a good place to find those other contributors is at WikiProject Medicine, simply post to the Talk page telling them about the new article and invite interested contributors. You will also find other discussions there that may interest you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
PS As you can see from the variety of topics on this page I'm not a medical or neuroscience specialist. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

😊ROSMAP (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Have a great holiday! ROSMAP (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC) ROSMAP

WikiEd

Following on slightly from the AFC discussion - how does one get involved with WikiEd? I stumbled on a 120-person class (whose teacher has no idea what they're doing) and it's looking like I might be AFDing quite a few of their pages. I only mention this because getting involved with WikiEd from the get-go may allow me to head off some of these disasters. Primefac (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Primefac post a message at WP:Education noticeboard. BTW using "WikiEd" as a shortcut goes to an unrelated page. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi again Primefac, have you made any headway on this yet? I feel strongly that the Education project needs to be more tightly integrated with the "general" WP community. We need to knock some holes in their garden wall. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Not yet, haven't had a chance to collate everything into something coherent. Will definitely be going a-knocking, though. Primefac (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Primefac please ping me when you get around to it, I'd like to join the conversation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Will do. Primefac (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not pretty, but it's a start. Primefac (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

SADF ideology

Dear Dodger67, your claim that the SADF had no ideology is demonstrably false. I am not sure where you got this idea from. The SADF was a white-dominated armed force with a clear mandate to enforce Apartheid (a white supremacist regime, by any definition) against black insurgency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.natalino (talk • contribs) 01:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

That exact same army saluted Mandela and followed the orders of the ANC-led government after the 1994 election. Some of the generals who stood with Mandela on the podium at his inauguration were in fact veterans of the operations discussed in the article.
The Army carries out the mandate and orders of the government, as required by the constitution and laws of the republic - that is all. Tne army itself has no political ideology, it's the government's ideology that is expressed in the orders that the government issues to the army.
Your phrase "enforced apartheid against black insurgency" makes no sense. Apartheid was a domestic policy of the government that determined where people were allowed to live, work, go to school, etc., enforcing it in a foreign country (Angola) is nonsensical. Try not to let your own personal ideology influence your contributions to Wikipedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@Marco.natalino:@Dodger67: Can you provide evidence for both of your claims? RileyBugz (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Dodger, we seem to agree there should be no space for "personal ideologies", as you call it, in wikipedia. And I agree with you that an army often has no political ideology in itself under "normal" circumstances. On the other hand, we may agree there is ample historical evidence to situations where the army is itself ideologically composed and/or driven by an specific ideology. Now:

- is it or isn`t it true that, according to the laws of South Africa, black people could not be part of the army, and that all the high ranks were blocked to coloured people as well? - Isn`t it true that the same SADF that entered Angola to depose a government that was supportive of black liberation in South Africa had a clear mandate to suppress black insurgency inside the borders of South Africa? - And isn`t it true that white supremacy, as a political concept, supposes the capacity to use force to impose ethnic domination? - So, isn`t it true that the ethnic composition and the mandate of the SADF was inseparable from the Apartheid regime, and from the actions it took?

Now, I am sure the people that served in the SADF had their own opinions and may or may not have agreed with the white supremacist nature of the armed forces of their own country, but this is not what defines an institution. I am sure many americans that served in WWII didn`t agree with army segregation, and that many in the german military at the time were not nazis themsleves. That is besides the point. The only reason I inserted the term "white supremacist SADF" in the article is to make the text clearer to the reader, who may, due to age or simple ignorance of contemporary history, be unaware of what was an important feature of that particular armed force. I think this is an important clarification that makes the reader reach a better understanding of the topic. The same goes for the definition of the FAPLA as marxist-leninist, really.

In sum, this is just factual information that makes the article better. If you want to dispute the claim that Apartheid was a white supremacist regime (you seem to have "dodged" that one), go ahead and do it where it belongs (that is, in the article white supremacy).

Riley, I don`t think me and Dodger disagree on claims as such. It is just that I, while trying to improve an article, stumbled upon dodger`s opinion on the relationship between armies and their polities, which made me write this brief explanation on the variability of those relationships. Now, the facts I have given are common knowledge, and, as such, are found right here on this very wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.natalino (talk • contribs) 03:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Howzit, Dodge. I've decided it would probably be better if we had this discussion in one place. I've opened a new section at Talk:Battle of Cuito Cuanavale to discuss Marco's revisions and I'd really appreciate it if you could just drop by and add your two cents. Thanks! --Katangais (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and a question

Hi Roger! Thank you for helping me with my article on Iskandar Mirza Ismail, I greatly appreciate it! I was wondering if it would be possible to change the article name to "Iskandar Ismail" (i.e. omitting "Mirza", since it was Iskandar's middle name and was much less frequently used next to his first and last name). If this is possible, how should I go about making the edit?

Thanks and regards, Claire Limjlcm (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
Thanks Primefac -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you both Primefac and Dodger67! Limjlcm (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The college football life champions thing

Yes it is humor. but a facebook sports wanted to track it for the rest of time. this is a great place to it. i hope it can approved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonwinstonls2 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jonwinstonls2, please read WP:NOT, for all the reasons why it does not qualify for inclusion. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, your content is more suitable for a social media site such as Facebook or perhaps Wikia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

Request on 11:28:08, 8 December 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Thirubotla



Thirubotla (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Thirubotla you have obviously not actually read the review. The article has no references. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Help with my article.

Hi Dodger67: Could you help me, please? While I'm waiting for the re-review for my article, wikipedia tell me this: From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name.

I delete this "redirect" because I would like to replace it for the biography of this artist. Could you tell me If I'm doing well?? Thanks a lot for you time and your help. Patricia.martinh (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Patricia.martinh, just to be absolutely clear - your draft has been moved to Draft:Kyle Krone, do not move or replace that page. That is where it will be reviewed and where you will make any required improvements. When a reviewer accepts it, the article will be moved into the mainspace of the encyclopedia.
If you want to create a new draft about a different subject it's best to start with a new sandbox page. The easiest way to do so is to create a link such as User:Patricia.martinh/Some Person (using the person or topic's actual name/title) on your user page. This link will show up in red because the page does not exist yet. To create it you click on the red link and start writing. You could also create the new draft directly in Draft-space by creating the link as Draft:New page title. It's a good idea to create a list of links to all the drafts you are working on, on your user page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I understand better now. Ups sorry for delete it, I see it was a big mistake... Then, now I know that I have to wait for the reviewed. And thanks for your help for my future next pages, now I know how to do it well. Thanks a lot! Patricia.martinh (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Grace Walton

Hello Dodger67,

Thanks kindly for your review of my submission. I'm brand new here as you noted, so any comments you have to offer are very welcome! I was trying to determine, with my citation problem(s) that you mentioned, whether I have a syntax problem or the credibility of the sources is being called into question - or perhaps there is some other issue. If you could provide the specifics of the situation, I would be glad to attempt to address them. Thanks! Hutchdeloach (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hutchdeloach the problem is that both of the current references are not independent sources, one is the subject's own website, the other sells her books. You should try to find independent journalistic sources such as articles about her published in reliable sources such as mainstream news media or magazines. What the Notability rule boils down to is that Wikipedia does not really care what a subject or the subject's friends, relatives, employees, employers, agents, associates, etc. have to say. It's only when people who have no connection to the subject have written and published information and opinions about the subject that notability is achieved. So, go look for those book reviews - by professional reviewers, not Amazon/Goodreads readers comment or bloggers. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

02:10:21, 9 December 2016 review of submission by GleneaglesKL


Hi Dodger67, sorry that I'm new to create notable content, not sure is that ok that refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Mary%27s_Hospital,_London and replace with my notable content? It will be great if you possible to share any good reference with me.

GleneaglesKL (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi GleneaglesKL See my post in the section above. You should base the article on news reports (not press releases) or magazine articles about the hospital. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Revert

Hi! I do not see a particular reason to revert my edit at Draft:World Communication Forum Davos. Leaves my in the dark. ATB Wikirictor (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikirictor When draft writers are submitting advertorial crap, it's not a good idea to praise them for good grammar and formatting. Telling an obvious COI editor that they should not use AFC is counter to the rules about COI and harmful to the encyclopedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC) Pinging Wikirictor again, first one was broken. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

List of Birds of Victoria, Australia - thanks & could I remove maintenance template?

Hi Dodger67

Thankyou for reviewing my article List of Birds of Victoria, Australia. I hope I have now verified all statements and cited all the sources needed. Can I remove the maintenance template do you think?

All the best, Janine Janine Echidna Walkabout (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter #2

Hello Dodger67,
Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .

Review of draft "World Communication Forum Davos"

Hi. Thank you for reviewing my draft. I have recently re-submitted the article for review. I have revised the sources - deleted some of the press releases and added independent sources. Now, it relies heavily on independent sources and lightly on press releases. Is that a good practice or are press releases to be not used at all? I am wondering if you might be able to take a look at the draft once more. Thank you for your help. Divyasinghrathore (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

15:59:40, 15 December 2016 review of submission by SipleDailyUser


Hello! Can you help me edit the article, previous moderator noticed no problem with the tone of the post

Hi SipleDailyUser the first review addressed the lack of proper sourcing. Reviews are suposed to point out the most serious problem first, so the fact that previous reviews did not mention something means the draft had worse problems that needed to be fixed first. If a draft does not have proper sourcing then perfect prose in the most neutral tone is useless, because without sources an article in mainspace is subject to immediate deletion without warning, regardless of how well it is written. Take a look at the Reviewing instructions and particularly the Workflow. Hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! will work on the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SipleDailyUser (talk • contribs) 07:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Assistance with Software Entry

Hi Dodger67, thank you for reviewing my draft currently in my sandbox titled Max For Live. Since it was not currently suitable for Wikipedia I would like to request your assistance. My original entry read way too much like a user manual, so I edited out a lot of less important information and updated the layout of the post a bit. Would you be able to provide some more insight and guide me towards the next steps I can take to help the entry read more like an encyclopedia? Thank you! BlakeA (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi BlakeA, I think WT:WikiProject Software is best suited to giving you advice. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Minneapolis City

Hello. Saw your comments on the Minneapolis City SC post that I submitted.

In terms of notability, I've seen many other soccer clubs at a similar level in the pyramid with less coverage from less notable sources on Wikipedia and would like your help to understand where this entry falls short compared to them so I can re-write it in a way that passes muster.

Also, would ask how a source gets validated. In particularly, the website FiftyFive.One seems like it should be a NEWSBLOG in terms of its coverage quantity, quality and professional editorial oversight.

Thanks. MrStegman (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi MrStegman, in-depth journalistic coverage in a mainstream newspaper, magazine, or broadcaster with at least statewide distribution is the "gold standard". The best place to get considered opinions about the reliability of a source is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the response.

For this club there was a feature in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the state's primary newspaper, and one the Huffington Post, in addition to Edina Magazine, a west metro magazine, and the other digital sources. Would this club need more features in a print publication and/or official qualification into the U.S. Open Cup to be notable? Again, just want to fix places where this may be falling short relative to the other clubs at its level that are featured. Thanks for your help. MrStegman (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

There are two routes to notability for soccer clubs, first the special notability guide (SNG) for soccer or the general notability guide (GNG). The SNG allows for a presumption of notability for clubs that are either fully professional or have played at the highest level national competition. The general notability standard is the one that says any subject is notable if it has recieved sufficient coverage by entirely independent commentators who have published significant information about the subject in reliable sources. In the case of this club the GNG is the standard it must currently meet. When/if it has actually played in a top-level national tournament or becomes fully professional, the standard is "relaxed" to the SNG. If you need more specialist help, ask the subject experts at WP:WikiProject Football. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Forgot to ping MrStegman -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Ed Brown

I don't understand your rejection of the Ed Brown article. There are clearly many notable things about the subject or else his death would have gone unnoticed as just another of the 700 plus murders in Chicago this year. Have there been substantial articles about each of the 700 individuals shot and killed in Chicago this year in The Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, and LA Times, as well as several TV segments? No. So many wiki editors don't have a clue what notable means. Notable mean's important publications take note of the subject and publish those notes in their billion dollar publications. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi DanHamilton1998, look for articles about him published before his death. If you can't find any you might be able to write an article about his death, because it is clearly a notable event/incident/crime. In the English Wikipedia "notable" means what is written on the Notability policy page. There are several subsidiary guidelines too, the principal one being the General notability guide. Hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I added 5 pre-death cites to the Ed Brown story. The NBC Chicago segment contains a segment they did prior to Brown's death. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

18:33:32, 19 December 2016 review of submission by Splaymudbcr


Can't get references to line up with numbered bullets. Can you assit please? Thanks!

Splaymudbcr, I fixed the problem by removing them. Wikipedia is never an acceptable reference. I sorted the "See also", "References" and "External links" lists. Please see the Referencing for beginners guide.
Footnotes, like you tried to create, are not listed directly in the References section, they are placed within the article text itself, the <ref> and </ref> tags used to enclose the citation causes the superscript number to be generated at the location of the reference and the {{reflist}} template in the "References" section creates the citation list.
Example: if you type this:
The moon is made of cheese.<ref>The Moon Book by Dr. I.M. Loony, page 23, published by Fromage Publications, 2011</ref>
==References==
{{reflist}}
the result will look like this:
The moon is made of cheese.[1]

References

  1. ^ The Moon Book by Dr. I.M. Loony, page 23, published by Fromage Publications, 2011
You need to look for more news or magazine articles about the radio station and use them as sources for this article.
Hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Cristmas everybody!!!
Merry Cristmas everybody!!!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Ozzie10aaaa (talk)is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.


Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Great making your acquaintance. Have a joyous holiday season and a great 2017. Quis separabit? 05:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Rms125a@hotmail.com but I have no idea who you are or where/when we became acquainted. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Request on 19:33:29, 24 December 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by DavidSmythe


Hello Roger

You commented about my draft professional CV as follows:

"There are no independent sources that contain substantive information and discussion about Smythe himself. Almost all the current references are authored by Smythe (and others) and are not about him."

This is correct. In fact I deliberately chose references which are mostly peer-reviewed academic articles written by myself, as illustrations of my CV. Being peer-reviewed, and published in prestigious journals like Nature, they could be said to be reliably independent sources. Perhaps such a page, being a professional CV (as opposed to my private life) is not really Wiki material, since I am not sufficiently notable. I did, however, hold a chair at an ancient university of long standing (founded 1452), and I did once win a minor prize (not mentioned) from a professional society (the Geological Society of London). I wrote the draft as my first attempt at writing a Wiki article, so I am not bothered if it is deemed not to be suitable material. However, I do wish to write about my new nuclear accident scale NAMS. Someone has already mentioned this on the INES page (International Nuclear Event Scale), but I think it requires its own article, rather than a lengthy addition to the INES article.

David

DavidSmythe (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi DavidSmythe, after some Googleing I have found out why you might not want a biography on WP, so we'll rather leave that topic unstirred, per Wikipedia's prohibition against outing. Your best option is to have that draft deleted by adding {{db-user}} (including the double curly braces) to the page.
About the accident scale, please do start a draft, but keep it out of the AFC review queue at first. If during the drafting, you want to copy some of the material from the existing article to your draft you must post an attribution statement "Paragraph copied from International Nuclear Event Scale" in the Edit Summary field - usually located below the main edit window. I'd be happy to assist you with the "wiki-technicalities" so please let me know when you've started the draft. However, today is a day for family and festivities, so I'm off to do feasting and uncle-ish things for the rest of the day - I have five willing victims (in the form of teenagers) waiting for me. Best wishes to you and yours. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

A different topic

Hello Sir,

Are you on a "Fake News" or on a "fact checking" crusade? My article is on a recently deceased author that was a scholar dedicated to F. Marion Crawford. He was also a historian in Central America of notable repute. He also existed. Do you need a birth certificate? Death certificate also? I will humor you with your insistence on "independent sources" but just so you know, I have read lesser known people on Wikipedia without sources and barely a paragraph if that much. Seems you are biased and on a PC witch hunt. I may be wrong, but it seems that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCMR (talk • contribs) 18:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

JCMR I'm afraid I do not appreciate the adverserial and rude tone of this message, thus I am rather disinclined to find out what it is about. You'd have better luck getting help and advice if you assume good faith in the actions of your fellow Wikipedia contributors and use courteous language when requesting assistance. BTW, independent sources are required by Wikipedia policy, it is anything but an arbitrary personal whim of mine. The existence of other deficient articles in Wikipedia is never an acceptable reason for adding yet another, as that would rapidly lead to a total collapse of the quality of this project. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and likewise to you and yours from a blazing hot South Africa. (100 to 110 deg F) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Note to self: do not reply to messages when tired and in bed because that causes forgetting to ping one's correspondent. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

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



Dear Dodger67 I have submitted a new version of my contribution title "Chemical Artificial Intelligence". I have improved its content by taking into account your comments. Best regards Pier Luigi Gentili — Preceding unsigned comment added by PierLuigi Gentili (talk • contribs) 07:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

17:43:45, 13 November 2016 review of submission by Jonathan A. Coles


Dear Dodger67, 

           About 'Animal reflectors', again, I first tried to edit 'Photonic crystal' with a section on natural photonic

crystals, but this did not fit with the tone and arrangement of that entry. Nor would it suffice to edit 'Tapeta'. 

                           Jonathan A. Coles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan A. Coles (talk • contribs) 17:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

05:13:14, 21 November 2016 review of submission by 103.255.4.18


Hello sir i request you to please review the article as it is not any sort of advertisement or any other it is a very good company in Pakistan they do very good rojects people love them for their work.Pakistan first mass transit Metro Bus and Train are projects of Habib Construction.please make sure to open my article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.255.4.18 (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

12:33:17, 7 December 2016 review of submission by AndrewMeola


Hello Dodger - thanks for your feedback. I have edited the submission and added further independent sources. Please also note the Forrester Research reference (8th ref currently) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewMeola (talk • contribs) 12:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!

 

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dodger67/Archive_15&oldid=1083951453"