User talk:Dodger67/Archive 6

SANDF Foreign operations mishap
Hi Roger, thanks for the feedback on what still needs to be done to the article. It has been quite a while since I had last written an essay or article of any kind so I might seem a bit rusty, and I'm also still learning how to use wikipedia's editing mechanic as I go along. Also sorry for the poor editing done on the SANDF page earlier. I was in a bit of a rush and had to save before I could edit anything. Thanks for the welcome and wikiprojects idea, I appreciate it. DanieB52 (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've asked a few other guys who know the topic well and are very familiar with WP editing, to also help us create a good section on the deployments. I will however be busy with family commitments over the weekend so I'll only be able to start seriously working on it on Monday. Don't worry about being a bit rusty, we will knock it into shape. We might even have enough material for an entire separate article on the history of the SANDF. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your feedback, Roger. I have never submitted to Wikipedia before and am attempting to create this page for my colleague. I will spend more time sourcing references-- is my understanding correct that news articles, but not University webpages, are considered to be reliable? I also have a jpg file with Victoria's headshot to include with the article, and am wondering where to imbed or upload. Again, I appreciate your time in reviewing [Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Victoria_A._Budson]. Akkauth (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Paul Julian (Meteorologist)
In order to avoid chasing some impossible goal, please be more specific about the reason for rejection? 1. References not considered authoritative. 2. References do not support information presented. 3. Personage not considered important enough. 4. Presentation does not conform with required style 5. Some other reason. Havivoca (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Have you read the review comment I wrote on the page? Basically the references you currently have are completely useless to establish the Notability of Julian as a person. They are articles about Meteorology written by Julian. We need articles about Julian written by someone other than Julian. Has he ever been interviewed (about himself, not the weather) by any reliable publication? As I explained in my review comment we need sources (written by someone other than Julian) that tell us about him as a person. I will tag the statements that need to be sourced. Hope this helps. It is quite a common "problem" with scientist and academics - their work is highly notable as it is widely written about but as people very little or nothing is ever written about them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Bayesian programming article
Thanks very much for your edits of the "Bayesian programming" article.

It is my very first "long" tentative contribution to wikipedia and I appreciate your help. I would especially appreciate if you can provide us with additional advises on the talk page of the article where we made some remarks and asked some questions.

Erreip (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

SAIMR
The South African Institute of Medical Research doesn't have an article on Wikipedia, so I don't know why you insist on having it wikilinked? I reverted the edit. It just doesn't look or seem appropriate to wikilink something that doesn't even have an article. --DendroNaja (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:Redlinks, your removing it is against the consensus as describe in the guideline. In any case I intend starting and article about it in the next day or two. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then in that case we can wikilink it. I'll do it if you like. --DendroNaja (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Timo Bracht (submission declined - query over notability)
Hello Roger

I'm struggling a little with your rationale for Notability for this person - I created the page as a translation from the German page, as none existed in the English language. If the German page passed Notability criteria, why can't an English translation for those who do not speak German? You commented that being listed in race results is not sufficient grounds for Notability, but the athlete in question is a multiple race winner and double European champion in a mass participation sport, as well as 5th place finisher at the World championship, which I would suggest does make him a pretty notable sportsman! I'll try to find some other background info, but on the basis of his sporting performance I would suggest he's "Notable". Cheers Page is here:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nivagh (talk • contribs) 10:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Aquí está – Here it is

 * Re 5 December: Buen trabajo, aquí lo tienes: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratorio_Organizacional. --Shalbat (discusión) 23:50 5 dic 2013 (UTC).
 * Comment: and I who used to think that the boys (and girls) @  were tough cookies. . . .(thanks for the support & merry xmas!). (Pronacampo9 (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC))

Tempest 23
'Nuf said. Cheers. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A nice new article and a happy newbie. Cheers indeed! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Update regarding AfC backlog drive auto-updating with AFCBuddy
Manual updating of your Backlog Elimination Drive page is no longer necessary. The AFCBuddy bot is now automatically updating AfC reviews that are performed when using the Helper script. The bot-generated pages are located at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/December 2013 - January 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive/[Your user name].

Importantly, please note that any re-reviews you may have performed will need to be manually copied and pasted to the bot-generated pages. Thank you for participating in the drive. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Edward Pellens
Hello Dodger, I'm really disappointed that my article is again rejected. After Chris turned it down, I changed it and he approved it, now you turn it down again. Why ? Sources ? Pellens is my greatgrandfather and the sources I mentionned are (very rare to find) books in family possesion, except "Werk van Xylograaf Edward Pellens" this book is kept also in het "Prentenkabinet" (this is an Antwerp museum). I can't do more. The article I'm trying to submit is a (shortened) translation of the dutch article on him already excisting on Wiki. If you not accept my article it stops here for me. The article should be read in dutch(which was the motherlanguage of my greatgrandfather)! Manfred GrL (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manfred GrL (talk • contribs) 21:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

South African Sign Language
You wrote "South African Sign Language (SASL) is the primary language used by the Deaf community in South Africa." Well, that is simply not true. It is unfortunate that there is a Wikipedia article for the "South African Sign Language" but no article for "Sign language in South Africa". There are more than one sign language used in South Africa, and although they all share a similar grammar, they have widely different vocabulary. When DeafSA was re-incorporated after the fall of apartheid, it was decided that there should be one single South African sign language, and SASL was developed (and is being developed). As such, it is a "constructed" language, but not one that was created from scratch like many of the other conlangs. Deaf people whose native language is not SASL but one of the other sign languages, and who haven't been taught SASL, may understand a SASL interpreter, if there is sufficient context. SASL is being promoted on SA's television news, and because many South African Deaf people are good lipreaders (since lipreading is taught in many South African Deaf schools), they learn SASL while they watch the news. -- leuce (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the term "constructed" is incorrect in this context - because "constructed" has a very specific and narrow meaning in linguistics - it implies that it is "built by a committee" like Esperanto was. In reality SASL is more or less spontaneously being "created" by the merging of different dialects. The process is being facilitated by the use of tv news interpreters but that interpreter is surely not a "constructing authority" such as a constructed language would have. BTW where and how did the tv interpreter learn SASL? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge Jaboya system into Sex For Fish
Hello Roger

I'm requesting for your help to merge jaboya system into sex for fish article entry. Sex for fish is a much broader article since it takes into account the phenomenon from larger geographical context hence wider scope. Jaboya systems narrows the case for the phenomenon to single region in Kenya. The published research shows that sex for fish is a wider phenomenon among the fishing communities in developing countries.

Thank you. Jab3366


 * I will try to get it done today. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately an admin has mistakenly deleted Sex for Fish so I have requested undeletion - the merge will have to wait a bit - hopefully not too long. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion and help
Hello Roger I would like to receive your opinion for a page. Last year I created a page about Riccardo Silva and after a long discussion, it was merged with MP Silva's page. Is it possible to try to create again the page dedicated to Riccardo Silva? I am quite new here. Could you let me know? sometimes Wikipedia can be very frustrating. thanks Dishv80 (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Dishv80. The Ricardo Silva page is a disambiguation page - it contains a list of links to a number of articles about various people named Ricardo Silva. I could not find a page called MP Silva so I don't actually understand what the issue is. Please provide links to the exact pages you are referring to. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. The link is Riccardo Silva with a redirect to MP & Silva Dishv80 (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Dishv80, sorry I'm only replying now. The usual "best practice" is to expand the section about Silva in the article about the company. If/when the section becomes too long and detailed for the company article it should be WP:Split to a separate biography article. Keep in mind that the referencing requirements for articles (or sections of articles) about living people are significantly stricter than for other subjects. Basically, if you have sufficient good quality sources about Silva it may become a separate article - particularly if you have material not related directly to the company as such. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the edification re maintenance templates
Hey, thanks for the edification here. Since I did find problems with the Asya Alashaikh AfC as written, can I leave comments similar to the ones you left to explain what I found problematic about the article? Thanks and happy holidays, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Cyphoidbomb, happy holidays to you too. Adding maintenance templates to drafts has the effect of adding them to article categories which is not allowed, only mainspace articles may be in article categories. Yes please do add review comments, very easy to do if you use the AFCH script, but even without the script it's easy to copy the template. Just be sure you insert it ABOVE the "" separator, so that it will be correctly stripped out when the article is accepted. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, cool. Thank you m'man!  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

South Sudan
As you are listed on the wikiproject page for South Sudan as a member, I was thus wondering if you are interested in collaborating on a page together? There is more info on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_South_Sudan?Lihaas (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Lihaas, I'll take a look but can't guarantee that I will be able to contribute much. My involvement with the Project was mostly limited to helping to get it going when the country became independent. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Death and state funeral of Nelson Mandela
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Possible wrongly-placed message
Was this meant to be at User talk:JohnPWFoster at AdHoc Media? JamesBWatson (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Dodger!
Hello again Dodger, hope you find well this new year.

Remember me? I wrote an article about Ignacio Solano Cabello, and ineed, it wasnt complete.

I had several fixes in the spanish article and after some corrections I've add some changes.

I changed the references, writting only the most importants reference (and neutral) in spanish newspapers, all national and with good number of views. I changed aswell categories that were wrong.

Hope you answer and waiting to make any change,

yours, --AlejandroOrmad (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

"Why is this ArbCom case necessary"
The case is the current incarnation of the debate and discussion that was had back in early December Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2013 6 which was followed by Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive821. Hasteur (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Hasteur. I had good holiday time with the family. Now I'm getting started on my final year of a BA in Communications. Thanks for the links, now I can catch up on the whole saga - but I'm not at all sure I really want to get any deeper into it... BTW have you seen what I posted on Jimbo's Talk page about AfC and the way forward with Draft-space? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw it, and I called out the admin fligning FUD excrement on the BS they were doing and re-fighting old debates, but aparently I'm the one bringing the battleground. Go figure.  As I mentioned (at the Proposed decision talk page) there's several editors that would love nothing better than to hang, draw, and quarter AfC because of a slight that an editor has committed in the past against them (see ColonelHenry's "Burn AFC to the ground" comment in the proposal for a Draft Namespace paired with their unveiled attacks in the workshop, see Crisco 1492's tweaking because I declined the 2 list AFC articles because they were nothing but the same content that is on the festival's site, and so on).  Probably after the arbcom case closes I'm going to take a hiatus from actually doing any useful reviewing and focus on uncontraversial changes/automation (like working on automating the College Basketball Stats updating). Hasteur (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

William Overend Geller
Thank you for your prompt consideration of my article 'William Overend Geller'. Given the number of articles outstanding I thought I would have to wait quite a few days before getting a response. I am new to Wikipedia, though I did help with one previous article. However I am struggling very much with the technology. When I submitted my article I had not seen on it would look on Wikipedia, if accepted. I hoped by using a sandbox i would be able to see the finished work and then make any adjustments which seemed appropriate. However there seems to be quite a few sandboxes and I am not sure which one I was using. I understand you have left a message for me but I cannot find it. I also cannot find my article. I appreciate these problems are probably very trival in the Wikipedia community but at the moment I am totally stuck. Would appreciate your guidance. David Young - User:dvdwllm


 * Hi David. I looked at your contributions page, Special:Contributions/Dvdwllm, the log of every edit you have ever saved on WP under your username. I could not find any trace of you ever saving anything related to "William Overend Geller" so I'm afraid you'll have to start over. Please do so by editing the page that was created when you submitted the nonexistent draft - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/William Overend Geller. Don't forget to log in before you edit and be sure you Save your edit before leaving or closing the page. When you are satisfied with the draft click the blue "Resubmit" button in the pink review template at the top of the page. If you need any more help you now know where to find me. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Tpiroq (submission declined - query over promotional)
Hello Roger. Thanks for your review and information on my post. I understand about the promotional part and removed what was promotional and later read your referenced "conflict of interest" areas tied to the promotional aspect. This word, "Jangle" that we re-purposed was suggested to be placed here by a friend of ours who liked the re-purposing of the word to a positive as well as our company phrase of "It's Faked Up" (obvious play on on words that would typically be profane and yet speak to being "not founded in truth". We were going to put that out there as well, but thankfully didn't because I am sure it would have been denied as well. My question is, would this have been a different case had the person who suggested we put it here had created the entry? He is not affiliated with our company in any way, shape or form.  Just curious.

Thanks


 * Hi Tpiroq, I'm afraid the draft article about the word should not be included at all as it falls foul of the policy against neologisms. Only if the "re-purposing" of the word has been covered in depth by independent reliable sources can an article about it be included. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Mad Dogg Athletics
Hi, Roger. I was wondering if you could please give me more details on the Mad Dogg article I submitted that you rejected. Your stock answer doesn't seem to fit with my submission since literally every sentence in the article is well sourced. Mad Dogg is a very large athletics company, and everything in the page I wrote is factual and not an advertisement. Please advise on why it was rejected and how it can be edited to overcome the rejection. Thank you.Lobsterbreakfast (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I've also since edited it pretty heavily after visiting the wikipedia editor IRC channel and discussing it with them. hopefully, it's good now. It source the NYT, Boston Globe, and Racked/Curbed, which are all national news sources.Lobsterbreakfast (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Lobsterbreakfast, I reviewed it again and have accepted it into mainspace at Mad Dogg Athletics, congratulations on a nice little article. There are a few minor tweaks that still need to be done, I'll get onto them after lunch. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

your comment at kafziel & hasteur talkpage
Hello Roger, the arbs are apparently still too busy-busy, sigh, so I'll acknowledge your statement. :-)    It had value.  It held truth.  It was a net positive to the page, and to the encyclopedia.  I for one, don't see WP:OWN behavior/actions on your part, although I will poit out that the analogy you make, about Kafziel being an invading rogue bandit (admin) out to burn the huts of the villagers (editors in the AfC queue), and the village elders (AfC regulars) fighting off the bandit... well, that does tend to have a whiff of ownership, factions, and such, since it couches things in a defending-our-physical-turf-sense.   and to a lesser extent  had vastly more turf-protecting-problems, in my book, then you could even be remotely imagined as having, and I don't think it was fair to put you forward by name, at all.

Unfortunately for all concerned, arb-feedback is either ominous silence, or vastly premature, it seems. I don't blame them too much, though, because theirs is a horrid job, and this case is especially vexatious to all concerned. and seemed to me as the least deserving of any WP:OWN problems, although Kafziel did not react well to Anne ... or perhaps it would be better to say, by the time Kafziel responded to Anne at the AN/I thread, he had already stopped responding well to *anybody* where this issue was concerned.

Anyhoo, since I'm unable to directly edit the arby's talkpage (AGK locked it against anons some time ago), but nobody else has responded as yet to your note on the 21st, I figured I would drop in and reply to you directly. The whole business, not just arhbcohm but more generally, has started to spiral out of control, as Kudpung said on the WP:RETENTION talkpage yesterday. Rarely are good choices made, in such circumstances. I'm sorry the arbs took the case, but I guess we have to live in the house we have built for ourselves, reap what we sow, sleep in the bed for which we purchased the quilts, and other wise old sayings. In any case, please accept my thanks for improving wikipedia; I've seen you in AfC and at RfC, and you do good work. Hope this helps, see you around the 'pedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's little things like this post that makes editing Wikipedia worthwhile. Thanks! I agree that my analogy was probably not a terribly good one - I wrote it in the heat of the moment when I was getting rather fed-up with the way the whole mess was going. I absolutely agree that Anne Delong really did not deserve to be treated like that. She is, by a long shot, the Wikipedian I respect the most. Thanks again for responding to my "rant". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I sympathize with the fed-up.  To the hilt.  I think pretty much everything that went *wrong* on this sorry sordid saga can be summed up thataway though:  "heat of the moment".  Kafziel was calm at first, but got angrier.  Daryl was angry when they filed.  Hasteur was angry when they filed.  That make Colonel and WeeCurryMonster angry.  Which in turn *really* made Hasteur angry.  And kafziel got so angry they came back.  Some of the arbs seem less than serene, from my reading of the tea-leaves, as well.  But the arbs have to stay aloof, not get wp:involved, otherwise their neutrality as arbs is questioned... the clerks have to stay invisible, not get involved, otherwise their role is compromised.
 * I think we need some bouncers (or if you read the Hobbit... "bounders") that patrol the arb-pages, helping out by simply deleting comments which are too angry-sounding, and asking the person to come back later, when they've cooled off. Lots of people ran for arb this year on civility-platforms, and most did not get in.  I'm thinking about asking some of them to become the arb-page-bouncers/bounders, on a voluntary basis, as a test-run.  Think it would help?  Or think it would just lead to AN/I drama, about talkpage censorship, wikiCops sticking their nose in, and such?   from WP:RETENTION is another person... she's not a bouncer-type, but she's a calming influence, who was trying to help calm the AN/I thread with Kafziel (failing miserably too because there were no 'bouncers' to help out the 'calmers').   Crazy scheme?  Or has a kernel of a good idea in there?  Respect ye the boundaries of WP:NICE, or get ye hence from this talkpage, sayeth the bounders.  Calmers follow the person to their talkpage, and try and help rewrite the questionable comment into a form which stays WP:NICE but still conveys the point.
 * p.s. Actually, I think that  is pretty sharp, but I try not to let her get too much praise.  Try calling her Chevy Sweatsocks, that was her nickname for a brief moment back in 2013, a bit embarassing to me, since my part there was not ideal.  But still, for the good of the 'pedia, I think we should all try to mix our praise of Anne with some ribbing.  Either that, or we should elect her as the new Execdir, and let her decide how best to spend the tens of millions in donation-bucks.  Bet she'd do an awesome job at that too.  But then, we'd lose her from AfC... so forget I mentioned that idea, okay?  :-)   &mdash; 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The concept of "notability"
My article on Adolf Fredrik's music school has been turned down because the "submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability". Link to article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andersneld/Adolf_Fredrik%27s_music_school.

Looking at articles about other high schools to find good examples of how to phrase "notability" I have been unable to find a single example, which is disconcerting. Here is a school with no notability claim whatsoever: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langley_High_School_(Fairfax_County,_Virginia). On purpose I picked an unusually good article about a US high school, but as I said there is no notability claim.

In fact, it seems that well over 50% of all US high schools are covered by Wikipedia articles, and it also seems that the mere fact that it is a high school in the US merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Just to be very clear on this, please verify that the stringency of the "notability" guideline does not differ from country to country. Or else, how can one explain the fact that any old US high school is included? Andersneld (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It isn't clearly stated that Adolf Frederik's School is a High School. As it is specifically a Music School, is it even in the same "category" as "general schools"? You should try to clarify it's status. The Americans tend to put up a huge fight every time anyone dares to even think of questioning the notability of any of their schools. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Talkstalk says.... My understanding is that ... partly because of that put-up-a-fight-mentality ... but also partly because it is an easy way to attract new contributors ... there is a free pass for school districts as PLACES with geographical-slash-geopolitical significance. Thus, almost every H.S. gets an article, by that criteria.  I'll work with Andersneld a bit to try and clean up the content of the article in terms of WP:TONE, and get the WP:ABOUTSELF refs separated from the WP:RS ones.  Plus figure out what school-district they are in.  :-)   But the school has been given some ink in an actual book, unlike most high schools, so methinks they'll prolly get into mainspace.  That old wive's tale about the fifty-percent-chance-of-surviving-AfD, and all that jazz.  Thanks for improving wikipedia, see you around.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm rather surprised that it hasn't made it into mainspace yet. I'll take a look and see if I can do anything to help. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It has now arrived in mainspace. It was actually a junior-high-private-school, so didn't meet the usual all-public-high-schools-are-notable consensus.  Thanks for your help, Andersneld was doing cartwheels when it finally made the grade.  :-)    &mdash; 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I know, because I'm the reviewer that passed it. I see "keeping newbies happy" as a major component of AfC's mission. He's gone on to create more articles about Swedish music and musicians. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Submitting peer reviewed and published academic articles
I am very sorry for the late response regarding the process of submitting peer reviewed and published academic articles about our research and development. We accepted a very intense robotic design and fabrication contract which demanded my full attention until recently. I will begin the submission process soon. Thank you for your time and patience. Victoria.Lee.Croasdell (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry but I have absolutely no idea what you're referring to. If this is about a draft article I reviewed please post a link to it. You don't need to worry about delays, as long as the draft doesn't go for longer than 6 months without any editing it will be kept (unless it violates one of the Speedy deletion criteria). I'm off to bed now so I'll look for your reply in about 9 or so hours from now. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Joyce Taylor-Papadimitriou
Further to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joyce Taylor-Papadimitriou, I've "adopted" Joyce Taylor-Papadimitriou (having been one of the trainers at the editathon where this was article was started, and have just created the article in mainspace. Plenty more to be done, of course... (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Edwardx, Nice little article, well done! I've done a bit of tweaking. Please confirm that you no longer need the old abandoned draft, that it can be deleted. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Roger. Your additions are most welcome.  And yes, you can now delete the old draft! Edwardx (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference desk
Hi, RodgerDodger. I've removed the offensive part of the question at the Reference Desk (at least the most offensive part..), and your comment with it. Hope you don't mind. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC).

help in creating an article/page for a company
Hello,

I want to create a page/article for a company. how should i proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gagan hok (talk • contribs) 18:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Edward Farhi submission
Hi--

I did not realize that that coast to coast fellow had added that information to his site. That information was provided by Professor Farhi when he appeared on that show once a long time ago. He provided that info himself and it is similar to that and also similar (but not congruent) info to his descriptive information he utilizes on the MIT Physics Department webpage for him. I am not quite sure what to do about this.

To what extent do we need to alter this material so that we get around what the coast to coast guy continues to throw up on his web page?

Thanks.

Scott Morley, Administrator Center for Theoretical Physics at MIT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bshop999 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Bshop999, the short answer is to edit the phrasing in the article so that it doesn't match the copyrighted text. The longer answer is to edit the phrasing in the article so that it doesn't match the copyrighted text after you have read the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. If you're unsure about anything, the folks at the WP:Teahouse are ready, willing and able to guide you through any potential minefields. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Basis of Articulation
Dear Roger/Dodger,

Thank you for accepting my new (first) article on the 'Basis of Articulation'. I am, however a little puzzled to find it has been "assessed as Stub-Class", which given the assessment criteria, is not a very favourable rating.

The reasons I find this puzzling are manifold. First, please allow me to give my credentials: I am a PhD and senior lecturer in Applied Linguistics, as well as the Director of one of the largest university language centres in Europe. Secondly, I have worked in the field in question, i.e. taught phonetics at university level, for over twenty years. Thirdly, I have introduced a concept from a 1925 doctoral dissertation which I have found extremely useful in my work but which many professional phoneticians are not aware of yet. At this point, the concept simply needs more exposure to the academic community, as well as more detailed research being directed at it. This, however, has very little to do with my own humble contribution to the subject.

My question is therefore: how can you, with no discernible background in phonetics, rate my little entry as "provid[ing] very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition"? I would, based on the case made here, ask you to reconsider your rating, as it is much more likely to be in the region of "useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study" (C), even if I say so myself.

I look forward to hearing from you, with best wishes, Grlorenz (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, Grlorenz, I gave it the Stub rating based purely on length. It simply doesn't have enough words yet for a non-stub rating. Would you give the article a good grade if it was an essay by an undergraduate student? Further assessment will be done by the relevant subject WikiProjects - once the article has been accepted into mainspace further maintenance is no longer the responsibility of the Articles for creation project. If you believe you can make a case for a different rating then feel free to start a discussion on the article's talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

fixed
i fixed the articles and put them on the proper wikipedia verson.--24.89.95.149 (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Article on Arun Prasanna G
Dear Dodger,

Thank you for your feedback. In my passion to writing i overlooked that it looked a bit promotional. However, I have re-checked and edited the same.

Looking forward to learning more from you.Thank you for your support.

Regards,

Suchitra.S — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suchitra.iipm (talk • contribs) 09:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Maicel Uibo
Hello Dodger67. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Maicel Uibo, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''There is some credible claim of significance. WP:AfD would be the better option here.''' Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 09:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI
A proposal has been made to  create  a Live Feed to  enhance the processing  of Articles for Creation and Drafts. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to create a 'Special:NewDraftsFeed' system. Your comments are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

SADF abbreviation
Hi Roger. FYI I reverted your revert as it has always been my understanding that the first abbreviation should be bold per MOS:BOLDSYN. Helen Online  08:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Helen, thanks for catching my mistake and showing me something I didn't know. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Orbiting Skyhooks
Thank you for your input! I have rewritten the the header per your suggestions and it is much improved. If you have any other ideas/suggestions please don't hesitate to drop another note. Thanks again! Skyhook1 (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Style and Title
Hello Dodger,thank you for your edit on the article Engku Isa Al Husam or the translation in English means His Highness Engku Isa Al Husam, but please do not delete the word Yang Mulia again as it is the formal name for the styles and titles for the Malay Ruling Monarchy for the title of His Highness. You may read further for the page of Malay Style and Titles for Malaysia. Nice to know you sir. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penang insider (talk • contribs) 12:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Edward Buchner
I happened to notice that the editor wrote the article despite your rejection, and in my opinion he was right to do so. The national society memberships meet WP:PROF--and it is hardly likely that a full professor and dept chair at his university would be anything other than notable.  DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * @DGG - Edward Buchner is a redirect to Eduard Buchner. I have never edited or reviewed either page. However Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Johannes Buchner is a page I reviewed just a short while ago. The decline (not rejection) reason is the best fit I could find but isn't fully accurate - the subject is probably notable but the article's references do not prove it. Notability does not exist separately from references that prove it. A subject may be regarded as "probably notable" in terms of an SNG but actual Notability exists only when the references that prove it are actually present in the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @DGG - I have just found Johannes Buchner and did a few tweaks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * sorry, I did mean Johnannes-- I must have copied the wrong link from the article.
 * But I do not think you are correct with respect to WP:PROF. WP:PROF requires only reliable sources that the person meets at least one of the conditions there, and it has been repeatedly held in hundreds of AfDs that an official CV is a sufficiently reliable source for establishing these--I can think of only  a few exceptions: Here are all I know of: first, the criteria are sometimes not followed  where the subject is thought by WPedians with a cultural bias to be unimportant, or there was prejudice because an otherwise notable person was also involved in pseudoscience    There have also been many cases where there  is some doubt about actually meeting the conditions, such as whether a university is sufficiently important, or a named chair actually what it looks like on the surface. And there have been 2 cases in the last 8 years where the credentials were false, but only 2 out of thousands--I found one of them, I do not recall who found the other. And there have been many where the credentials in the article were exaggerated, but the actual documentation was clear--of course those articles were deleted. There are also cases where the terminology of an unfamiliar educational system is unclear in terms of the systems we know better and we aren;t sure what to do.  It has also been sometimes challenged whether less developed world countries national academies necessarily show notability -- there have been only a few decision here, but they have gone in both directions & I am not sure of my own position. Further, even tho there is no consensus to make it part of the formal criterion, almost always the mere professorship in a really major university has been held notable. Subject to hte same exceptions as above, I think it's about 98% of the time.
 * Possibly we misunderstand each other, but it you think I am wrong, find a test case and challenge it at AfD. I don't claim to be correct because I think it's what ought to be the rule, but because it is the rule that in practice we follow. If I wanted to make a rule, I'd be somewhat more inclusive, and accept associate professors also. But the community does not, and I therefore normally don't work on those articles unless the publciation record is really clear.   DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is in mainspace, so any AfC review issues are moot. Let NPP challenge it if they want to, I'm not interested enough to care. The notability of academics criteria are rather "fuzzy" and open to a wide range of interpretation, I think they need to be tightened up a bit. The reason I declined it was that it depended entirely on non-independent sources - written by himself and his employers. In no other field are such non-independent sources acceptable for proving notability, only academics get away with it. A professor's profile on his university's website is no different from a CEO's bio on the company website, a singer's bio on the record company site or a football player's profile on his team's site. One is accepted and the others are rejected with contempt - this effectively elevates professors to an inherently higher status than any other profession. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It just illustrates that in this field we have objective criteria and a reliable way of showing it even from non-independed sources. We actually do have independent sources to verify they are not imaginary:  professors, always have publications, and it is always easy to verify these independently. Politicians are similar: showing someone is a member of a legislature is proof of notability, and we accept a source from that legislature., similar to accepting a person's university.
 * I think professors are disadvantaged in coverage here below many other professions, such as authors or musicians or sportspeople or any of a publicity-hungry profession.   Professions that are disadvantaged are businessmen and even more, journalists. The very most disadvantaged are technical people in fields that do not publish,  and ministers of non-Western religions.
 * Agreed we are not discussing AfC, but when we are, I think the usual working criterion is whether or not they are reasonably likely to pass AfD==the figure some s quoted is 50% chance. (AfD does have a considerable element of chance to it).  Some would set it higher, as being reasonably certain to pass AfD , but that's a very high bar. In practice in the last two years, some have set it as having quality equivalent to GA, bit I think this has been explicitly rejected. Some would set it lower, as passing speedy,  not wanting to disadvantage people if they use this route, but I think this has also been informally rejected.
 * What ought to be, is another matter from what is, and none of us should be deciding on the basis of making WP to fit our own image of an ideal encyclopedia.  DGG ( talk ) 14:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Noteability clarification
Hi,

I'm hoping you're going to elaborate on as to why there are masses of school articles without any form of 'noteability' nor significance, yet you decided to decline the one I submitted? I don't see what's a dividing factor with regards to that specific article and any other one of the thousands like it. It seems you have a tendency to decline articles when it comes down to school articles in the west, I'd like you to elaborate. Did you know many of the schools are Government controlled (including the one I submitted), they're not businesses nor organisations, that's only independent schools.

P.S - Delete the article, I'm not going to be modifying it.

--Attractel (talk) 06:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Attractel, I figured out that you're referring to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peters Hill Primary School - the short answer is that long standing consensus is that high schools and above are deemed to be "inherently" notable, but not primary schools - see WP:SCHOOLS and the pages linked from it. Articles about primary schools need to show more than simply proof of existence, they need some specific reason why they are notable - significant news coverage is the most common way for such subjects to meet the WP:Notability threshold. Non-notable Primary schools are usually covered in articles about the local education authority in whose jurisdiction they are. If you can find news articles about the school, or other independent sources that discuss the school in some detail, it will be acceptable.
 * If you are certain that you don't want to continue working on the draft please place " " at the top of the page, then it will be deleted by an administrator.
 * BTW the term "organisation" is used in its broadest sense - "a group of people with a common purpose", that includes schools, churches, municipalities, businesses, parliaments, trade unions, sports teams, armies, and even tiddlywinks clubs. I'm not aware that I have any "tendency" when it comes to reviewing articles about schools - I try to follow the existing guidelines as closely as I can. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, apologies for the other week, seems like I came across pretty harsh. I was a little frustrated. Good luck with your future endeavours.

--Attractel (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Auro-3D page adjustments
Hello Dodger67, thanks for your fast follow-up & comment on the page. I hope the changes made are to your satisfaction, if not please point me to the sections of the text that are still problematic, and I will do my best to resolve.

Thanks, Dvossen (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: Hello again, I would *really* appreciate some guidance in how to clean up this page. It gets rejected each time without any speficic feedback, and as a newcomer at Wikipedia I am at a loos on how to make the text fit the requirements. I have posed this question a few times on the webchat as well without any result. So please help me out here.

Thanks, Dvossen (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation March 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive
 Hello Dodger67:

WikiProject AFC is holding a  month long Backlog Elimination Drive!

The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Posted by on 02:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

eQuinelle
TMSI Ottawa is the company that owns eQuinelle Golf Club, and we own the content that you've claimed as "copyrighted." — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMSI Ottawa (talk • contribs) 14:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * User:TMSI Ottawa That is exactly the problem, you may not use copyrighted material in a Wikipedia page - even if you own the copyright. You must rewrite the article in your own words. Another problem is that you have not used any outside sources such as newspapers and magazines to show that anyone outside of the organization itself even cares that it exists. Please see WP:CORP for further guidance. Besides the copyright problem the text you used was in any case completely unacceptable as it was a blatant advertisement, see WP:ADVERT for guidance. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be purely descriptive, no promotion of the subject is permitted. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bad Things - do you know what happened here?
Hello, Roger - The history of this article says that you declined it today, but the pink box on the screen says that it was another editor. It was an abandoned Afc submission from last year, and I postponed its deletion so that content could be moved to the existing article. I used the script and it shows the appropriate postponement edit history. Did it really end up being submitted for review? I'm sure I didn't do it. Maybe the script is messing up? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Anne, yes I did decline it as "already exists" a while ago, no idea what the script is getting up to. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

IDP draft
Hi I addressed all your comments. What is the problem now? Of course, one of the defining features of WIKI is that it can still be complemented/improved upon creation of an article. Idea here is to create a meangingful "seed" that can be elaborated on by various other Wiki-literate experts in the field.

Cheers, David P Minde (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi David P Minde - I might be able to help you if I knew what page you are referring to, please give me a link to it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

sorry, here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Intrinsically_Disordered_Protein_(IDP)

Many thanks! David P Minde (talk) 10:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi again David, I have done quite a bit of work on the draft, particularly converting bulleted lists to prose and converted inline external links to references and a few other tweaks. Take a look at the changes - use the History link to compare the before and after. If you're happy with it you should resubmit it (just hit the blue button). I will not be doing further reviews as I have done significant editing thus my neutrality is gone, so another reviewer will do it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your efforts! I like the amendments. Looks lovely! Cheers, David P Minde (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Singireddy Harivardhan Reddy
Hi I noticed your disapproval for the article. Could I ask why this was not approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivek vardhan reddy (talk • contribs) 17:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Kira Tozer
Hello. I've been trying to fix the issues with my draft on Kira Tozer. Could use your help on finding reliable sources on her. I couldn't find any other than the About Me page about her and her agent. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi FilmandTVFan28, I'm afraid I'm not familiar with celebrity media, I don't really know which sources are acceptable or most useful. Ask at the Entertainment Reference Desk, that's where the topic specialists hang out. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Olympic articles
Maxx Fordham has been name changing more Olympic articles. I have reverted them all just like you did for the same reasons. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 10:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi BabbaQ, could you please revert Summer Paralympic Games too - I've reached the 3RR limit there. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, it's correct now, I see User:David Biddulph is also on board with this issue. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Rationale for Gladys Gladstone Rosenberg (submitted article)
Gladys Gladstone Rationale for Wikipedia

In the late 1940s, Salt Lake City, Utah became a regional hub of classical music. This happened when Maurice Abravenal became the conductor of the Utah Symphony, with the latter then hiring Gladys Gladstone Rosenberg (who used the professional name Glady Gladstone) as principle piano soloist. Soon Ms. Rosenberg was added to the music faculty of the University of Utah, subsequently becoming Chair of the Piano Department even though she had not graduated high school!

The Wikipedia article tells the story of how this woman, born into a family of modest means in Utica, New York, and again without a high school education, became a renowned piano soloist and much-respected teacher of generations of piano virtuosi.

The content is arranged chronologically:

o	Winning Utica’s Curran Scholarship at age 15 in 1928 that launched her career o	Studying in New York City in 1930 and then winning an important piano competition the next year in Newark o	Her debut as a soloist with the Newark Symphony at Steinway Concert Hall in 1933. o	Marriage in 1939 o	Studying with the famed Artur Schnabel that same year o	Meeting Maurice Abravenal in 1948, with Abravenal then hiring her as principle soloist o	Giving concerts with the Utah Symphony and various Chamber Orchestras o	Teaching at the University of Utah, subsequently becoming Head of the Piano Department.

The article closes with five deeply personal recollections from successful musicians on her impact as artist and teacher.

A book has been printed of recorded conversations between Gladys Gladstone and David Dalton. It is titled: Gladys Gladstone: The Musical Odyssey of a Jewish Gentile in Mormon Zion, Copyright © 2013 PSI Publishing, ISBN 978-0-615-84910-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msiegel108 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Msiegel108, None of this has anything to do with the reasons why the draft is not yet acceptable. Please read the specific guidance that is linked from the review comments. If you need further assistance the folks at the Teahouse are very friendly and helpful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your comment re: priority of declines on the March backlog talk page. That's exactly what I was asking -- where G11-style, irredeemable spam fell on the list. I'm relieved. I thought I was missing something. Julie JSFarman (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the info regarding my submission. I am working on improving my references and citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskayel (talk • contribs) 23:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for clarification
I submitted an article on Earth's surface energy budget, regarding which you wrote: "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."

The sources I cited are textbooks, so I don't understand the second sentence: can you please clarify?

As to my non-encyclopedic manner (style), this is my first submission and I understand it may take some practice to achieve the expected tone. However (a) there is no existing entry on this important topic (b) what I've written is correct and comprehensible, albeit only a starting point (c) anyone is free to rewrite it in any manner they prefer. Thus, and respectfully: why impede it merely on style? JayDee.UU (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * HiJayDee.UU, I'm sorry, unfortunately I am just off to bed now and I'm leaving on a trip early tomorrow. I probably won't be back on here before Sunday evening my time. Meanwhile you can ask for help at the AfC Help Desk, the editors there will be able to advise you on fixing the problem. Basically you wrote an academic essay, a good one, but the style is completely unsuitable here. BTW Anyone is not free to rewrite it in any manner they prefer, just like scientific journals, Wikipedia has a manual of style. One of the most obvious problems with your text is that you used the first person, Wikipedia is written strictly in the third person. Apologies for not being able to help you further now, but I have full confidence in the help desk and your draft is definitely fixable. Goodnight, Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Roger (Dodger67), hope you slept well. Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I was using the hand-holding "we" that is common in science writing. I've made a revision, and shall resubmit. There's no rush on this, so I'll await your further ideas. Best wishes JayDee.UU (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi again JayDee.UU, my trip was cut short, heavy rain and just lousy weather. I think a chat with the subject specialists at WP:WikiProject Meteorology would be useful to resolve the remaining issues. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK Nomination
Hi Dodger67, because you created the David Showell article, I listed you as one of the authors this DYK nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/The 1949 Sun Bowl Controversy, David Showell. Cheers, I am One of Many (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Roger, I wanted to let you know that I looked over your overall contributions to these articles and I felt that you should be included as an author in this case. Especially since there was no main author. If you believe I'm wrong in this judgement, I'll remove you as a co-author. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks I am One of Many, if you're sure I really did enough to earn it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In my view yes. It looks to be a class project in which many of the authors contributed only a few edits. As far as I can see, they only edited this article and most if not all will not contribute again to Wikipedia.  The original article did require a major decision to create a separate biographical article and both required editing.  All of which you did, which makes you a legitimate author.  Cheers. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Dcave1 submission
Hi,

Is there any chance you could give me some pointers as to what I should include/omit from my article, or which parts caused it to be declined? I have read the WP:NOTHOW section you linked me to, but am not sure which parts of what I have written are unacceptable. I am hoping to write more articles for Wikipedia in this field of Engineering, so it would be good to understand where I'm going wrong early on! Thanks --Dcave1 (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Dcave1, I feel your article is a "borderline" case of WP:NOTHOW. It's actually rather difficult to draw a sharp line with "this is a NOTHOW violation" on one side and "this is an acceptable general theoretical discussion of method/technique" on the other. I have posted a request for specialist assistance at WT:WikiProject Engineering, please join in the discussion there. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Diuresis (merging multiple stubs)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Draft:Diuresis (merging multiple stubs), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.thefullwiki.org/Osmotic_diuresis.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The fullwiki.org site actually copied the content from Wikipedia, not the other way around. I am busy merging a number of stub articles, I hope this bot isn't going to get all excited every time I merge some content from each of the stubs. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cold-induced diuresis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diuresis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Template:WikiProject Disability Invite was accepted
 Template:WikiProject Disability Invite, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Template-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

 WP Disability Invite, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Template-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 14:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.


 * @Technical 13 and Kevin Rutherford - I didn't actually intend bothering AfC with this - but one of the editors who helped me create the template submitted it in my name. Apologies for temporarily increasing the backlog! I wonder why two versions got submitted and accepted? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I edited it to work as it appears you wanted it to work, submitted it in your name, and reviewed and accepted it using the AfC re-write script which I submitted a feedback in the middle of my review which moved it to the wrong location. I'm kind of confused by the whole chain of events myself. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 14:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Technical 13 Ouch! I feel your pain. It's a terribly convoluted way to move a page from Draft-space to Template-space. I've already used it and can report that it works perfectly! Thanks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Glenn Neely Article
Hi Dodger67

I recently edited a page that you decline 6 months ago, but the page is not letting me submit again. Can you direct me as to why?

Thanks, GLePa GlePa (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi GlePa, at some point during your editing you deleted the Review templates - I have recovered them from the page history. When you're ready, the blue "Resubmit" button is waiting for you.
 * Having just read through the draft I think it would be much more viable as an article about Neely's investment "principle" rather than straining to be a biography of Neely the person - it seems we don't actually know very much about him - where was he born, what high school and college did he go to, what jobs has he had, is he married, does he like baseball, etc. are the usual type of details we expect to see in a biography - but all we know about this guy's personal life is his name and the year of his birth. If I was writing this I would drop the biography as the main subject and concentrate on the investment theory instead. You should also expand on the articles written about his method that you say have been published in various magazines - don't just mention them, summarize them, tell us what the articles said. BTW you should try to insert more WP:Wikilinks. Hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Roger, thank you for your help. You have been the most informative reviewer that I have worked with since embarking on trying to increase the presence of this topic in the stock market in Wikipedia. I am going to try to dig up more bio information on this person and if that is still not enough, I will indeed switch over to concentrating on just getting a page for the theory. Again, thank you for taking the time and helping me.

GlePa (talk) 11:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Engenas Lekganyane
I have deleted the redirect that was in the way and accepted the article. Can I leave you to consider (a) categories and (b) whether to add templates for any WikiProjects to the talk page? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi JohnCD, I'll get onto it in the morning, it's well past bedtime here and I'm just about to log off. Thanks for fixing it. Wikiproject Christianity and WikiProject South Africa come to mind as the most relevant. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

== Your submission at Articles for creation: The Holden Brothers Travelling Circus (March 23) ==  Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. ''' Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! '''
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new Articles for creation help desk], or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ktr101&action=edit&section=new reviewer's talk page].
 * Please remember to link to the submission!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.
 * Weird, I did not think that you would get notified of this, so sorry about that! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Kevin, do you think this was an error in the script execution or was my username in the submission template instead of the actual submitter's. Either way do you know if the real author also received this notification? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dodger67, I wanna express my sincere gratitude to you for your efficiency and kind-heartedness
Dear Dodger67, Thank you for review my article and get it published on wiki! You have done me a great favor! I know my article is still imperfect. I will continue to edit it.Your devotion to this meaningful volunteer job will be remembered. Just sincerely wish you all the best! Yours, Xiuyue Mindhunter333 (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Diana W. Bianchi (medical geneticist)
Dear Dodger67, Thank you for your comments. Can you tell me which references were invalid, and why? Then I'll get right to fixing them! Sydneyraymond (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Sydneyraymond
 * @Sydneyraymond - Wow, do I have egg on my face! I made an error, a review comment meant for a different submission ended up on your draft by mistake, sorry about that. I have reverted my review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Dodger67, and no worries. I'm sure you are quite busy. 67.208.181.82 (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Sydneyraymond

Diaosi
@User:Dodger67 I did not propose its deletion. That was User:DangerousPanda. And i would like to know what you mean by less than stellar record.Makro (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2014 5, and the deletion nomination is not going to succeed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/EGalletti/sandbox.
Can you help me get this article approved? I'm fine handing it over, if you have ideas on how to make it work? I'm not sure what I have done wrong. Nothing is copied from the website, so I don't understand why it's not getting approved. Please feel free to delete any information and post.

thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EGalletti (talk • contribs) 01:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you will have to contact User:Cindamuse as that is who had your draft deleted. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Epigenome editing
I have done the rquested history merge to repair the cut-and-paste move the article author did to put this into mainspace. I wasn't sure where to leave the merged article but decided that, since it hadn't been formally reviewed and Sarah had asked for comment from a WikIProject, it would be best put back in AfC. As far as I can see, the author never actually submitted it, but since s/he clearly regarded it as ready, I have added the "submit" template. I will explain what I have done and why to the article author. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks JohnCD, best to let the review process run its course. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Fix redirect
Hi Can you help to fix a redirect? Union Defence Forces redirects to SA Army. Gbawden (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ The redirect now goes to the Union Defence Force disambiguation page because the United Arab Emirates military is also called the Union Defence Force. When linking to SA's UDF the link should be piped to Union Defence Force (South Africa). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Intrinsically Disordered Protein (IDP) and Intrinsically disordered proteins
Dear Dodger67: The history of the mainspace article indicates that content has been moved from the draft article (before it was move, when it was at Wikipedia talk) to the mainspace article. Would it then be logical to move the draft to mainspace and change it into a redirect to the current article? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @Anne Delong - Why didn't I think of that? Sometimes I get the feeling you're the only genius at the funny farm! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, you would have had to have been nosily looking at the history of the mainspace article to notice the merging, which happily had a clear edit summary. Anyway, it's done; I'm not sure if it's the best title. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The relevant WikiProjects can decide if the title is ok, our work is done. BTW the redirect should have been done with the merge, whoever forgot it has inadvertently wasted the draft writer's and our time. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of editors don't understand about merge-and-redirect (I know I didn't for some time). It's surprising that the editor continued to work on two versions at the same time for some reason. Anyway, as you say, one more off the plate. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Question
Hi - Please help

What is wrong with the article?

Cheers Marc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fam Focke (talk • contribs) 12:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Fam Focke - Please read the review template "pink box" at the top of the page and follow the links (blue words) for further information and advice. BTW I don't know what article you are referring to but I presume it is a draft that I reviewed at Articles for Creation. If you need further assistance please ask at the Help Desk - the link in also in the "pink box". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Please explain why the article for Rakesh Jain was disapproved.
Hi, Please explain why the article for Rakesh Jain was disapproved. He is a noted personality in Indian General Insurance sector. He is currently the CEO of Reliance General Insurance which is one of the leading general insurance companies in India. He has been quoted several times in media for his scholarly insights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Rakesh_Jain

If there are format or content changes that need to be revised then we will act promptly.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rautmahi (talk • contribs) 04:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Rautmahi. The basic problem is that the sources you have referenced are all about the company. Apart from saying that Jain is the CEO they don't say much more about him. With these sources it would be much easier if you wrote the article about the company instead of the CEO. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Epigenome editing
You sent me the "been created" message for this, but I didn't actually write it - all I did was sort out the muddle when the actual author tried to post it by a cut-and-paste move, and then the original version got edited some more. As it had never been reviewed and Sarah had asked for comments from the WikiProject, I thought it best to put it back in the queue and add the "Submit" template. I thought I had set the parameter to show the original author as the submitter, but I evidently got that wrong. I have transferred the message you sent me to User talk:Kazi1111. No action required, just letting you know. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * @JohnCD Thanks. It's one of the things that should be added to the AFC "to do" list - make the "registered author" in the template more obvious. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

credibility
You wrote:
 * First explain what this is all about before launching into the mathematical gobbledygook hieroglyphics

This sort of sarcasm ("gobbledygook hieroglyphics") damages your credibility. You wrote this on an article that was far more clearly written than many new mathematics articles. Often they use technical terminology clumsily and incorrectly and are made vague and imprecise by the omission of essential information. This article does not suffer from any of those problems. Probably the reference to Jensen's inequality would be lost on many secondary-school pupils, but nothing else would. It is certainly not true that the article would not be understood by those unfamiliar with the topic, since I understood it right away and I had no prior familiarity with either the concept that the article was about or the measurement of income inequality in general. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * @Michael Hardy - I can assure you it was not intended to be sarcasm at all. It was intended to be the reaction of a non-mathematician when being confronted with a bunch of formulas without a good introduction that places it in context. I see another editor has in fact agreed with my assessment and written just such an introduction. BTW A little more AGF and less aggression would help make your editing experience more pleasant - for yourself and others with whom you interact. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

. . . and now I'm startled to find you under the impression that that article is my own submission. I don't know what would make you think that. I've never submitted any article to AFC. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

List of election candidates
Hi Dodger67, Thanks for Review my submission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Boneb12/sandbox.

A list of candidates for other political parties, contesting LS2014 were approved by Wikipedia : 1. UPA Candidates - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Progressive_Alliance_candidates_in_the_Indian_general_election,_2014 2. NDA Candiates - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Democratic_Alliance_candidates_in_the_Indian_general_election,_2014 3. Left Front Candidates - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Left_Front_candidates_in_the_Indian_general_election,_2014

In the same spirit, I have created the page for the Aam Aadmi Party. These elections end in May, and people are curious about name of candidates of all parties. That page would be modified to include, successful candidates, once the elections are over. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boneb12 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by Toon Disney
I need your help. There's a duscussion on whether List of programs broadcast by Toon Disney should be deleted or not. So far, there are two votes for keep, five for delete, and one for merge. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

South African Special Forces
Equipment List: http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5912:zz&catid=79:fact-files&Itemid=159

Also - equipment taken from resources on AfricanDefence & Helmoed Heitman book on battle of bangui and recent defence review notes.

Regiment 5 was involved in battle of bangui: http://www.army.mil.za/news/news%202014/feb_2014/Warriors%20of%20Bangui%20honoured%20for%20bravery%20on%20Armed%20Forces%20Day.htm

Regiment 5 was involved in DRC deployed as party of FIB - confirmed by SANDU and African Defence.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flash29 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * @Flash29 - don't just tell me about those sources - add proper references to them in the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Confused about your rejection of Prestonpans article
Hi there - you just rejected my article about Prestonpans here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Scottish_feudal_barony_of_Preston_(Prestonpans) - and I'm a little confused. The information comes from The Register of the Great Seal of Scotland, the standard reference volumes for tracking baronies and land possession of this kind. Is it standard practice to reject an article because there is only one source? I've noticed other articles that only have one source, and so I'm unclear about why you rejected this. It's historical information without any political or interpretative leaning. Let me know what's going on here! Thanks! David Stambler (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * @David Stambler - Relying on a single source means that bias or errors in that source are not balanced out or even detectable. Try to find at least one more good source. The fact that other articles with only one source exist is not relevant - there are even articles with no sources at all! It just means nobody has got around to challenging them yet. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * @Dodger67 - OK - I'm working with the current baron and I'll try to get him to supply a few more references.... we have also been working with a few other official Scottish registers so I'll update the article and resubmit it and then let you know, OK? Thanks for your reply.David Stambler (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * @David Stambler - Excellent! I'm looking forward to a good read. (BTW you don't need to ping me on my own talk page, I get notified of all activity on it anyway.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Submission for review was a mistake
Hi Dodger67. I am running a subject where the assignment for the students is to contribute to a single article. To avoid problems on the main article, the students are editing a sandbox page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MGMT90018_Absenteeism/sandbox. Someone must have submitted this for review by mistake and you have declined it appropriately. However, the message that is now on the sandbox page declining the entry is slightly confusing to the students...can that be removed. When the class is finished we will upload the changes to the main wikipeida article. Cheers, Adam (Abarsky1 (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC))


 * @Abarsky1 ✅ Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

South Africans who died fighting in World War I
I saw your help desk post regarding South Africans who died fighting in World War I. This source mentions "South Africa's 18,452 war dead." It might be for WWI and WWII. However, "museum in Picardy, north of Paris, to South Africans who died fighting in World War I." seems to say the museum is for South Africans who died fighting in World War I. This one says empire casualties (dead, wounded, missing or prisoner) in WWII, "South Africa 28,946", so maybe the WWI number is 18,452 war dead. The website for the museum in Picardy may have the number published. More info, "In 1921, the first Comrades Marathon was held in South Africa to commemorate soldiers who died during World War I. This 56-mile race is now the world's largest ultra-marathon event, with 13,000 runners." -- Jreferee (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jreferee. So it seems the CWGC is not a good source for total casualty stats - I guess they probably only count the graves they are directly responsible for. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Requesting input at the discussion: !Vote requested to clarify matters about awards sent. NorthAmerica1000 00:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)