User talk:Dodger67/Archive 9

Please comment on Talk:2014 Winter Olympics opening ceremony
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2014 Winter Olympics opening ceremony. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews
Hello. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular. The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered. If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.) If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with. Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors. I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC). Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:No footnotes
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:No footnotes. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

09:48:05, 19 November 2014 review of submission by 79.219.103.249
79.219.103.249 (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Just declining an article without pointing out specific issues is not appropriate.

References have been added to verify statements made in the article. You have to explicitly mention the issues.


 * You have clearly not read the review posted on the draft - as instructed by the automatic message posted to your talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI - An-178
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/ukraine/an-178.htm TW.188.95.211.222 (talk) 11:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you want me to do with this? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Embraer_KC-390&diff=634205121&oldid=634203660 - to be more careful:-)


 * It was corrected two days ago in this edit - do try to keep up. (BTW please register a username so that you can be contacted properly.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no separate article on An-178 at the moment. It is redirection anyway. Meanwhile article on An-148 says that An-178 is a cargo version. So it was useless moves.

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox person
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox person. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

South African Defence Review 2012
User:Nathan121212, User:Gbawden, User:BoonDock, User:HelenOnline, User:Darren Olivier, User:htonl - I have just moved South African Defence Review 2012 to mainspace - please feel free to improve it - it's still a bit rough in places.Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Nice one! BoonDock (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good, can somebody please nominate this one for a DYK before the 7 day limit? My bandwidth was used early this month so I haven't been able to do much editing. I'm typing from my phone now and its pretty useless for editing. Thanks. Nathan121212 (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @User:Nathan121212 Done - hope I did it correctly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. Nathan121212 (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Just checked your DYK credits (using that link on the nomination page) and it seems you have 6 DYKs to your name. Unfortunately, according to DYK rules you will have to review someone else's DYK nomination. I'll try to help out where I can. Nathan121212 (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of individuals sanctioned during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of individuals sanctioned during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

16:15:44, 3 December 2014 review of submission by Coolkrc
Hi Dodger67 - Could I request a re-review of the article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ranveer_Brar? Reason I ask is the page has started appearing on Facebook search as well and almost everyone is starting to read the pending and declined submission bits :( It's...well, getting a bit embarassing warding off questions. If appropriate, I request a re-review by you since you have already gone through the updations last month. Please let me know. Coolkrc (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Coolkrc (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Lonrho Takeover
Hi User:Dodger67, Thanks for the notification. I have added the Lonrho Takeover. This time I used several online newspaper sources and not the copyrighted material. Hope that is much better. Zotezangu (talk) 01:19, December 6, 2014 (UTC+3)
 * Hi Zotezangu - that's good! Be careful not to copy directly from sources and you'll be doing ok as a Wikipedia editor. By the way - do you have sources to expand the history of the company? There should be a lot more information - the airline and the takeover are the only events in the company history that are mentioned in any detail. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Dodger67, That can be done. Let me see what I can do. I can structure the page to accommodate more information. Let me give December 15, 2014 as a target. Zotezangu (talk) 01:37, December 6, 2014 (UTC+3)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Please comment on Talk:Bibi Aisha
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bibi Aisha. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charles Fahy
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Charles Fahy. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators,

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

== Please comment on Talk:United States House Select Committee on Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi ==

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:United States House Select Committee on Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Steve Scalise
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Steve Scalise. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost
This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (banter)  @ 20:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fredrick Brennan
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fredrick Brennan. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

09:31:33, 9 January 2015 review of submission by Bpv Jadi
{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Dear Dodger67! Thank you very much for taking the time to review my draft article on bpv LEGAL. I have not seen any particular reason why you think it is an ad (maybe I just missed it because I am relatively new to Wikipedia), so I would really appreciate if you could help me see this clear. I made sure that the text is neutral and it contains only the basic facts and references to independent, third party sources proving that for someone who is actively involved in the world of the law firms, this alliance is a notable one. Your reply and help is highly appreciated! Thank you!

Bpv Jadi (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ooops
Re Draft:Shripati Nirmal - you tagged it U5 which was fine as it was in user space, but then you moved it to Draft and declined it but leaving the U5 on. Can't do that... I've retagged it G11 as the best I can think of in Draft space. Peridon (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't. DGG has IARed it as U5, probably in edit conflict. Peridon (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Peridon thank for catching that. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It had to go, one way or another. I like to keep the criteria straight to avoid recriminations and wikilawyering later on (especially at the moment as I've got an interesting case going on at my talk page which includes an article apparently deleted under CSD without prior tagging - but which would certainly have been deleted had it been tagged...). Peridon (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Request on 15:01:48, 10 January 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by UUJ2015
Hi Dodger67 thanks for reviewing my article on Firefighter Fitness. Can i ask for some more details as to why this is not suitable for publishing? Im not disagreeing but I am struggling a bit with the scale of the what wiki is not aspect and relevence to my piece. I am totally open to your observations and would appreciate your guidance.

Much obliged UUJ2015

UUJ2015 (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

UUJ2015 (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

15:03:41, 10 January 2015 review of submission by Pastoweb
Hi Dodger67, thanks for reviewing my article on Forma Lms. I added some links to external indipendent articles, studies and listings about or including Forma Lms, are those enought to support the article approval? Thanks!

Pastoweb (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:David Kay
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:David Kay. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

01:03:53, 12 January 2015 review of submission by Animall
Hi, I was wondering if you can help me. This is my first article for Wikipedia. It is about a rather new item called Cardio First Angel. The reason for my article is that this is a rather new gadget with the name, which doesn’t reveal much to a man not familiar with medical terms. In the article I have described the purpose and the function of this gadget. I believe that it can help to save many lives. They’re very few sources on the internet. Originally it is in German, then, English, Czech, Spanish, but all these information seem to me were derived from the original German (I don’t speak German). The product was co-invented by the cardiologist Prof. Dr. Christian Hagl, who works at the Ludwig-Maximilians-University Medical Centre in Germany. This seems to me reliable source. (Wikipedia asks for at least one source). My article is written in a neutral, non-personal tone describing the function as well as how it can help logically to overcome fears the lay rescuer may have. I have personally been a witness in the past of the similar situation, where people were scared to touch the person on the ground, because they didn’t know what to do. I didn’t want purposely it list these fears and benefits as the bullet points, because I didn’t want to sound it as an advertisement. But the simplicity of the function of the Cardio First Angel is the main reason how to help inexperienced person to overcome these fears and act to save another person in need. If the benefits and functions of the Cardio First Angel are not described, there is no reason to write the article in the first place. So, I hope that you can help me in a way that it would be acceptable to you and Wikipedia. Thank you Animall

Animall (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Animall, medical topics are unfortunately not my speciality, I will ask a subject specialist from WikiProject Medicine to assist you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Dodger, thanks for messaging me. Animall, I am answering you on your talk page.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  11:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Ontario Mining Cup - Re-Review
The draft submission for the Ontario Mining Cup page is ready for re-review. Independent, reliable sources have been referenced and the user Ontariominingcup is no longer editing the document. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontenac303 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Request on 16:32:57, 13 January 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by SamHeath4
Thank so much for your comments on the "Christian Study Centers" article. I have added and edited the sources, keeping in mind your comments as well as Wikipedia's standards for reliable and verifiable sources. The article should be ready for another review.

SamHeath4 (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dabangg
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dabangg. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

11:44:54, 17 January 2015 review of submission by GilesLow
This is not meant to be an advertisement as the Fondation doesn't sell anything. It is purely to inform the world about the awards' existence should they wish to find out more, such as if they hear that "Lord Foster has been awarded the Gold Medal of La Fondation" (see: http://www.fosterandpartners.com/news/archive/2014/05/lord-foster-awarded-medaille-d%E2%80%99or-of-la-fondation-du-m%C3%A9rite-europ%C3%A9en/), they can look it up on Wiki for that information. It is the European award scheme, like the Order of the British Empire or the Légion d'Honneur (well, we like to think so). All I did was to translate, from the statutes of the formation of the foundation, the object of the establishment so that it lacked any bias. My original offering, made several months ago, was made to look like one of those two entries, but all my offerings were constantly being deleted as the Fondation was missing links to it from somewhere (probably for many other reasons as well). With Jacques Santer and the "Président d'Honneur" being the Prime Minister of the Grand Duchy, Monsieur Xavier Bettel, should we add to these dignitaries' CVs their involvement with the Fondation? Then there would be a link to the page. The Grand Duke of Luxembourg holds the Grand Collier on behalf of all the people of his country, so maybe we could put something on the Grand Duke's page as well. Please advise as I am lost when trying to use the help pages.

Thanks. Giles

GilesLow (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Longest recorded sniper kills
Dodger67, please do not re-add incorrect information that you know to be incorrect. If you have any doubt please read the relevant references regarding Harrison. The reason I've deleted the full sentence is that this is already mentioned elsewhere on the article. If you wish so add this sentence with the correct target then please delete the other main reference to this which is in the more appropriate history section so this is not duplicated. Regards -  Gallo glass  21:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see you've re-added this into the intro, fair enough but now you need to change the history section as the article now says the same thing twice. -  Gallo glass  21:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Per WP:LEAD the introduction of an article is supposed to be a summary of the entire article -it should in fact not contain anything that is not discussed later in the article. I have started a discussion at the the article talk page about whether the specific mention of the current record should be in the lead. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I leave it entirely to yourself. The wording is more or less identical. If you want it in both places you can keep it but as I've already said it looks very silly. -  Gallo glass  21:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for South African Defence Review 2012
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Aamir Khan
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Aamir Khan. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProjects
Would you mind being an Active Peer reviewer on WikiProject Disability/Peer review and WikiProject Autism/Peer review? I'm going to be busy with real life soon so I don't think I can for long. Please reply on my talk page. Thanks. Maranjosie (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mexicans of European descent
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mexicans of European descent. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Centre of Excellence for Operations in Confined and Shallow Waters
Roger, thank you for reviewing my draft for said article. It is a translation of the original German article, which is also linked. I have worked for this organization in the past so I know a lot about it. What concerns do you have with the article? I am currently reviewing, updating and creating articles that deal with NATO and its bodies and its organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seabas57 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Seabas57, I have no specific concerns, but as I am not very familiar with NATO or Naval topics I have posted a request to WikiProject Military History for one or more subject specialists to assist with the review process. Unfortunately they have been (unusually) slow in responding to the request. I think it would be a good idea if you could start a discussion of your plans for the NATO articles at the project. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

About the personal attacks
Looks like you're right, yes. But I won't be blocking the user(s) right out of hand. It's near my bedtime now, I'll take a look in the morning if they have made any further offensive comments. If it turns out to be so, a range block of at least one week is in order. J I P &#124; Talk 21:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, we'll see if anything further happens. It's bedtime for me too, midnight here! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sandbox redirect
Hi Dodger67, Please remove the redirect from my sandbox as you have offered. This was my first created article, I am reasonably new to Wikipedia, and I have no idea what is going on!! Also, the trinomial authority for Canis lupus variabilis - are extinct canids published in Animal Species of the World or similar? I am not sure where to look. Regards,  William Harris  •   talk •   19:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You botanists are quick off the mark! Many thanks. William Harris  •   talk •   19:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec):Hi User:William Harris Done! see here. I know less than nothing about trinomial authorities, except that it's an essential data item for taxoboxes - ask at the Wikiproject, someone there will probably know, or know where to find out. (P.S.: What's this about botanists?) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have confused you with another helpful administrator - it is too early in the morning and I have yet to drink my coffee! William Harris  •   talk •   20:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Early morning for you, almost bedtime for me... Wikipedia editing is addictive! This is what I've just been working on, but I'm done for the night. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good work. I am in the other SA (South Australia) where we have the other UNISA (University of South Australia). Thanks for your help. William Harris  •   talk •   20:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dodger67, I asked about the trinomial authority for Canis lupus variabilis on the WikiProject:Mammals page and got the reply that I just edited - very helpful over there. Regarding my sandbox, something strange is going on. What is there in edit does not match what is seen after pressing save - most of it does not appear on the screen! Is that something you can work some background magic on, please? William Harris •   talk •   11:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi User:William Harris, I found the errors that hid most of the page content but I can't figure out why the list defined refs are not displaying, it's not a referencing method I use much - this is one for the WP:Help desk. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Roger (Dodger67), it appears to have sorted itself out. The Megafaunal wolf article is now live - many thanks. Regards, William Harris  •   talk •   12:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually someone responded to my Help desk post and fixed it. Congrats on another article! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC - Helper Script access
An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to  comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll take a look shortly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Ooops! I broke it.
Hi Dodger67, somehow on an administration page called Category:Talk header templates, under the letter W, I have managed to create a template called User:William Harris. Please use your magical powers and remove it if possible, please. Regards, William Harris  •   talk •   11:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi William it's really easy to fix. Go to User:William Harris and then click on the "Edit" link in the heading of the last section "Useful items" - you will see a list of categories right at the end - delete the offending one and save. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @:User:William Harris I just realised that you probably want to keep a link to the category in your "Useful stuff" list. In that case you don't delete the category, you just insert a colon before the word "Category" like this - Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I am now delisted from the Category:Talk header templates, and my category on my home page now works as a link - many thanks! (I still think this is all black magic, and will maintain vigilance!) Regards, William Harris  •   talk •   11:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it. Actually breaking the wiki takes a huge amount of determined effort and intentional malice - an innocent typo or two isn't anywhere near enough damage. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Air combat manoeuvring
Already covered by collaporative Aviation =y in the milhist banner--Petebutt (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. In future please post an edit summary. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

TRE
I am still fighting for TRE in wp, please see my latest posting at AfC submission. Now it is up to you guys. PS: And yes, I am enthousiastic about TRE!--Heebi (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what this about - please provide a link and/or an explanation of context. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ups. Here for better understanding what i wrote in the admission section last week: A Department of Defense survey from June 2011 evaluated TRE and several other posture and tension modulation techniques (see: "Mind-Body Skills for Regulating the Autonomic Nervous System"'') Although further research is being requested, the effectivness of TRE is acknowledged: "TRE’s are a brief series of techniques designed to produce trauma healing and stress reduction by using six simple exercises that evoke neuromuscular tremors/shaking that is generally experienced as relaxing or pleasurable. ... Further research into the technique is merited." At present I can not find any stronger backing study; so now it´s up to you guys, if TRE is notabel enough for wp. (see: )--Heebi (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

17:59:23, 8 February 2015 review of submission by Historian78
I recently wrote an article on an American producer of music documentary films and recordings. The individual's name is Toby Byron. Someone who goes by the codename of "Dodger67" is making the judgment that the article, with over 30 references, does not use reliable references. I am a professional historian, with a Ph.D. in American History, and I really must question Mr. "dodger67"'s judgment. Among the references I used in my rejected article were links to reviews of Mr. Byron's productions appearing in The New York Times and other major media. I also provided links demonstrating that his productions have appeared on the American PBS television network over many years, as well as the CBS television network. I provided links indicating that the books that Mr. Byron has either co-written or produced are in fact for sale on Amazon.com and other outlets. I embedded additional links in my proposed article to active webpages of musical artists Mr. Byron has worked with, managed the tours of, and/or represented. I am not quite certain what sort of documentation Mr. Dodger67 is looking for. Mr. Byron's life and works are evidenced in the form of the products he has created; I have provided links to these and to some of the people involved. Further amplicifation beyond the "not acceptable" stamp is needed at my end. What kind of documentation would Mr. Dodger67 find persuasive? I am eager to know. Thank you. Historian78 (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Historian78

Historian78 (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Historian78, for someone with a Ph.D. in history you seem to have a rather poor grasp of the concept of change over time. When I reviewed the draft it looked like this. All the references were added by you after my review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 1
Hi! Thank you for subscribing to the WikiProject X Newsletter. For our first issue...

'''Has WikiProject X changed the world yet? No.'''

We opened up shop last month and announced our existence to the world. Our first phase is the "research" phase, consisting mostly of reading and listening. We set up our landing page and started collecting stories. So far, 28 stories have been shared about WikiProjects, describing a variety of experiences across numerous WikiProjects. A recurring story involves a WikiProject that starts off strong but has trouble continuing to stay active. Most people describe using WikiProjects as a way to get feedback from other editors. Some quotes:
 * "Working on requested articles, utilising the reliable sources section, and having an active WikiProject to ask questions in really helped me learn how to edit Wikipedia and looking back I don't know how long I would have stayed editing without that project." – Sam Walton on WikiProject Video Games
 * "I believe that the main problem of the Wikiprojects is that they are complicated to use. There should be a a much simpler way to check what do do, what needs to be improved etc." – Tetra quark
 * "In the late 2000s, WikiProject Film tried to emulate WP:MILHIST in having coordinators and elections. Unfortunately, this was not sustainable and ultimately fell apart." – Erik

Of course, these are just anecdotes. While they demonstrate what is possible, they do not necessarily explain what is typical. We will be using this information in conjunction with a quantitative analysis of WikiProjects, as documented on Meta. Particularly, we are interested in the measurement of WikiProject activity as it relates to overall editing in that WikiProject's subject area.

We also have 50 people and projects signed up for pilot testing, which is an excellent start! (An important caveat: one person volunteering a WikiProject does not mean the WikiProject as a whole is interested; just that there is at least one person, which is a start.)

While carrying out our research, we are documenting the problems with WikiProjects and our ideas for making WikiProjects better. Some ideas include better integration of existing tools into WikiProjects, recommendations of WikiProjects for people to join, and improved coordination with Articles for Creation. These are just ideas that may or may not make it to the design phase; we will see. We are also working with WikiProject Council to improve the directory of WikiProjects, with the goal of a reliable, self-updating WikiProject directory. Stay tuned! If you have any ideas, you are welcome to leave a note on our talk page.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing!

– Harej 17:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

DMD External Link
Hi Dodger 67, Regarding the DMD Wiki page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchenne_muscular_dystrophy - I feel that a link to the page of a charity which is spending lots trying to solve the disease would be 100% relevant. The link I inserted under external links was: http://www.action.org.uk/appeal/duchenne-muscular-dystrophy%20 We have a more detailed page on it here: http://www.action.org.uk/our-research/duchenne-muscular-dystrophy-developing-badly-needed-new-treatment-boys-devastating-cond I consider these to be entirely appropriate, so may I ask why you don't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodie19838 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Woodie19838. The link you added is to a page soliciting donations to a charity for funding research, the page does not contribute significantly to the article reader's understanding of DMD itself. The link is clearly intended to promote the cause of the charity rather than to the advantage of the reader of the article. Please see WP:WORTHYCAUSE for a fuller explanation of Wikipedia's position on such issues. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I could see how you'd think that on the first link, but this one? http://www.action.org.uk/our-research/duchenne-muscular-dystrophy-developing-badly-needed-new-treatment-boys-devastating-cond In it we hear from leading doctors things like: "We’ve known for many years that boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy have too much calcium in their muscles,” he explains. “We’ve identified a possible new medicine that might reduce this calcium overload and we are testing it in the laboratory.” A medicine targeting calcium overload isn't mentioned once in the article, so that's to the advantage of the reader. Or do you object to that as well?


 * @Woodie19838, I'm not sure, so I think you should rather ask WikiProject Medicine for an opinion, that's where you'll find editors who specialize in medical articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate your response Roger. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodie19838 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on WP:AN
Hello! You have been selected to receive an invitation to participate in the closure review for the recent RfC regarding the AfC Helper script. You've been chosen because you participated in the original RfC. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. This message is automated. Replies will not be noticed. -- QEDK ♠  T  ♥  C  14:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Global perceptions of autism
Those assertions were well reverted. The article content seems a long way from its title. -- Unbuttered parsnip  (talk) mytime= Thu 22:40, wikitime=  14:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually it's a fairly decent summary of the situation worldwide, there are other articles that go into further detail about autism in the western world, so that's not the focus of the article. In fact that section was added some time after the "rest of the world" sections. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Cfr. / Cf. / Vgl.
Dear Dodger,

Thank you for commenting. "Cfr." (also "Cf.") is short for "Confer" and common in English (liberal arts) literature, contrary to "See" it indicates a sort of summarized reference and no direct quotation. By the way: The German equivalent (cfr. the German-Wiki entry for "Kim Yusob") is "Vgl." (short for "Vergleiche" = "compare/confer").

With kind regards AntonioRusconi (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * @AntonioRusconi thanks, so I've learnt something new on WP today! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Request on 07:53:46, 28 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Typing a lot
Hi Dodger67! Thank you for taking the time to review my article! As I am new to using Wikipedia, I decided to try it out by writing about a company. However there were not many sources pertaining to this company, may I ask how do I go about overcoming this problem in giving more credible sources? I did try to deliver a neutral point of view by giving facts about the company, could you tell where did I go off point if any? I really appreciate your help in this matter, since I do not have any experience in using Wikipedia. Thank you once again.

Typing a lot (talk) 07:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gerry Goldstein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorney. 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) 09:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Streptomyces verticillus
Hi Roger (Dodger67). Many thanks for approving Streptomyces verticillus. It's my first attempt at an article and I'm very happy. I have a couple of questions though. In the "View history" section of the article, it has info on every edit I've ever made to my sandbox. Is that normal? The only relevant edits (i.e. edits pertaining to Streptomyces verticillus are two on 5th March and two on 7th March. My second question is how do I get my sandbox back?  Every time I click on my sandbox, I get redirected to the Streptomyces verticillus article.  Sorry if these are stupid questions.  Like I said, I something of a newbie here.  Thanks for any advice you can offer.  Cheers, tH0r (talk contribs) 07:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * @User:L0st_H0r!z0ns Congratulations on the new article! It's a real pleasure to review such a well written and properly formatted draft. When you get redirected to the article you will see a small text "note" immediately below the title "Redirected from ", clicking on it will take you back to the sandbox page where you can simply delete the redirect code. However, if you're planning to create multiple articles it's a lot "cleaner" to simply create a new separate sandbox for each one. You do this by first creating a link somewhere convenient (such as your now clean sandbox) like this: User:L0st_H0r!z0ns/Streptowhatsit somethingus, then you click on that (red) link and start writing. It has the additional advantage that the title is already set correctly. Take a look at my sandbox, where I have such a list of all my drafts. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * @Roger (Dodger67). Many thanks for responding so quickly and for the advice.  I'll give that a try.  Cheers.  tH0r (talk contribs) 08:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Request on 18:28:09, 9 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by DawnParry
Hi, Im so sorry, I simply copied and pasted from the IFB site initially, to create the wiki IFB page. I'm new to this. I've now completely altered it. I'm standing for election in Bristol West constituency and we at IFB were informed that it wasn't possible to add the Party name on the constituency/candidates' page until a wiki page was created. And without me belonging to a political party even though it's a facilitator and not a policy driven party, it loses IFB's identity.

I'm now going to resubmit please, having entirely stripped this down. Also, I don't know how to link things on here.

DawnParry (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi DawnParry, I've had a go at fixing it up, I think it's an acceptable start now, but I can no longer review it as my neutrality is compromised by the ammount of work I've done on it - so we'll just have to wait until someone else gets to it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Meridian Compensation Partners, LLC article
Hi,

I received the note that this article was declined for notability issues. Can I ask why that was? I see other articles about consulting organizations with similarly notable information in the articles, and I'm confused why this is not being considered notable. For example, can you explain why this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novantas is considered notable while the article I submitted is not?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glcmedia (talk • contribs) 19:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Glcmedia, if you had actually read the WP:Notability guidelines, as advised and linked in the review text, you would easily see that Novantas does not pass the notability standard. If it were submitted for review it would not be accepted, I have just proposed it for deletion. The existence some poor articles on Wikipedia is not a valid reason for adding another. You should rather use some of the best company articles as examples to emulate instead of dumpster diving for the lowest possible quality that you think you could get away with. What you need to do is find independently written articles about the company published in editorially independent sources such as mainstream news or periodicals, and then use them as the basis of the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have read the guidelines and that's why I asked the question. My submission includes links to three editorially independent sources, which serve as the basis for the article's content. I take it that is not enough, and that is why I asked about other articles, that seem to have been reviewed and accepted without issues, that have fewer sources than this article. I will add more sources to the article and resubmit.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glcmedia (talk • contribs) 20:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

20:18:58, 13 March 2015 review of submission by DriveMaster128
I would like to point out that R-Linux is a Linux program. Linux software, unfortunately, doesn't attract much attention, especially when comparing with their Windows counterparts. And I believe that a review on http://www.softpedia.com (a review, not a promo), is quite a reliable source. DriveMaster128 (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC) DriveMaster128 (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi DriveMaster128 - The Softpedia review might be a good source, but you don't actually use it as a reference. See the Referencing for beginners guide. You could also solicit some assistance from WP:WikiProject Linux, that's were you'll find other editors with specific experience of the topic. Hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

19:47:09, 13 March 2015 review of submission by David Herrera 1985
Dear Dodger67,

I would like to know what I must do to ensure that the article in question is sufficiently "verifiable". I have added 9 references, 8 eight of which are completely independent and impartial. I built my article based on other banks which have Wikipedia entries and some only have 2 or 3 references, so I am at a bit of a loss of what more I should increase. I added this entry because there are articles which refer to Nemea Bank, such as List of banks in Malta, so the article is notable and worthy of inclusion in the encyclopaedia. I would appreciate your advice on this matter.

Thank you,

David Herrera 1985 (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi David Herrera 1985 - let's take a look at those references, 1 to 5 are simply lists and registers that prove only that the company exists, that it is a bank and it is domiciled in Malta - none of these have any bearing on the notability standard for companies. The 6th reference is the bank's own website. References 7 and 8 are from a newspaper, but as I don't have access to them I can't see if they are articles written by clearly independent journalists or simply press releases originating from the bank itself. The 8th reference does not mention the bank at all. So there we have it - only two of the references might evidence notability. We need clearly independent sources that discuss the bank in significant detail, published in mainstream press and magazines. Listings/directories and passing mentions don't make the grade. BTW recent editions of the Sunday Times (I presume it's the British one) are available online, adding links to the references could be useful. Look for more press coverage (but not PR from the bank itself). I hope this helps. BTW the other articles with poor referencing have probably never been reviewed - the review system has been in place only since 2007. If you want to compare your draft to other bank articles look for a B-class or better quality rating in the WikiProject banners on the article talk pages. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Dodger67, Thanks for your feedback. I will definitely work on your advice and update the article. As a pan-European bank, we also have a number of online reviews in other languages, including Spanish, French and Finnish reviews by several major aggregate sites and newspapers. Can these be added to this Wikipedia page, or must all references be cited in the English language? Thanks again, David (David Herrera 1985) (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * @David (David Herrera 1985) - feel free to use sources in any language - if needed we can find reviewers who are fluent in just about any language used in mainstream media worldwide. As long as the sources have been written by competent commentators not connected to the bank they would probably be usable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Great Answer


South Africa are now B2
I have changed B2 to South Africa. Even if Pakistan scores 243/0 in 0.0 overs, their NRR will be lower than South Africa.Sujith (talk) 07:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * @Sujith, all it took was a little patience, we waited until it became clear. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't the person who edited earlier, I too waited till the end of the Ireland innings.Sujith (talk) 08:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I see so. I think my latest post on the article talk page sums up the current situation correctly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

21:48:41, 15 March 2015 review of submission by Nadia Eliseeva
Nadia Eliseeva (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Good day, You have declined my self-scanning page while according to you there is already a self-checkout page. Please allow me to explain that self-checkout and self-scanning are different systems and the shopping trip is also completely different.

Self-checkout; customers walk into the store, add their products into their basket and at the end of the shopping trip all the products are scanned in one time through the self-checkout machine after which the customer can pay. During the shopping trip the customer has no clue about pricing and will not be informed about advertisements.

Self-scanning; customers walk into the store, sign up to a scanning device (usually attached to a customer loyalty card) or login with their smartphone. They can download a shopping list already created at home. During the shopping trip the customers scans each product, the customer is completely aware of the total costs and receives personalized advertisements directly on the scanning device. It is even possible for customers to add allergies or diets to their profile. When they scan an article which matches the allergy of diet the customer will be alerted.

Also the software for both solutions is completely different. For self-checkout the software is only needed in the machine that scans the products at the end of the shopping trip, there is no connection with the specific customer. For self-scanning the customers needs a personal profile and the customers is connected with the supermarket at all times.

So please review the article again. By the way, on the French wikipedia page there is also a self-scanning page, which has less quality, but which is also approved.

Thank you for your time and I am looking forware to your reaction!


 * Hi Nadia Eliseeva - please include a brief explanation of the difference in the article itself, then the next reviewer (and subsequent readers) would also know.
 * I don't understand French so that article is of no use to me, sorry :( The French Wikipedia's quality standards are their affair, the English Wikipedia's standards are generally considered to be more developed than most of the other Wikipedias. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you for your answer to my query re: a category for Salmagundi Club

Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC) 

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 2
For this month's issue...

Making sense of a lot of data.

Work on our prototype will begin imminently. In the meantime, we have to understand what exactly we're working with. To this end, we generated a list of 71 WikiProjects, based on those brought up on our Stories page and those who had signed up for pilot testing. For those projects where people told stories, we coded statements within those stories to figure out what trends there were in these stories. This approach allowed us to figure out what Wikipedians thought of WikiProjects in a very organic way, with very little by way of a structure. (Compare this to a structured interview, where specific questions are asked and answered.) This analysis was done on 29 stories. Codes were generally classified as "benefits" (positive contributions made by a WikiProject to the editing experience) and "obstacles" (issues posed by WikiProjects, broadly speaking). Codes were generated as I went along, ensuring that codes were as close to the original data as possible. Duplicate appearances of a code for a given WikiProject were removed.

We found 52 "benefit" statements encoded and 34 "obstacle" statements. The most common benefit statement referring to the project's active discussion and participation, followed by statements referring to a project's capacity to guide editor activity, while the most common obstacles made reference to low participation and significant burdens on the part of the project maintainers and leaders. This gives us a sense of WikiProjects' big strength: they bring people together, and can be frustrating to editors when they fail to do so. Meanwhile, it is indeed very difficult to bring editors together on a common interest; in the absence of a highly motivated core of organizers, the technical infrastructure simply isn't there.

We wanted to pair this qualitative study with quantitative analysis of a WikiProject and its "universe" of pages, discussions, templates, and categories. To this end I wrote a script called ProjAnalysis which will, for a given WikiProject page (e.g. WikiProject Star Trek) and WikiProject talk-page tag (e.g. Template:WikiProject Star Trek), will give you a list of usernames of people who edited within the WikiProject's space (the project page itself, its talk page, and subpages), and within the WikiProject's scope (the pages tagged by that WikiProject, excluding the WikiProject space pages). The output is an exhaustive list of usernames. We ran the script to analyze our test batch of WikiProjects for edits between March 1, 2014 and February 28, 2015, and we subjected them to further analysis to only include those who made 10+ edits to pages in the projects' scope, those who made 4+ edits to the projects' space, and those who made 10+ edits to pages in scope but not 4+ edits to pages in the projects' space. This latter metric gives us an idea of who is active in a certain subject area of Wikipedia, yet who isn't actively engaging on the WikiProject's pages. This information will help us prioritize WikiProjects for pilot testing, and the ProjAnalysis script in general may have future life as an application that can be used by Wikipedians to learn about who is in their community.

Complementing the above two studies are a design analysis, which summarizes the structure of the different WikiProject spaces in our test batch, and the comprehensive census of bots and tools used to maintain WikiProjects, which will be finished soon. With all of this information, we will have a game plan in place! We hope to begin working with specific WikiProjects soon.

As a couple of asides...


 * Database Reports has existed for several years on Wikipedia to the satisfaction of many, but many of the reports stopped running when the Toolserver was shut off in 2014. However, there is good news: the weekly New WikiProjects and WikiProjects by Changes reports are back, with potential future reports in the future.
 * WikiProject X has an outpost on Wikidata! Check it out. It's not widely publicized, but we are interested in using Wikidata as a potential repository for metadata about WikiProjects, especially for WikiProjects that exist on multiple Wikimedia projects and language editions.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing! If you have any questions or comments, please share them with us.

Harej (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

14:10:42, 10 March 2015 review of submission by Rapunzalia
First of all, thanks for the review. You were right about the lack of sources so I edited the article and added more references. I would appreciate it if you could find the time to look at it again and tell me whether the article is fit for publication now. I'm new at Wikipedia but I would like to do a lot of good work here. Rapunzalia (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Rapunzalia it's not regarded as good practice for the same reviewer to repeatedly review a particular draft, so I'd rather just give you a few tips/comments. The "Stichting Rotterdam Maaskant" page contains quite a lot of critical commentary about Neutelings' work. You could use some of it to improve the article, just be sure to cite it properly. WP readers are interested in what qualified critics (such as prize juries) have to say about creative people such as architects. If you're not fluent in Dutch you can ask for help at the Teahouse, I'm unfortunately not fully fluent but understand enough to recognise the critical commentary for what it is. The Icon magazine reference link does not work, it just goes to the iconeye.com main page - if it's only available to subscribers then you should note "(subscription needed)" in the reference. The "Selected projects" list is entirely unreferenced. If there's anything else I can help with, you know where to find me! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * , happening to drop by here: the content of the article was almost identical to the article on the firm. There's no point in having two such similar articles. SSince someone might reasonably look for the name, I changed it into a redirect to the firm, and moved that redirect into mainspace.. Ifsome day you wish to write specific content about they individual supported by references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements, there's no reason why it could;t be expanded. But you'll need source about him specifically, not the firm, and if  the firm;'s work is essential his own work, this may be difficult. It would also be [possible to move the article on the firm to his name instead, and make the redirect in the other direction. If you want to do that, let me know.  DGG ( talk ) 08:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, you're right in saying that the pages were very similar. I had hoped to find more sources about the person but for now the only thing available were interviews and announcements of lectures. If I ever come across more extensive information I might venture to make the page again. As for now, I think it's best that the firm is the page it redirects to because it is clearly the more important one of the two. And the firm has two architects so I suppose the second one wouldn't be too pleased if his partner was the main title. Thanks for all the help! Rapunzalia (talk) 09:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * FYI see reply above. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Request on 18:03:53, 27 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Elemonier
Hi Dodger67,

Thank you for taking the time to review the page I created. I agree completely about the excessive references. In my zeal to make sure I had enough references, I went a bit overboard. I will condense/remove some of them.


 * Hi Elemonier, I'm going to intersperse my replies to your questions and use italics so that it's easier to keep track of everything.

I just have a few questions about how to best address the necessary changes before resubmitting it. I am very, very open to suggestions, which is why I'm here. The last paragraph of Writing career mentions that the author has works that appear in pop culture anthologies, which is one of the places where it has too many references. My thought is to just create a single reference that lists the different works in the same reference, but that might also look clunky at the bottom. I could leave off the reference entirely, but my concern then becomes will someone note it as needing one? What would you suggest as the best way to handle that particular spot?


 * I would solve that by actually naming the anthologies and referencing each instance separately, like this:"...has been published in a number of bestselling pop-culture anthologies such as This Anthology(ref for it), That Anthology(ref for it), The Other Anthology(ref for it) and One More Anthology.(ref for it)"

This might sound a tad dense, but when reviewers say 2, maybe 3 references, I want to make sure I understand, you mean in a single sentence, or overall in a paragraph?


 * Two or three together in the same spot, like: "The moon is made of cheese.(ref1)(ref2)(ref3)" When too many of those superscript numbers are all bunched together it breaks the flow of the text and it looks like the writer is "trying too hard" to prove the point - if two or three refs can't do it then six or eight aren't going to convince the reader either. The basic idea is to spread the references - place each one as close as possible to the word or phrase it directly relates to (usually directly after), like this:"The moon is made of cheese,(ref1) some astronomers say it is Cheddar(ref2) while others insist it is mature Stilton,(ref3) many Italian astronomers prefer the Parmesan theory.(ref4)"

The other places I'd love some suggestions for is the lack of references in the first paragraphs of Early life and Personal life There are several things that are linked to but have no references in Early life  Since it's for high school/college, what should have references here? On a message board, that question may come across as a bit snarky, but it's not at all meant to be. For me, I feel like I've gone cross-eyed looking at it and I can't see what I'm missing there. Truly need the extra set of eyes here. Same for the first paragraph of Personal life. I didn't link to Peace Corps or Guatemala because that's already done earlier. Should the reference come there, rather than earlier? I'm not otherwise sure what type of reference should be there, since it is for first marriage and children, so any suggestion would be very helpful. I can see that I could make a reference for the last sentence that says much of her work is published under (her former married name). But since that's mostly the pop anthology and her first book, Elena (which is listed in the info box), what would be the preferred way to reference it simply? I would love suggestions for that paragraph, as well.


 * Quite simply, how do you know what her parents' names are? Where did you find out that she was born in Philadelphia and moved to Leesburg? Similarly, where did you get the information about her first marriage, children, etc? If a single source covers the entire content of a paragraph you can simply reference it once at the end of that paragraph. To show that some of her books were written under a different name simply cite the book itself or a site that lists her work. It may be useful to add a bibliography of her major works to the article - where the details of each book are given.


 * If you got some of the information from an unpublished source - such as directly hearing it from Urbani or in a private letter or email I'm afraid you cannot include that information at all as only published sources are acceptable.

Once I've made the requested changes, I will resubmit.

Thank you again for the feedback, it is greatly appreciated.

Respectfully, Elemonier

Elemonier (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I hope these answers are helpful, if you need more clarity you know where to find me. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

More details please
Hi

You recently rejected my article and stated that you wanted more reliable sources. I thought I had done this correctly as I cited major publishing houses and award sites. I am totally willing to provide more references but could you kindly guide me as to which parts of the article you are referring to and what exactly you are looking for. Thank you kindly.

I hope I am doing this correctly as it is my first time. My apologies for any errors.

Edit: having looked at how this appears after submission, I realize even the Talk page submission is a mess. I am not sure how to fix it though ::sigh::. Again, my apologies.

CapnBlaze (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC) CapnBlaze 3/29/15


 * Hi CapnBlaze, unfortunately the "canned" review message places emphasis on reliable sources but in the case of your draft the issue is actually more about the independence (or lack thereof) of the sources you have cited. The awards you mentioned are referenced from the website of the award organization itself - which naturally has an interest in promoting the award. For the panel discussions you use recordings of the events, published by the organizers, as the references and similarly with the radio plays you use podcasts of the stories - but we don't know if anyone actually tuned in to the broadcasts. Other information you cite from Johnson's own website. All of these sources are too close to the action to have a neutral disinterested view of the subject. What you need is to find reports or other sources written by people who have no direct interest in the events, publications or Johnson herself. Book reviews in mainstream news media or magazines/webzines, profile articles about Johnson in literary journals, and so on - written by people who have nothing to gain or lose from anything Johnson has done or will still do - secondary sources. I hope this helps.
 * By the way - the formatting problem of your post (which I have fixed) was because you had spaces at the start of each line - it's a "feature" of the wiki software to format text that starts with a space like that - in a box without line wrapping. If you really need to indent you use one or more colons at the start of the line of text. See WP:INDENT for more details about how and when/why to do so. Indenting is hardly ever used within an article - particularly if it's just ordinary running prose, but it is used in Talk pages to indicate the flow of discussions - when replying you use one more colon than the part you are replying to - just like I have done here, so if you reply to this you should start your text with two colons (you will only see them in edit mode). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your response Roger (Dodger67). That was extremely useful and helpful. It was very appreciated.CapnBlaze (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

DaVinciTek
Hello Rodger,

My draft for DaVinciTek was recently rejected due to an advertorial tone. I was wondering if you could pinpoint the sections you found to reflect this tone as I do not find the whole piece to read like an advertisement. More than happy to make adjustments, just want to ensure you're not forced to review yet again in the future. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ITtech1000 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

02:59:03, 1 April 2015 review of submission by Aenfinger
Aenfinger (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear reviewer. Thank you for taking the time to review the draft on biofrequency chip. Can you please provide specific reasons why the draft was rejected. The biofrequency chip is a product and dosage form that is commercially available. There are companies developing prescription products from the technology, but I didn't include that information because it may be perceived as promotional. Again specific information you are looking for is helpful.

Thank you


 * Hi Aenfinger, please join the discussion at WT:WikiProject Medicine. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Physical disability
Does this article say anything which is not said in the main Disability article? Is it worth preserving?Rathfelder (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * @Rathfelder - The Disability article has just a single paragraph "summary", the Physical disability article has several sections, so yes it says a lot that the "main" article does not. The Physical disability article could actually be expanded and improved quite substantially. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You think a separate article is a good idea? They could be merged.Rathfelder (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes a separate article for every "category" of disability, and have the disability article summarise all aspects of disability in the broad sense. Excessive detail about physical disability in the general article should actually be moved to the physical disability page. This structure was decided at WikiProject Disability quite some time ago, and you really need to take your ideas to the project, don't dicuss them only with me. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

14:51:59, 6 April 2015 review of submission by Abhyud
Hi,

I have modified my article as per the feedback given by you and maintained the Wikipedia quality guidelines. Kindly, review my article again.

Abhyudaya Tripathi (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Abhyudaya Tripathi (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

House of Köröskényi
I really do not understand what you require from me. Could You please note exact requirements for the page to be published! Hexenkind410 (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Hexenkind410, it's quite simple, you need to adequately respond to the criticism and concerns posted by one of the experienced WikiProject Royalty and Nobility editors on the Talk page of the draft - Draft talk:House of Köröskényi. The editor basically claims the whole article is not credible or the sources it is based on may be fake. Please discuss the matter further on the draft talk page. I am not a subject specialist at all, I'm just one of the gnomes helping out at the Articles for Creation project. The only nobility I know of from that part of the world is Count Dracula. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:ELECTROHOMEOPATHY/sandbox
Hello Dodger67. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:ELECTROHOMEOPATHY/sandbox, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * @User:ELECTROHOMEOPATHY/sandbox - Sigh! We really need a speedy criterion for "obvious bullshit". It's this type of utter rubbish that forms a significant proportion of the backlog that periodically clogs up the AFC process and otherwise simply creates "make work" for actual productive editors. It's blatantly obvious to anyone with even a modicum of a clue about the inclusion standards on en.WP that that topic will not last a day in mainspace, so why can't we simply euthanase it at the earliest opportunity rather than pedantically going through the burocratic motions of leading the drafter down the garden path with a string of too polite and non-emphatic declines and then waiting for another six months after the draft writer eventually gives up to finally put the page out of it's misery. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with that, but it wasn't a G11. In any case, the draft has been rejected as expected, and the account has been soft blocked. It will be a happy day when someone manages to include "obvious bullshit" in CSD, but that day has not arrived yet § FreeRangeFrog  croak 19:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How about 'joke' or 'hoax'? Fiddle   Faddle  10:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Those plants!
Unbelievably, the draft has been resubmitted with almost no work done. It is so tempting to accept it and AfD it in one move, but only because the author seems unwilling to listen to you, to me, and to others. She also seems incapable of the common courtesy of interacting with those offering her some help, something that does not bode well for her employability. ~sighs~ Fiddle   Faddle  10:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Timtrent, I feel you! The problem, as I see it, is that it might actually be a notable journal, but she is just not getting to the point of actually proving it. That's why I've called in the topic specialists. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed it might. I think it is, probably, but the article on to needs to stick! I have just responded at some length to her on the draft talk page, where she has posted a bleat. I do wish she would just do the work. Fiddle   Faddle  10:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * And it is live  Fiddle   Faddle  11:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)