User talk:Dodger67/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello Dodger67, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
• Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

• Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
• The
  tutorial
  has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
  • User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

• Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

You will be very interested in this and may wish to comment there about the upcoming trial. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

on the claims of secrecy surrounding the upcoming trial.You will be very interested in this and may wish to chime in. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Aprilalsup (talk · contribs)
  • User:Aprilalsup/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Dodger,

Thank you for your message I'm a new comer to wikipedia and you reviewed my page

Here are a few links of reputable sources talking bout Sisyphus the Musical and Im not really sure how I include them in the articles. please advise

http://coloradotheatreguild.dreamhosters.com/?ai1ec_event=sisyphus-the-musical-the-aurora-fox

http://westminsterwindow.com/stories/curtain-time,249081

http://www.aurorasentinel.com/news/preview-sisyphus-musical-aims-endear-myths-morals-free-will-song/

https://www.goldstar.com/events/aurora-co/sisyphus-the-musical-tickets

http://www.fbcdenver.org/blog/weekly-words-6-15-17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aprilalsup (talk • contribs) 20:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Aprilalsup, the sources you've listed above are not much use, they are all "coming attractions" announcements and adverts, or in one case a "casting call" in a trade magazine. What you really need are reviews by independent professional critics after the show premiered, published in mainstream media such as newspapers or magazines that have a more than local distribution. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• JP1308 (talk · contribs)
  • User:JP1308/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Roger! Thank you for your very fast review and thank you very much for your invitation to Teahouse. It is great for a beginner like me, to have support like this. Wish you a beautiful day. JP1308 (talk) 10:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Roger! Thank you very much for your incredible support! I learned a lot from you and I am looking forward to do my next article. I wish you a beautiful day.

This article is almost entirely about Rome, not about the empire. Rathfelder (talk) 09:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Rathfelder Even so, it still is not about the modern country of Italy. I think a new category "Disability in antiquity" is probably the best solution. It can also contain articles about disability in other old cultures. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I can't see any guidelines about the interface between geography and history, when the same place has been in several countries over time, and practice varies widely. History of disability would be a more useful category - that is notably missing.Rathfelder (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Rathfelder Very good idea! Category:History of disability could be subdivided later if needed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Dodger67. You recently commented on my Draftpage: John Maalouf. (My username is Ryanmardini24). You commented that you have "blanked" the talk page. What does that mean? Further, does that indicate that my submission is still in review? As always, I truly appreciate your help, efforts, and advice! All the Best, Ryan.

Ryanmardini24 (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Ryanmardini24 Please do not undo the blanking of Draft talk:John Maalouf, it is not the correct place for the draft. The actual draft is at Draft:John Maalouf, that is the only page that should contain the draft, work on it there, do not make any more copies anywhere else. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Dodger67, my apologies. As you can tell, I am relatively new to this and do not know how to go about navigating where to input the content. For any inconvenience I may have caused, I apologize. Is the new content (the one that is currently in the Draft: John Maalouf in the correct place for submission? Again, sorry and thank you. Ryanmardini24 (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Ryanmardini24 I have restored the review material, please leave it in place, it will be cleaned up if the draft gets accepted into mainspace. Are you sure you removed the version you meant to? The one you removed was longer than the one you kept. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Dodger67: Thank you for your note. Yes, I have included the one I intend to keep. The longer version was not accepted (or so I think) so I made it more concise and to the point, hopefully allowing it to be accepted into the mainspace. Ryanmardini24 (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Ryanmardini24 actually you need to expand it quite a bit. It's a biography so it should say something abput the subject's birth, childhood, education, career, and personal/family life. It currently reads like an "executive profile" that one would find on a company website, but he was obviously not born a partner of the firm. Most importantly you need to show that he is a notable person by citing articles in mainstream media that discuss him in significant detail. The current content of the draft actually shows that the firm might possibly be notable, rather than himself. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for letting me know how to add a logo to the Wikipedia page. I submitted the article via articles for creation and I'm new here on Wikipedia. Is there a way to request that a more experiences editor create an info box for the Liquidity Services company? Thanks again for your help! NatalieMartin82 (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dodger67, as you may remember, your were kind enough to provide help with [the Local SEO page]. Though this time I am contacting you regarding an entirely different topic: I also occasionally work on the [near death experiences page] and some of my edits were rejected [[1]] because the source I used, "The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation", was deemed non-MEDRS. Now, in the MEDRS policy they clearly state that "academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers" can be used. The above Handbook is from a respected Academic publisher [[2]] I believe, since it is both academic and educational. Also, the authors are some of the best known names in the field of near death experiences: Bruce Greyson, for instance, is either author or co-author on more than 27 publications mostly related to Near Death Experienes (NDEs) in Pubmed. So where is the problem according to you? (did not get an answer from the talk page [[3]] ). Any help and advise is greatly appreciated - best Josezetabal (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard, discuss the topic there. Roger (Dodger67) (talk

) 06:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dodger67 and thank-you for your kind response - best regards Josezetabal (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I contested the deletion. And you unila±erally and summarily deleted it. By what procedure was that? I assume this was an oversight on your part. Please correct it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]], I did see your post. I checked for any incoming links from other mainspace pages, there were none, thus it isn't actually disambigating anything, so I went ahead with the deletion. If my reasoning is faulty please let me know how I've gone wrong and I'd be happy to undelete. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree the deletion was valid, because per

WP:TWODABS it's not necessary to have a dab page for two entries. Primefac (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker

)

Trying again to ping User:7&6=thirteen, somehow the template is not working Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

It's the = in the {{

u}}, so you'd have to do {{u|1=7&6=thirteen}}. Primefac (talk

) 17:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Not a big issue. I imagine that is as close to a "consensus" we will get on a page that is buried so deep. I simply thought it was a signpost for readers; navigation here is problematical at best. No worries. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I promise not to make a habit of making such requests except in such rare occasions and subjects of preeminent distinction.

Would you agree this article qualifies as B-rated article?  —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• Snack-Seedai (talk · contribs)
  • User:Snack-Seedai/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Dodger67, Thank you for reviewing the article, I am quiet new to writing in wikipedia, it would be kind of you if you could tell me the mistakes i have made and the corrections to be done to create a perfect wikipedia page. Your suggestion would be of great help. Thank You.

Snack-Seedai (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:PFISTERER, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at

Thank you for your attention.

• Jennytaylor160 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Fitsmind (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for reviewing my page! I have spent time today going back through, adding more independent sources, improving the content and references and so would be very grateful if you could let me know if there was anything else you would like me to fix? Thanks, Jenny :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennytaylor160 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jennytaylor160, follow the advice Darylgolden posted on the draft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I undid your undo on the Food desert page -- I had typed in the wrong wikilink the reference is now on. That is corrected to Food choice of older adults.

I didn't see the 2nd part of your comment before I did this or I would have wrote you first: "driving habits are a relevant factor." I partly addressed this on the article's Talk page previously.

The reference cited concerns the nutritional habits of widows, not the driving habits of women and minorities in food deserts. Since the reference does not support the claim, the claim is unsupported and therefore merits deletion.Skingski (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)(talk)

Hi Skingski Thanks for getting back to me about it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

In reference to your undo (Not redundant. The "Transportation" section does not discuss rural distances), information on distance is presented earlier in the page in a section entitled "Distance" -- Food_desert#Distance. In fact, the sentence I deleted is inaccurate: the Distance section enumerates two not one numbers for urban and rural desert distances. Since the definition of distance was already introduced, it is redundant information and should be deleted.Skingski (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)(talk)

The specific deletion you have made (I fooled myself on which one it was) -- as I said, we already establish distances as a difference between rural and urban deserts. The bottom sentence does not really say anything and the references are not concerned with this topic. Transportation issues are discussed in context of rural deserts in the next section Food_desert#Transportation_barriers_to_food_access. I am torn on how to deal with this section -- I kind of want to have subsections in Transportation barriers for urban and rural/suburban/frontier; but it kind of feels like we should keep the current separate Rural food desert section and if so, move rural transportation there?Skingski (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)(talk)

Hi Skingski, I think splitting the transportation issue between urban and rural makes sense. The issues are different; in urban settings issues such as bus routes are prevalent, wheras in rural areas distance is the main problem. Perhaps we should get another opinion or two, ask at WikiProject Food. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Cool, Dodger67. So to be clear, my idea is either:

1). Consolidate transportation info on rural food deserts into a new subsection of "Transportation barriers to food access." -- It sounds like you prefer this option?

OR

2). Have ""Transportation barriers to food access" appear before "Rural food deserts"; then move info specific to rural desert transportation into "Rural food deserts"

So you think this edit decision is important enough to warrant a post on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Food_and_drink?

Thank you for keeping an eye on the article! It gets depressing fixing what started out as a giant unreadable mess IMHO by myself.Skingski (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)(talk)

Skingski Yes I think that's the right question to put to the project. My main concern is to get rid of the repetition. I'm off to bed soon, it's getting late at this end. Hopefully there will be a clear consensus by the time I get back in the morning. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Dodger67. Did you see the feedback on the article by Bluerasberry? I am undertaking to follow his suggestions with a new page or two. Let me know Skingski (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)(talk)

Hi, Dodger67. I moved nation-specific info to a new page as suggested on WikiProject Food -- Food deserts by country. Everything looks rough right now, but I think things have a better chance to look great. There is so much opinion in the articles which can be weeded out. Let me know what you think should go or stay. Bluerasberry and you have differing opinions on the transpo/rural desert issue. I'll see what I can do with it. Thanks again!Skingski (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)(talk)

Hi,

Prostitution_by_country as a template for this page. If you can suggest another page like this, I would be very grateful! Obviously, I have a lot of work to do on this page... Skingski (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)(talk

)

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

Administrator changes

WP:300

)

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
• An
  WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation
  .

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

I included sport as a heading and wrote the

That's a good start Abishe. I also usually begin with such "easy" information before getting into the more complex stuff such as population data and politics. I presume you will have access to sources in local languages, I can unfortunately only search in English. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear Rodger (Dodger67), thank you for reviewing my page. Could you please point out any specific parts of the article that helped make your decision? I am looking to create this page with more neutral language so that it can be accepted in the future. Thank you very much.

@Dodger67: ArtFer1 (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dodger67: STOP editing my page im trying to fix it and youre adding more changes to it

ArtFer1 With all due respect, you are making it worse, and it's not your page, it'w Wikipedia's. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dodger67: Also with all due respect, I was trying to act upon the suggestions you gave me, but you were editing over me, re-adding the changes you wanted me to make. I will stop editing it, so that you may make the changes you find appropriate, as I believe you wouldn't want to see your edits removed because someone is editing over you, correct? Thank you for your help.

@Dodger67: I noticed you removed OTRS Pending images. They have tickets and were released under appropriate licences, was there something else wrong with them?

Also, according to the article The Peninsula Paris, some descriptive information on restaurants is allowed, and therefore, I will be adding some description, up to the amount of detail provided by this other article. If that is ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtFer1 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear Dodger67,

Many thanks for your editing and your additions to the article. I got a lot of history between 1920 and 2015 but that is largely based on internal information rather than publicly "reliable" sources. How should we proceed?

I agree on the relevance of the U.S. fine, but I think, the 15% profit drop statement is irrelevant. What do you think?

Thanks again - BaumannBB (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi BaumannBB those two stories are what came up on top when I did a news search on Google. How relevant a particular item is can only be judged within the context of the overall article, right now we've got very little context. You could try local libraries or newspaper archives to fill in some more of the history. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Ebarnes59 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Ebarnes59/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Dodger67, I would like to know if you declined my page because I did not cite properly. Madeline Jones Procter was my grand mother. I have 7 citations from articles that I have collected over the past 42 years stating her role as the sole-assistant to Anna Jarvis. I also included one citation from Anna Jarvis's wikipedia page which I can remove and cite from another written article. Please let me know if you want me to scan and send you the articles or what I need to do to improve this page so you will accept it. Thank you very much, Elizabeth Barnes Grand daughter of Madeline Jones Procter

Hi Ebarnes59, I see there's a lot of unformatted text on the page. I will have a go at tidying it up sometime today. I will let you know when I'm done and then advise you on next steps to take. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and tips. I will go over the Ideas and Tips for newbies. If I read correctly there is a Test page, and I will do my best to research the help links so that I can get all the edits added and make sure I have everything correct before anymore submissions. This was my first addition and finding out it can be rather complex. I know there are tons of pages needing reviews, so I want to make sure mine is in order so not to waste your time again. Thank you again Sir for your time and advise. PösX (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Teahouse for new editors. Roger (Dodger67) (talk

) 07:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm following you. My purpose here is putting the focus more on Greg now as a solo artist. We have been a professional national touring band from 2006, until my departure in 2012 from two failed back surgeries, that ended my stage career. Since that time, Greg has been writing and recording and back to touring. I see now where I need to make the edits and additions for this page. I still run the social media sites for the band, and wanting to take advantage of the opportunities here to go into more detail and promotional interest. Thank you for pointing me in the right directions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PösX (talk • contribs) 07:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Dodger67:,

I just wanted to thank you personally for helping me with my articles. I have also read some of your articles which have really opened my eyes to a number of things that I did not know before. I am still new to editing articles and hope that I get better. Thanks again.

Hi Philemon Matilda, are you familiar with the song "Langs Coetzenburg Vloei 'n Waterstroom"? That's a popular culture reference to the place. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dodger67, I am familiar indeed! Thank you for reminding me... Yes, the lyrics were composed by the rugby commentator/sports journalist and Huisgenoot writer Dirk Kamfer (who sadly threw himself off the Steenbras Dam wall). The music was a reworking by Dirkie de Villiers of an old German folk song. It was recorded in the FAK-Sangbundel. Do you think I should add it to my article on Coetsenburg (which hasn't yet been accepted): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Coetsenburg or should I add it to the article on Dirk Coetsee (1655-1725) which also hasn't yet been accepted after my re-editing and re-submission: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dirk_Coetsee

I also posted in that Wiki forum that you directed me to, the one about South Africa.

Hello again @Dodger67:, Thank you for accepting the Coetsenburg article and for your judicious editing suggestions with which I agree completely. All the best.

Dear Dodger67, thank you for taking the time to review my draft article on John Vorster Square. I understand your reason for not accepting my submission. My own reasons for submitting the article were three-fold: Firstly, when I did a search in the initial stages for ‘John Vorster Square under Apartheid’ I got a message to say that I may create a page with this title. Secondly, I think it is an error to redirect a Wikipedia search for John Vorster Square (which has current notability) to Johannesburg Central Police Station (which has no real relevance in an encyclopaedia). Thirdly, the existing article is not well written and contained some serious factual errors, the most glaring of which I have incidentally already corrected myself. But I agree with you that two articles on the same subject would be a duplication. I will thus discard my draft article (once I have read up on how to do so) and concentrate on improving the existing article. I would, however, like to propose that a search for John Vorster Square takes one to an article on John Vorster Square, and does not redirect to Johannesburg Central Police Station, as is currently the case. I will do a bit more reading up in the tutorials on how to request a name change ( I have seen it somewhere) and do so once I have learned how. Thanks again and kind regards from a newcomer Stephen J Marais (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't trying to fight on the Teahouse page. I'm new to this so I went to the help link and it told me to ask questions there so I posted it there. Then that same guy came in and started trying to make me look bad to undermine the validity of my concerns. I really am at a loss. I went to the dispute resolution page but I'm not sure where to go or if that's even the right way to proceed. Any advice?FP2C (talk) 08:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi

dispute resolution process become relevant. So, currently the article talk page is the only place where the dispute should be discussed. Keep in mind that the discussion must be about content, not about contributors. Roger (Dodger67) (talk

) 20:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the response, I will be sure to read through all related information. In relation to the article, it appears a majority of contributors are in agreement but there is a small group that disagrees, reverts the change, and labels others as partaking in an "edit war". Hopefully some level-headed, more experienced editors will arrive and set things straight. That being said, my question on Teahouse wasn't so much about that article specifically or the particular editor (I didn't name either) but about protocol regarding situations like that where, even though a majority seems to have been established, a small group seems unwilling to accept said majority opinion. To add complexity to the matter, as you can see in that Teahouse thread, even though I didn't mention the article or the editor in order to maintain objectivity from people who might answer about proper protocol, the editor "followed" me around trying to make me look bad and discredit my concerns (a task he evidently accomplished because he managed to get my question labeled as an argument). In addition, he has incorrectly labeled me as a "canvasser" which, according to what I've read, puts me at risk of being blocked. I am concerned that his having a more established history as an editor puts me at a disadvantage in this situation. What is the proper way of dealing with harassment like that? Thanks again for taking the time to respond to such a "newbie" issue! FP2C (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dodger67. Because it involves New Page and AfC reviewers along with other maintenance workers (SPI, COIN), an informal chat has begun on some aspects of paid editing. See Conflict of Interest - of a different kind. Please add your thoughts there. It is not a debate or RfC.
From

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

Can you undo the move you did on

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

SERIOUSLY?!?!?!?! READS LIKE AN ADVERTISEMENT?!?!?!

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

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

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

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

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

Hi

Writing better articles guide may be useful to you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk

) 11:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

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

See also Ejembi J. Onah. Certes (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Certes if you find such a situation again simply tag the page with {{db-g4|The AFD discussion page}} then it will be cleaned up soon thereafter. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks for dealing with the page this time. Certes (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey there! Id like to invite you to the

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

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

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

Alright. Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dodger67, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

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

Technology update:

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

General project update:

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

---

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

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

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

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

• Jane Kardi (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sereja Tkachenko (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial
  is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an
  bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation
  .

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Hello, Dodger67. It has been over six months since you last edited the

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Dodger67,

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

With ebest wishes,

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

Hello,

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

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

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

We really appreciate your input!

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

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

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

Primefac Please would you handle this matter, as you appear to be familiar with recent developments. Do also take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ejembi John Onah before deciding whether to undelete. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks alot and for your speedy response as I await Primefac response

Ejembi12 (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Until a few days ago I was watching the draft, but other than seeing that references were being added I didn't really check the content of the changes. In looking over the page history, the AFD, and the most recent AFC comment on the draft, the question becomes "is Onah notable". Obviously, the AFD said no, and the draft as it currently stands says no, but I'm generally of the opinion that drafts shouldn't be G4'd unless they are very clearly never going to be notable, or we've hit the point of tendentious editing. Given that the entirety of the draft is supported by primary sources, and the creator has had multiple (very large) IRC conversations with apparently no suitable improvements, maybe this draft should stay deleted; I can't find anything other than the three press releases found in the draft, indicating a lack of notability. In other words, my reply is "meh". Primefac (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

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

request that the page be undeleted, but it looks like neither I nor Dodger will be undeleting it. Primefac (talk

) 23:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely

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

Hi,

I noticed you rejected a draft outline I'm working on for addition to the set of outlines at

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

. Outlines are topic lists created in addition to the root articles, doubling as both a topic tree for the subject as well as a table of contents for the coverage of the entire subject on Wikipedia. The idea is to list the titles of all articles on the subject.

There are many articles about galaxies, so, naturally,

Draft:Outline of galaxies is being designed to navigate Wikipedia's entire coverage of the subject galaxy

.

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

Instructions for building outlines can be found at

WP:STAND

guidelines.

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

Please remove the submission declined tag from

Draft:Outline of galaxies

.

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

Hi The Transhumanist you clearly know exactly what you're doing and have far better knowlege of Outline pages than many others (including some AFC reviewers!). So I'm wondering why you are going through AFC at all? AFC is really meant for newbies who are not sure of the rules and standards, not experienced Wikipedians who are comfortable with creating new articles. So I'd recommend that you remove all the AFC material from the page and go ahead with creating the page by yourself. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

This was a AfC submission to postpone G13 deletion on a page that had not been edited for 6 months and push it toward being published. I'll clear the AfC stuff off if it's not done already. Draft space is fine to hold these pages, just put a note saying don't delete or edit them occasionally. Can someone ju promote the

Draft:Outline of galaxiesto mainspace? It's not complete but it's going to get more attention in mainspace to move ahead. User:The Transhumanist Legacypac (talk

) 07:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The Transhumanist Legacypac I moved it to mainspace. I also hid two empty sections, unhide them as soon as they have meaningful content. Some of the category markup is not working, I don't know how to fix it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know drafts had a shelf life. Well, that clears up that mystery. Thank you. The Transhumanist 17:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

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

• Uriahjamesgd (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Aradius Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Hi

notability of the company. Currently only one of the referenced sources (the last one) gives significant information about the subject, but it is actually a press release by the company itself published in an industry magazine, so it has no independence at all. On Wikipedia we do not really write about companies (or any other subjects), we actually write about what independent commentators have said about the subjects. Roger (Dodger67) (talk

) 18:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Uriahjamesgd I did a fairly comprehensive Google search (including News and Scholar searches) for "Aradius Group" but found nothing usable, so it's probably not worth pursuing any further. However, it may be possible, and more productive, to write an article about the Omaha Printing Company. Given its long history you might be able to find sources such as history books or academic journals that discuss it, try the Department of History of the University of Nebraska Omaha and the Nebraska State Historical Society. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

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

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Dodger67, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

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

Technology update:

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

General project update:

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

---

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

Draft submission on Emerging Markets Institute

Hi Dodger67, thank you very much for your feedback on the draft about Emerging Markets Institute. Sorry if I didn/t get all your points from the first time. Can I put this reference back - https://globaledge.msu.edu/global-resources/resource/30242? It was in the text you deleted. Can you please clarify if I understand correctly the comment that you left after the review - "submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources...". Does it mean the same - I should write the new text - or it is another kind of comment that there are not enough references in the article now even if I add a new text about "approach" and delete the section "history"? Does this comment "The tone of the draft is too promotional, probably because it paraphrases the source language too closely" mean that its better to check the whole text again to change the style? Thank you very much for your time!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaSolodova (talk • contribs) 06:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi MariaSolodova the references you have used are acceptable, so do continue using them. I have noticed that I mistook a different website for the subject's own. When you write from sources do take care that you do not paraphrase the source too closely, Wikipedia takes copyright and plagiarism very seriously, so recast the information so that it does not look copied.

The tone issue can largely be avoided by eliminating adjectives, only keep those that are truly necessary. Also avoid expressing or even implying any opinions, unless you are quoting the opinion of neutral reliable source - which you then reference directly after the quote.

About referencing, you have one paragraph that contains several references, basically the entire article should look like that. Every substantive fact or claim should have a reference to "say where you read it". The referencing standards of WP are basically the same as academic writing, except that we never accept "pers. comm." or unpublished sources. Luckily WP's definition of "published" is fairly broad - if a source can be accessed by the public (regardless of expense or preconditions) it is regarded as "published". However, you can only cite what you have actually read. I should stop here, this is far more detail than you really need this early in your "career" as a Wikipedian. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very very much for the answer, Dodger67! I will continue to work!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaSolodova (talk • contribs) 19:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

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

• Waihekedon (talk · contribs)
  • User:Waihekedon/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

I'm very grateful to both of you! Don

[[4]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waihekedon (talk • contribs) 23:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

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

• Bu11man7 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Bu11man7/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

Allomap - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlloMap_molecular_expression_testing Cologuard - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitarget_stool_DNA_screening_test

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

Bu11man7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bu11man7 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

This is regarding your reply for the page "Carving a sky" deletion

Dear respected friend, Thank you for your reply. I do respect the decision taken by my wikipedia administration friends about the page "Carving a sky". I will try working with the page and submit Draft to friends like you, keeping in mind the issues raised previously , sometime in future.

Thank you. Shui8 Shui8 (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Shui8 You really do need to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carving a Sky, please do so as soon as possible. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red

Hi there, Dodger. Glad to see you've become a member of Women in Red. As you have probably seen, "Women and disability" is one of our priorities for October. I hope you'll be able to participate in the creation of new articles. If ever you run into any problems, please let me know.--Ipigott (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

		Welcome to Women in Red's October 2017 worldwide online editathons. New: "Women and disability" "Healthcare" "Geofocus on the Nordic countries" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative Begin preparing for November's big event: Women World Contest
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list )

--Ipigott (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Dark marketing

Since you (quite rightly!) added {{

TNT, although that's probably premature. How on earth this got through AfC [5] is beyond me. Best, Voceditenore (talk

) 10:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Voceditenore, having just read it, I think getting a TNT decision at AFD is fairly likely. Besides the tagged issues it's stuffed with loads of jargon and the lead does not properly define the subject. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

If I do send it to AfD, I'm going to propose that it be moved back to Draft space. It should never have been moved out in that state. I'll wait a few days and will let you know if I open an AfD unless someone beats me to it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Good idea Voceditenore, draftspace is a good place to apply some TNT and rewrite it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark marketing. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Disability and women's health

Hi! I'm going to try to finish up

Draft: Disability and women's health this month. Want to work on it with me? If you don't have time, that's cool too... I still need you because I can't access some of the articles. I thought I could find them through EBSCO, but I'm coming up short. So that's all (for now). :) Megalibrarygirl (talk

) 18:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Megalibrarygirl Sure, I'd be happy to work with you. I have copies of most of the sources listed on the draft so let me know what you need and I'll mail them. Right now I'm busy expanding Sandra Welner, next I'd like to have a go at Karin Muraszko, an article I originally created. I've just listed Welner's journal articles, some could be useful for the women's health article. It's almost 9pm here so I won't be online for much longer now, but I'll be back tomorrow of course. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Awesome! No rush, we have all month. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

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

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
• Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

• You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

• Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
• A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

23:32:32, 3 October 2017 review of submission by Seastarlaura

• Seastarlaura (talk · contribs)
  • User:Seastarlaura/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to know why my second subscription was declined by you. The first submission was not pasted completely and was missing some footnotes. The second submission is in good form, I believe. Seastarlaura (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I would like to request information on why my article regarding John Newmeyer was rejected for the second time. My first submission was rejected for incomplete footnotes which was actually a copy and paste error. My second submission is complete and accurate, I believe. Please tell me why you are not happy with the content. Thank you very muchSeastarlaura (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Seastarlaura, the problem is the way you've done the referencing. We require complete bibliographic information, just the name and date of what might be a newspaper is simply not enough. Please add full details such as the article title, author's name, page number, etc. I have fixed one of the references as an example for you to follow. The reference is actually embedded within the text, that is what is meant by "inline footnotes". BTW, the formal encyclopedic style requires that you refer to the subject by his surname, not first name - State his full name at the start and subsequently only surname. If you need any further assistance you're welcome to contact me again. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

"White people" and "people of European descent"

Howzit Dodge,

What would you think about a proposal to delete categories like Category:White South African people or Category:White Namibian people and merge them with categories such as Category:South African people of European descent and Category:Namibian people of European descent, respectively?

The argument has been made that since self-identification as "white" is not a defining characteristic, categories describing "white people" of countries like Namibia or South Africa are redundant.

I wouldn't think the two categories are entirely interchangeable ("people of European descent" would cover Coloureds as well as whites), but I would love to hear your opinion on this. --Katangais (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Katangais where is the discussion happening? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, link to the discussion here. --Katangais (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

17:53:19, 6 October 2017 review of submission by Lizzirees

• Lizzirees (talk · contribs)
  • User:Lizzirees/sandbox/Alertus Technologies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzirees (talk • contribs) 17:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Sausage party

When time permits, would you please weigh in on the kielbasa article talk page regarding the ambiguious origins of kielbasa and its common place Central European cuisine? Thank you 2601:240:C504:7AE0:50AF:7AA:CA03:4F06 (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

08:02:14, 10 October 2017 review of submission by Coralroot

• Coralroot (talk · contribs)
  • User:Coralroot/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As I have tried to explain several times, this article needs a separate page and should not be on the Sebastian Faulks' page about his novel Human Traces. Galinon-Mélénec's research is an academic subject on the Human Trace and belongs to the academic discipline of Information and Communication Sciences - semiology, semiotics, disciplines concerned with signs and traces but NOT in the general layman's sense that Faulks uses in his novel. One of your "specialists" on the help desk told me to create a new article and submit it, which I did. Now another "specialist" rejects the article. Please could you tell me what I'm supposed to do? Coralroot (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Coralroot the problem is that you placed a statement at the top of the draft that says the draft is part of the same topic as the other article. I have changed that statement to a proper hatnote about the novel article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I eventually found the content that you incorrectly added to the article about the novel, complete with correct formatting, so I brought it back to the sandbox. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

13:58:59, 15 October 2017 review of submission by Das48

• Das48 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Das48/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The main article on the Cheap Repository Tracts (which is linked to this list) contains fifteen independent sources indicating that the subject is sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Only two refereed sources specifically provide a list of the titles that were published. It seemed preferable to include these lists in a separate 'List of' article rather than unnecessarily to bulk out the original article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Das48 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Das48 That makes sense, I'll move it now. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

please clarify your definition of "depth" re notability vs. wiki policy

Hello Dodger67,

Thanks for your prompt review of my AfC article where you said (my emphasis added):

Most of the sources are local to Cairns and none have the depth required for notability.

Unfortunately the wiki policy does not define "depth" nor does it ask editors to subjectively assess "depth". What wiki policy does ask for is listed here, and I would love for you to clarify your position (and add to the debate) here:

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Adding_a_consensus_to_NPOL

Yours Sincerely,

Kurt.

Skinduptruk (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

November editathons from Women in Red: Join us!

		Welcome to Women in Red's November 2017 worldwide online editathons. New: The Women in Red World Contest Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list )

-Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Dodger67, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see
  User:Primefac/revdel
  .

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Your recent AfC approval

Hi, Dodger - I was going to review Daughter of Tintagel this morning but I see you're on the ball. When I glanced at it last night, I was concerned a bit about possible copyvio and had a chance to check it this morning. You might want to review it again. Thanks, ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Atsme I was going to markup those large quotes as blockquotes, but on second thought they are far too large and effectively are the entire content of a section, so I deleted it. The remaining two short quotes are of acceptable length and are properly punctuated as quotes. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)