User talk:Dodger67/Archive 19

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.

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

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
• A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
• Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

hello dodger67! i notice you moved my addition of Klavdiya Kalugina ("Sniper" page, under "20th Century") from first position to further down the list of 20th century snipers. in viewing the editing history, i see you wrote "better located in the list by number of kills." forgive me if i misunderstood that you were the one who made this change (and that this was the reason); i'm new to wikipedia editing and i might have gotten the facts wrong here. however, if you are the author of this edit (i.e., moving Klavdiya Kalugina to further down the list of 20th century snipers): i think your idea that the snipers are better listed according to some order certainly makes sense. alphabetical order of last name is one possibility. another is what you suggest (by number of kills). however, if "list by number of kills" is to be respected, shouldn't there be others that are moved around too? for example, Billy Sing is the first one in the list, but Lyudmila Pavlichenko, who is placed much further down on the list, has more kills. can we come to some agreement on how the names should be ordered, and then order them according to this principle? it's best to follow some principle for all the names listed (not just for some names). let me know what you think. thanks for all your expertise and work on this page, best Springfulutopia (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Springfulutopia Before my edit the paragraph about Kalugina was located at the very top of the "20th Century" section, above several First World War snipers, so it was chronologically out of place. That's why I moved it to among the Second World War snipers. After chronology (WW1 before WW2, etc) there is clearly a secondary sort order based on number of kills, so that's where I placed the paragraph within the other paragraphs about WW2 snipers. Because the list as a whole is about history the primary sort order neccessarily has to be chronological, that's just how history works. The secondary sort order is less "preordained", it could be alphabetical, by country, etc. However as the section is about snipers who are noted particularly for the number of their kills, that rather strongly suggests the order should be by that number. Until a few Russian women were added, that was the already established sort order, my edits simply restored it. If you feel strongly that the order should be different, please start a discussion on the article talk page so that consensus can be determined. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

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

why was my page declined? their is nothing wrong with it.

Hi Memenade, the short answer is that a paragraph about your own music preferences is of no relevance at all to Wikipedia. If you were a famous music critic or academic it might be relevant, but then only within the context of a comprehensive biographical article. I will post a message to your talk page containing some guidance for new Wikipedia contributors. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

i see why my page was declined but why would a page about me having my music preference not be relavent, its a page about my life. Memenade (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

See my reply to your post above. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Hello, I am not quite sure what is it that can be changed inorder to give a neutral point of view on my article's topic. I have tried to summarize the content thats the reason the article has points under nearly every heading and sub-heading. As I am stating facts about a mechanism of communication that I acquired from the mentioned sources nothing I wrote in my article is my opinion/finding and the mentioned references and citations are the actual source. Your guidance will really help me go forward in publishing my first wikipedia article so I hope to get a suggestion from you. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcevishal (talk • contribs) 15:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Teahouse or subject-specialist assistance at WP:WikiProject Telecommunications. I hope this is helpful and not too much detail - writing an article from scratch is one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk

) 17:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Bruschi12 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Fethard St Mogues GAA Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

A lot of the information is without reference as there is no reference point on line for it. It is a local sports club and the info posted here is a direct link to the same info on the clubs facebook page. I doubt facebook counts as a credible link, but this is it here. https://www.facebook.com/pg/fethardstmogues/about/?ref=page_internal

We were hoping to have a substantial and proper account of the history of the club available. I had looked at other GAA clubs in Ireland to see the type of information provided, and they seem to be similar in its approach. see this one here as an example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilmacud_Crokes_GAA

If there is anything specific that does not meet guidelines or anything to adjust, I could see about altering that. But I just didnt want to lose the whole history of the formation and development of the club due to no resources online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruschi12 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bruschi12 sources do not need to be online. Try local libraries that might have newspaper or sport magazine collections. You might have noticed that the other article you've mentioned is already tagged for being inadequately referenced. Another route would be to actually write an article about the club's history to be published by a reputable magazine that has proper editorial control. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dodger67 further to your comments, I have a published edited magazine that has a history of the club included in it. Please excuse my ignorance on referencing sources etc on Wikipedia, but how does one use this as a source so the article can be published? I have a copy here that I can take pictures of? Is it a case of submitting these and for someone to view and evaluate? Thanks for you help (and patience!) Bruschi12 (talk) 10:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)bruschi12

Hi again Bruschi12, I see you have already used the "cite news" referencing template in the draft. For the magazine you use the similar {{cite magazine}} template.

Do not upload any scans or photos of the magazine as that would most likely be a copyright violation.

Just give as much of the detail about the article as possible; magazine name, author, article title, magazine issue, date, page number(s), etc. by filling the cite template. Simply leave out any bits that do not apply such as the url. Hope this helps Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dodger67 perfect, thanks, I'll do that so. Thanks for your help.Bruschi12 (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

		Welcome to Women in Red's December 2017 worldwide online editathons. New: "Seasonal celebrations" "First Ladies" "Go local!" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative Remember the World Contest closes on Thursday, 30 November
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list )

--Ipigott (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. TKK! bark with me! 20:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Dodger67. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I have never written messages here, so I hope I'll do it correctly. First, thank you so much for looking at my article. Of course there's still some overlap, as my intention is to delete the information from the faculty page which is not actually about the Faculty. The Faculty content is the programs related to the Faculty, the agricultural-educational history, and maybe the Barley Ring etc. Dalhousie University has also other campuses with each other Faculties, and it would be great if down the road we could have the Faculty pages (e.g. some Faculties such as the Faculty of engineering have locations on various campuses). The campuses and what they offer are vastly different. They are driving hours apart from each other. Distinctive articles for each of the campuses as well as for each of the Faculties are my goal. The campuses are mentioned on the Dalhousie University page and subsequently should contain links to the various campus pages. I hope this explains what I am trying to do. Thanks for your consideration. Happy Monday! Yvonne PS: Turns out I got this partly wrong: On the AC Campus it's the Department of Engineering under the Faculty of Agriculture, and the Faculty of Engineering sits on the Halifax campus. I will change that. However, I still believe we need faculties and campus sites separately - our other campuses are home to various other faculties. YSmomilomii (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)YSmomilomiiYSmomilomii (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi YSmomilomii, your plan to separate articles about campusses and departments makes a lot of sense. Just keep in mind that when you move content between pages that you leave a proper attribution statement in the edit summary at both the source and destination pages: "Content moved to/from Article xxxx".

Hi, Shall I throw the content out or add it to Dalhousie University of Agriculture? Whereas the Gardens, the Student Life parts etc. really don't belong to the Faculty imo, and the other campuses should have equivalent information sites, and then one runs into the issue with multiple Faculties on one campus ... Well, let me know, please. Yvonne YSmomilomii (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)YSmomilomii

Hi again

WP:TEAHOUSE. Roger (Dodger67) (talk

) 17:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Roger Thank you for your feedback! I'll try to sort this out tonight and add sources where missing. If I can sort out AC faculty and AC campus tonight that would be great ... I'll use the "Content moved to/from Article xxxx", thank you for the advice! <3 Have a good night! YSmomilomii (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Yvonne (YSmomilomii)

Hello, thanks for reviewing our article (Soldier's Dream). We think the topic is very important and interesting and we'd like to improve it to create the new page. We'd love to have as many suggestions as possible. "This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter", which other information/sections about the poem could we add to solve this issue? Is there any other improvement we could make? Yours sincerely. Francina* (talk) 11:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Draft:Soldier's Dream, could you give me a direct link to it? According to the page history the only edits I've ever done was this attempt

to improve the page layout, dated 18 October 2017.

BTW, the context seems ok now, but this is not a review opinion, just a quick impression. On my screen (an 11" Android tablet running the Chrome browser) the layout of the lead section still looks overcrowded with boxes and images squeezing the text from both sides.

BTW×2 Is this a class project, it's very rare to see so many users all working on one draft? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

One of us had accidentally submitted the draft (before terminating it) and today this alerts has arrived "Submission declined on 18 October 2017 by Dodger67."

That's right and we will soon work to better format/size the page.

Yes, it's exactly a class project. But we are allowed (encouraged) to ask for help to other users in order to discover and exploit any instruments offered by wikipedia. Thanks again. Francina* (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Francina* tell your class that the WP:Teahouse is a help page specifically aimed at beginners. WP:WikiProject Poetry is a good place for topic-specific advice and assistance too. I don't see any class project or student editor templates, is your class registered on the Wikipedia Education system? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Goodevening Dodger67. Actually we are not registered, what is that useful for? Francina* (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Francina*: Hi there. There are some great resources available, including handouts, interactive training, assignment plans, etc. available for instructors and students contributing to Wikipedia for a class assignment. Could you tell me the name/email of the instructor and the school/university so we can try to connect him/her with information about those resources? --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Student projects on the Wikipedia Education System

Hi. I need some (belatedly!) help to register my class projects on the Wikipedia Education System. I tried a request on the Educational Noticeboard in October, and put this on the student'sdraft pages :

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Fall 2017. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Libera Università Carlo Cattaneo/Limelightangel's course (Fall 2017)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Application for course page currently pending on Wikipedia:Education noticeboard Limelightangel (talk) 08:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Limelightangel

Can you advise? I have run this exercise for several years at LIUC, Castellanza, Italy. We currently have 7 draft pages in progress. Many thanks! Limelightangel (talk) 09:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC) Limelightangel

Hi Limelightangel I see your October post has actually been archived. I'm not really familiar with the inner workings of the educational program so all I can advise is to post again. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@VMasrour (WMF): you mentioned on the ENB that you were reaching out to Wikimedia Italy, but it was a different username that came up there so thought I'd ping here. It sounds like Limelightangel is the instructor. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

: Thanks for letting me know, i will ask WMIT to see if they've had any results. VMasrour (WMF) (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

: : @VMasrour (WMF): Hi. This class project is running on Wiki English platform, and just being completed. 3 new pages have been accepted, 3 are pending review, and 1 not yet submitted. Limelightangel (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I note you have reverted my recent edit for Fly Blue Crane, where I had marked it as defunct, because, in your words, there was “No evidence that it is actually definitely dead”. I disagree, and was wondering whether you have more information than I?

I marked it as defunct because: 1) it is over 12 months since they had to enter Business Rescue, and there has been no announcement regarding the supposed investors; 2) there have been no posts to their Facebook or Twitter accounts since 12 December 2016 and 19 January 2017 respectively, and their website is closed; 3) flights ceased on 3 February, and there has been no news of their reinstatement since; 4) they have no fleet – their two aircraft (still visible on websites such as Planespotters.com), which were leased from Solenta, have had their Fly Blue Crane livery removed, and both planes have operated flights for fastjet with the last two days.

So unless you know different, there is considerable evidence that it is dead and indeed none that it is not, so my edit should therefore stand. The article can always be reinvigorated in the event that the airline rises from the grave. Thanks. Carbonix (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Carbonix, the problem basically is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". We have no proof that the company has actually been liquidated yet. All we have currently is the anouncement of business rescue. Imho that means it's status should remain as "suspended" until we get confirmation either way. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Roger, thanks for this. But you are talking about whether the company has been formally liquidated or not. The issue here is whether the airline should be classified as 'defunct' - a dictionary definition of which is "no longer in effect or use; not operating or functioning". Obviously, an announcement of a company's liquidation makes things a lot clearer for us; but the absence of one does not stop the airline being defunct. It is not difficult to find other South African examples included in the list of defunct airlines - Trek Airways, Flitestar and more recently Interair South Africa are clearly defunct, but I can find no comment or evidence that these companies were formally liquidated. But no one would argue they are not defunct.

In short, we are agreed Fly Blue Sky has long ceased operations, has no staff and no planes, and we therefore need no other evidence to say it is defunct. Carbonix (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Carbonix I think we should open this topic to a wider audience, so I'll post about it at WT:WikiProject Airlines#When is an airline definitely "defunct"? so that broader agreement about the definition of "defunct airline" can be reached. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Roger; thanks, I have no problem with this. I should perhaps point out that a clear outcome (if we get one!) will impact past classifications, in the various country lists ('List of Defunct airlines of XXXX') and country templates (such as Template:Airlines of Mexico), where previous editors have judged which airlines are defunct based on the facts available. Carbonix (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Hi, I have attempted to add correct information with citations for each fact to the page, Jean Theslof. This page currently carries inaccurate historical data. Please kindly accept these edit suggestions or kindly suggest what more details I need to add the correct information (with provided respectable news source citations for each fact)?

I do not know how to code beyond basic EAD born docs - or what this particular form of code is? So all suggestions on how to add my suggested factual information would be greatly appreciated. thank you.

Thedecentone (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Thedecentone you need to add your content directly to the existing article at Jean Theslöf, working on a draft when the article already exists is a waste of time and effort, because such a draft can never be accepted as having multiple articles about a given subject is not allowed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dodger67,

Thanks for reviewing my recent post "Laura Briggs"! I am wondering how I can index this page so it shows up in searches? Thanks!

Faunevita (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Faune

Hi Faunevita indexing will happen automatically, we have no way to influence when Google and other search engines will index the page, it can take a few days. BTW I tagged a section for having no references, maybe you can fix it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Dodger67 for your response. I'm not trying to get this page to show up more that is usual in searches, just when someone searches her. I also wanted to let you know that I did add a source to the section without any that you had flagged. Thanks! Faunevita (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Faune

Hi again Faunevita, don't forget to remove the "unreferenced section" tag, it's directly below the section heading. If you need any further help, you know where to find me. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Joe Roe

JzG

Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

• Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
• A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

Miscellaneous

• Over the last few months, several users have reported
  WP:RFPP
  . It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
• The
  Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page
  , and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

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

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• BLPPROD
  candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• 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) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dodger67,

Thank you for addressing my recently created page. I would like to get the content ready and elligible for publication as soon as possible. Can you explain more in-depth why the page I worked to create was deleted for "promotional" purposes under the G11 rule? There does not seem to be any biased information in that text, nor links to where one may purchase the album. Thousands of pages like this exist, so I am confused as to why this one was no good. Please advise on what features should be removed.

Thank you, Bnrdmnd 12/12/2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnrdmnd (talk • contribs) 21:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dodger67,

I have made it clear in my User page that I am an employee of companies who have asked me to create and/or update Wikipedia articles for their respective content. Hopefully disclosing this information will expedite the approval process? Please let me know if more can be done to push this along on my behalf. Thank you. --Bnrdmnd (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dodger67: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Abishe (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Abishe (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Prosperous New Year 2018. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Abishe (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

		Welcome to Women in Red's January 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: "Prisoners" New: "Fashion designers" New: "Geofocus: Great Britain and Ireland" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list )

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

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

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found

HERE

.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• A
  WP:RFA
  and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
• The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

• Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

Howzit Dodge,

I recently brought up the capitalisation of races in a discussion with another contributor. For some time now, I have not been capitalising the races on South Africa-related articles, and indeed have been reverting existing caps to lowercase. The way I was taught in school was that races are not capitalised, but specific ethnic groups are ("black" and "white" would not be capitalised, but "Cape Coloured", "Xhosa", or "Indian" would).

What exactly is the norm in South African English? There appears to be no consensus as to whether or not racial demonyms should be capitalised as a matter of course.

Thanks! --Katangais (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Katangais, I agree with you; black, white, Zulu, Afrikaner, Khoisan. Race is lowercase but an ethnonym is a proper noun so it must be written with a capital. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Jmontouliu (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Punta del Tigre B (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Dodger67, and happy new year! Thank you for taking the time to review my draft page on the "Punta del Tigre B" Power Plant. Since my last submission was declined on the 26th December 2017 I have been working to improve the page's referencing by including references to several press releases as well as specific mentions by equipment suppliers and financial institutions that were involved in the project. I have also taken out from the draft pieces of information that could be considered (at least in my view) "original research", and made efforts to justify most of the submission's statements by external sources. I feel quite confident that the independent coverage requirements are reasonably addressed now, but I am not completely sure if I am overreferencing or if the sources I quoted can be considered in some way partial or at least not independent enough, or even if there is a cleaner way of presenting the references to make the page tidier and more readable.

I would wish to have your comments before resubmitting the draft, which I will take into consideration as kind advice.

Thanks again for your time. Best regards

Jmontouliu (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Should Talk:European Union disability policy have class=Draft or some other class? If some other class, can I change it?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dthomsen8, It's not in sandbox or draftspace so it obviously cannot be Draft-class. It's also much too long to be a Stub. It does however contain quite a few spelling and grammar errors, so Start-class is arguably the highest classification it can now have. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

		Welcome to Women in Red's February 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: "Black women" New: "Mathematicians and statisticians" New: "Geofocus: Island women" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk ) 14:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

A year ago ...

South Africa Paralympics
... you were recipient no. 1565 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Chris troutman I can't believe it's been a year already! I've not been quite as active as I thought I might be, but I hope I've done some useful mopping. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC
  Wikipedian-in-Residence
  or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
• Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

• A
  automatic edit summaries
  .

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee
  standardized editnotice
  when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

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

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
• We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

• We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

• ACTRIAL
  will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
• Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the
  RfD
  .

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dodger67, Some months ago I submitted a draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fethard_St_Mogues_GAA_Club) and based on your suggestions, I have now resubmitted for approval. Could you please take a look adn make sure it is satisfactory for you as per your suggestions? Thanks, Bruschi. Bruschi12 (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, with plans to renew work with a followup grant proposal to support finalising the deployment of CollaborationKit!

-— Isarra ༆ 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and help with the formatting. You say that some paragraphs are entirely un-referenced. Does this mean that the article will be rejected? Also can I use the information on his website as a reference?

EmmaJayneRWEmmaJayneRW (talk) 11:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

		Welcome to Women in Red's March 2018 worldwide online editathons. Historically, our March event has been one of the biggest offerings of the year. This year, we are collaborating with two other wiki communities. Our article campaign is the official on-line/virtual node for Art+Feminism. Our image campaign supports the Whose Knowledge? initiative. Women's History Month 2018 Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk ) 16:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Can you fully protect my Userpage?? So that only I can editFountaineditor (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:RFPP. Primefac (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker

)

• Linusado66 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:VR't Ventures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have provided valid references from third parties mentioning this big up and coming virtual reality company. I definitely think it deserves a spot on wikipedia as they are revolutionizing art in a way where you can access museum exhibitions from anywhere in the world. I re wrote my article three times taking in the notes the reviewers were telling me, but now I believe I have followed all the wikipedia rules and really would like this page to be published.

How is this not a valid source? https://news.artnet.com/art-world/experience-kerry-james-marshall-mastry-vr-1140995 This is just one of the 12+ articles I found online.

Please help me understand as I see multiple wiki pages with no valid links of resources.

Thanks Linusado66 (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

Lourdes†

AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V

† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

• The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
• Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
• A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
• A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

• CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
• The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.

Obituaries

• Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

Hi Dodger67

On 21 February 2018 you deleted the pages Category:Scottish Paralympic competitors and Category:Scottish Paralympic competitors.

Your deletion reason did not meet any of

Hi BrownHairedGirl - Those categories should be empty (thus deletable per C1) because there is no such thing as a Scottish Paralympic team. Scotland, England, Wales are parts of Britain, they all compete as Team Great Britain. Just like Oklahoma, Florida, New York, etc. do not have Olympic teams separately from Team USA. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Dodger67, this is not complicated:

1. Please read
   WP:C1
   does not apply. You believe they should be empty, but that is not the test in C1. There was no basis for speedy deletion.
2. If you believe those categories should be empty, then open a
   WP:CfD discussion and seek a WP:Consensus
   .
3. the categories by Paralympic team take the form Category:Paralympic competitors for foo. These are categories by nationality, not by team, so they are named differently: Category:Fooish Paralympic competitors. If you disagree with this form of categorisation, seek a consensus.

Please do not use your admin tools as a substitute for seeking consensus ... and please do not delete a category page while the category is still populated. That just creates a redlink on each page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl thanks, I won't be following up this matter, per the consensus established at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 17#English and Scottish Olympic competitors which can naturally be extended to Paralympians. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to fix the copy-paste, but it wasn't a good-faith copy-paste. Since it was an exact copy of the same text using a different account name, it was either

Thanks for the heads-up. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

autobiography in. Third, there are really two different editors, and the text of the two drafts on the same person is different. This is relatively rare but not unknown, and then the two editors can be asked to pull their edits together into one draft. Robert McClenon (talk

) 17:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon Your first and third scenarios are fairly common in the AFC stream. Another that sometimes happens; a new editor comes along, finds a (semi-)abandoned draft, then copies it to his/her sandbox to work on it, while leaving the old draft untouched. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

More copypasta

On my browser the flag of South Africa appeared as the old Apartheid flag, I omitted it to be accurate and to prevent allegations of racism on Wikipedia. I do apologize as it appears to have been an error on my browser. DumaTorpedo (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi DumaTorpedo actually somebody did change the flag in the template. I undid the change and put the template back on the article page. In future please keep in mind that South African law has no relevance on Wikipedia. In any case the "banning" of the old flag is only being discussed as an idea, it's nowhere near becomming a law yet. If such a ban does ever happen it could not apply to articles discussing history of the country. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear Dodger67,

Thanks for taking the time to review the posting for Politics Done Right. I made the modifications from the previous decline by including citations from CNN, the Houston Chronicle, etc. I included ISBN for the book. I even included images of our talk show in several venues (these images were subsequently deleted even though I own them).

The section without citation are interviews that were done by Politics Done Right. Should I provide a link to each interview? I have all of those.

The other sections that do not include attribution concern the topics the show covers. The corroboration for that is the show itself. Should I link to specific shows?

Please note that the show is carried by the Pacifica Network and is broadcast live on air on KPFT 90.1 FM as corroborated by the KPFT and Pacifica Network citation. Shows like the Majority Report and The Dave Pakman show which are similar to Politics Done Right but not broadcast on air live already have Wikipedia acceptance.

Thanks for your kind review.

Regards, Edgar

EdgarBrown (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi

independent sources

wherever possible. Wikipedia does not really care for what the subject has to say about itself. Notability is based on what outsiders such as reviewers, professional journalists or academics have published about the subject.

You say "our talk show", that implies that you have some sort of involvement with the subject. In that case mandatory wikipedia policy requires you to declare your conflict of interest, and particularly if you are writing the article as part of your job or are in any other way being rewarded for doing so. Please carefully read and comply with

WP:PAID insofar as they are applicable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk

) 07:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dodger67, I am an avid listener to the show and asked them why they did not have a Wikipedia page and then told them I would put one up. They give us all ownership of that show and we all call it our show. You should check it out and listen to what the host says. I will link to the actual sources and find more citations. I simply surprised that what I have placed so far isn't enough especially given similar shows that are already listed that are much less skimpy on citations and are not even broadcast over the airwaves. It just makes me wonder if there is something else here. That's all. Thanks for your reply, Edgar 14:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdgarBrown (talk • contribs)

Hi again

WP:OTHERSTUFF has useful information about this issue. Roger (Dodger67) (talk

) 18:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Larszhansen (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mali-Folkecenter Nyetaa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Larszhansen (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear Dodger, Please this is my first time on Wikipedia as a contributor. I did not know that you would react that quickly. I posted contents from our web-site with a view to save it and edit it later to make it more neutral, taking for granted that you have a heavy backlog. You mention 2 months of waiting time, but in my case it took less than two hours.

Please, people should have the chance to familiarize themselves with Mali Folkecenter for Renewable Energy, so please give me a change to edit the text so it is neutral and informative.

Best regards, Lars ZH

Hi Larszhansen, you are welcome to continue working on the draft. When you are ready for another review you simply click the blue "Resubmit" button in the pink review box. The two months mentioned isactually the longest that it might take for a review to be done, but as you've seen it could be much quicker so don't resubmit it before you think its ready for another review.

Is there anything you would like specific advice about? I'd be happy to assist where I can. You should look for

independent sources such as the mainstream press, magazines and perhaps academic or technical journals that discuss the organization's work in some depth and detail. Sources may be in any language, though we prefer English if they are available. Hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk

) 23:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Dodger, I shall put in the (neutral) core contents and add and edit some more when time allows me. Hope that is ok? I guess you/wikipedia do not have the facility to translate into French, or how does that work? Also: I am not too sure how I (technically) handle the various boxes and columns that the reader sees when opening Wikip. Do you as an editor take care of that as well? Best, Lars — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larszhansen (talk • contribs) 13:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi again Larszhansen, the priority now is to get the basic text done with proper referencing. Don't worry if your editing skills are not yet up to doing the "pretty" stuff, that can be fixed later by others. Writing for Wikipedia is a collaborative process, there are many editors who specialise in fixing layout and formatting. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear Dodger, Please tell me exactly what is wrong. As far as I can tell, there are plenty similar articles on Wikepedia: Mentioning and news clips and websites of collaborators. Some of them are considerably shorter than the Mali Folkecenter text. Please explain exactly I shall do. Best, Lars — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.64.107.219 (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear Dodger: I read this guideline: "This page in a nutshell: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it.".

Please, as far as I can tell I have now included quite a lot of "independent secondary sources" that ought to verify the notability of Mali Folkecenter. Is it because I have not put the references in the right spot? I am still new to this. So please assist. Best, Lars — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larszhansen (talk • contribs) 10:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I did look, thanks. That was the only one I could find. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao Thanks, I see the error happened because someone had previously added an African-American category. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Well...part of the error came about also because someone created the category "Black Biopics" and didn't really define how it should be populated. So it was moved to a new name. Which is fine if it's a category only for films about Americans. But what about films for non-American figures? Do we want a category for those? I'm agnostic on the subject; I was just running a bit of cleanup. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, categorising films by the race of the subject is imho probably not particularly useful, and surely not uncontroversial. Perhaps a topic for a CFD discussion? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not quite convinced it's not useful. But it needs to be defined properly, which this wasn't. Yes, probably something to raise at CFD at some point. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dodge,

I'm proposing we scrap the current "variants" section on the Ratel IFV article (the table with the lineart images) and replace it with a more traditional text-based section delineated into 1) production marks, 2) variants by armament, and 3) derivatives, as per EE-11 Urutu. Could you have a look and let me know what your thoughts are? I'd value your input on this.

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Dodger67:

I received a note from you earlier this week about a draft article I am writing and wondered if you could tell me where things stand. Here's the article I am referring to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Context-Based_Sustainability

I was told by someone on your help line today that we cannot use quoted statements from others in an article even if they come from publications that are copyrighted by me. The statements from others I want to use constitute independent and reliable third parties whose comments about our subject are informative. They just happen to be taken from a book that I wrote and copyrighted. Is it true that I cannot include quotes from my own copyrighted publications in my Wikipedia article?

Next, I am prepared to add all of the missing references and then resubmit the article for your review. Should I take that step now or do you have additional comments coming back to me that I should see first?

Thanks for your help!

Mark (Mwmcelroy) Mwmcelroy (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.  » Shadowowl | talk 14:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaWiki message delivery (talk • contribs) 03:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

		Welcome to Women in Red's April 2018 worldwide online editathons. Focus on: April+Further with Art+Feminism Archaeology Military history (contest) Geofocus: Indian subcontinent Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list or Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred --Rosiestep (talk ) 12:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hello Dodger67. Can you please help me with something? Within the past week or so, you were instrumental in helping me to get a new article launched (ContextBased Sustainability). Part of that was that you included a list of issues at the top of the page that needed to be resolved afterwards. Over the past several days, I have made many painstaking efforts to address those issues, some of which you acknowledged and then took steps to delete them from the list at the top of the page. Yesterday, another editor (Kirbanzo) stepped into the picture and undid all of that, restoring the page to what it was on 3/25, including the list of issues that you and I had worked so hard to resolve. Now I can't get Kirbanzo to respond further. I really must protest in the strongest possible terms to what seems like an arbitrary, capricious and downright thoughtless move on that editor's part and was hoping you could intervene to help me get the page restored to what it was as of yesterday when I made my most recent change to it. Can you help? This revolving door of editors stepping into and out of the picture without regard to what has come before is terribly dysfunctional.

With thanks in advance, Mwmcelroy2601:185:8301:911E:ACAD:F211:31B8:9DCC (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)