User talk:Dodger67/Archive 12

Hi Dodger67, as possibly the most active Wikipedia editor in South Africa Wikimedia ZA would like to invite you to join the Wikimedia South Africa Annual General Meeting on the 28 November 2015. Wikimedia South Africa exists to promote Wikipedia in the country and improve the coverage of South African related topics on Wikipedia. To do this we need the involvement of active Wikipedia editors such as yourself. The AGM will be held in Cape Town on 8 Spin Street starting at 10:00. If you can not or do not wish to attend in person than please let me know and I will will add your email address to the Google Hangout invitation list. Thanks, Discott (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Discott, thanks for the invite, please sign me up on Hangout. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Great, just added you to the list.--Discott (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Flixtey (talk) 08:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Flixtey - no mail yet :( I have checked my mail setup, it is definitely correct. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dodger67: I did early on but i have sent again right now. Flixtey (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Flixtey: Got it, thanks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Flixtey: It's been about a month since my application was approved, when/how does actual access get implemented? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the long wait @Dodger67:. We are currently waiting on the partner to revert with account creation details. We will alert you once all is through. --Flixtey (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Dodger67:, hope you have received your login credentials for the Sabinet Library? --Flixtey (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Need your pro help on the new draft. Thank u. Probenciano (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Probenciano, I'm sorry I can't help you with this topic, Philipino media personalities are way outside my "comfort zone" and competence. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response on that topic at the Help Desk. If more editors would speak as plainly, it would save everyone's time, including the perpetrator's. Maproom (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• JeanetteW407 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:David Ward (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there,

I have amended the article as per the areas you noted that required citation. The citation at the end of the second sentence sentence in the third paragraph applies to both the first and second sentence. Is this acceptable?

Hi JeanetteW407, the referencing is looking much better - citing multiple sentences like that is correct - if an entire paragraph has a single source one citation at the end is correct. I removed an external link you embedded within the prose - we don't allow such links in the article text. I replaced it with a wikilink for a potential new article about "The End Tree". Another minor change I made was to remove the piping of the link to Union Chapel, Islington - hiding the fact that it is in Islington serves no purpose, it is better to be clear about which one of the fifteen different Union Chapels (that we know of so far) in the world it is.

If you have sources that give some personal history and background about Ward, such as when and where he was born, his education, family life, etc., expanding the draft with such information would be good - provided the sourcing is good. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dodger67, Thanks very much for the feedback. I think I am happy with the content for this article right now and will add more as further information is available. I would however, like to add a photo to the Infobox and I have been trying to do this for several days without success. Every time I try I receive the message "Please use a different descriptive title". The title I am trying to use is "Ward performing at The Castle, Manchester, October 2015". I did send an email to someone at Wikipedia and they suggested it might be because my account was less than 4 days old. The account is now more than 4 days old and I am still receiving this message. Do you know why this might be happening. Thanks in advance. JeanetteW407 (talk) 12:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi again JeanetteW407 - the title must be simple plain text, punctuation can cause problems so rather avoid it. What you enter there will become the actual file name, try something much simpler such as "ward at the castle" (without the quotes of course). The next step after this is to add an actual description. I'll report this problem of unclear image upload instructions at an appropriate venue, so that it can be fixed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dodger67, Thanks for the re-naming suggestion. That worked! Do you think I can re-submit the article now? Thanks again.JeanetteW407 (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@JeanetteW407 I've just noticed that the first reference "Dalton..." is incomplete. It doesn't contain enough information for someone to find it. If it's a print magazine please add the article title, date/issue, page number and publisher. If it's online, add the url. Once you've fixed that and you're happy with the content, resubmit it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dodger67, I have sourced the article date/issue, page number, publisher and section (there was no specific title for the article). Can you please advise if all looks well now? Thank You very much. JeanetteW407 (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

After bumping into several education projects, good and not so good, I have started this Request for Comment to try to make the education programme even better. You are most cordially invited to participate. Fiddle Faddle 14:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

This is about Normalizing Normalizing is different procedure than annealing, therefore it should be a separate topic. Thanks for your understanding. Mohitrsj (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mohitrsj - It is covered in the Annealing article as a specific stage in the annealing process. Have you actually read the section I linked? Your draft does not contain more detail than that section. Your draft also has no references at all, so even if the topic was not already covered by another article it cannot be accepted anyway. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Roger (Dodger67) References have been added in my last edit. Any topic cannot be perfect in the first edit. It will become better on every edit. Thanks anyway for your time.Mohitrsj (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 10:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

3GL is not nearly notable enough to require a separate mention given it was adopted by nobody and the company that made it went bankrupt. The camera round, while cute, is not really notable enough to mention alongside two types of round that are commonly issued. As far as I can tell, the only people who call the Japanese "knee mortars" grenade launchers are the Japanese, and you have to go with the common English name for such things otherwise you'd have to refer to most German mortars as grenade launchers too since that's what "granatwerfer" means. The only way in which it's a grenade launcher is that it's a mortar that can launch actual hand grenades, which isn't how the term is normally used. Shoehorning in an extremely borderline case isn't really something that should happen in an article describing technology. Herr Gruber (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Draft:Paired transform and fast Fourier transform page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

hi Dodger67

In the Speedy deletion nomination of AED Group their is written that you should be able to give me my written article back. I would really appriciate it if you did. Also User:Peridon does not answer to any of my questions. greets Bastien Bastien.Corens (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bastien.Corens: I did reply to your only question at my talk page about two hours later, and told you that it was now at User:Bastien.Corens/AED Group. You posted at the top of the page instead of the bottom, and I explained that on Wikipedia we put new threads at the bottom. It's still there. Peridon (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Peridon , I'm sorry for this. I dind't see your response last time but I just read it, sorry for my mistake and tanks for your response. Bastien.Corens (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

hi Dodger67

I saw you deleted my page about AED Group and I woud look to correct my mistakes, but I cannot access the Draft anymore, would you be so kind to give me the draft back.

greets Bastien Bastien.Corens (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bastien.Corens, you need to contact the admin who took the decision to delete it, User:Peridon. When you create an article start it in Draft-space, rather than directly in mainspace, so that you can fix problems before it is exposed to all the harsh rules of the encyclopedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bastien.Corens: I deleted the article because it didn't show the significance of the company, but mainly because it did look like an advertisement for the company. It was a timeline not an article, with a section giving addresses and telephone numbers of branches of the company. We regard that as being advertising. An article on Wikipedia is to tell people about a subject, not to give them an easy way of contacting the subject. That is what AboutUs, LinkedIn and Facebook are for. I would suggest that you read the articles about other companies, and also read WP:CORP about notability for companies, and WP:RS about the reliable independent sources you must give to prove the notability. Create a new article in Draft: space like the last one, or click User:Bastien.Corens/DRAFT and save it and make it there in your user space. Don't move it into article space until you have asked someone to look it over. Don't put addresses or telephone numbers in. The company website can be given as an external link, but it cannot be used to prove notability. That must be done with independent and reliable sources. Peridon (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Dodger67, I never intended it to be advertisment but I understand your remarks and I will defenitly pay more attention in the future. greets, B.

Bastien.Corens (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Hi Dodger67, this submission is actually for a brand (not the person) called KEVIN.MURPHY so that is why I was trying to create as a separate article. Could the two pages possible be linked together? Kevin Murphy, the person/hairdresser, is one of the founders.

Signing just get a date on this so it will be archived. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

29 December 2015

Dear Roger (Dodger67):

Many thanks for all you have done to reinforce and guide my proposal over the past several months. Perhaps 2016 will see it finally evolving from "containing Ruth Wolff" to a long-overdue stand-alone entry.

Meanwhile, I wish you the strength and resolve to continue your endeavors on behalf of an ever-evolving 21st century miracle -- Wikipedia -- and all good fortune in whatever else you may choose to commit your talents to.

All good wishes for the holiday season and the years to come.

Onward!

Damien Camny 96.246.219.103 (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dodge,

Given your history editing on the topic of SA military history, I'd like your opinion as to whether we should propose merging South African Border War with Namibian War of Independence, as there seems to be a bit of blurring of lines between the two.

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Katangais - it's far more complicated than just a two-article merge, the Angolan War of Independence and the Angolan civil war are also intertwined in the same overall conflict. In the context of the Border War SWAPO/PLAN activities were scarcely more than a minor sideshow - the main action was between SA/UNITA and MPLA/Cuba. I think such a complex situation really requires a thorough discussion at MILHIST as it would set a precedent for WP's coverage of other multilateral conflicts too. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I am simply trying to submit my templates and send to review. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 09:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to submit my user warnings of "poorly sourced". Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 09:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Qwertyxp2000]] it seems our messages "crossed in the mail". I'm an experienced AFC reviewer, these templates do not need to be reviewed at AFC, the content is fine - they all use standard widely accepted wording so all you really need is consensus to create them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I have noticed that someone has added a message "This article needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia. Please help improve this article by adding links that are relevant to the context within the existing text. (March 2015)", at the beginning of the article on "data-constrained modeling". The message has been displayed for near a year now. Is there anything I can do to get rid of this message?

If I knew who you are or where the draft is located I could perhaps help you, but an unsigned post without any links is rather useless, sorry. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

I have a Wikipedia article on "Data constrained modeling". In order to make it consistent with other publications, would you mind to help me to change it to "Data-constrained modeling"? That is, to add a "-" in the title between the words "data" and "constrained". I am unable to work out how to make such a change. After the change, I can alter the appropriate linked pages.

The re-direct page "Data-constrained modeling" can be deleted.

Ah, now I understand. The article is now at Data-constrained modelling. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Add templates for poorly sourced content?. I was just thinking that you may like to contribute with the uw-poorlysourced templates, knowing that all what is left is the consensus to have them. Thanks. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 09:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Dodger67,

This is in reference to the speedy deletion nomination and final deletion of the article "Prince Sultan Advanced Technology Research Institute" by you. The reason being G11, G12 violations by our article. I would like to inform you that I, Hamdan Hussain, employee at PSATRI (Prince Sultan Advanced Tech. Research Institute) have been made responsible for creating wiki articles for this influential defense company of the state. However if certain content of our work has violated the wiki rules, we heartily apologize and will make sure it is not repeated again.

We will retry to publish the same article with a new content this time without soap-boxing or promoting anything (without G11, G12 violation). However, all the logo's, images and content used from our site were with the consent of the organization. Please find attached the document by my organization which authorizes me to publish articles for them using our pre-existing content over web.

Your help and further guidance in the process will be highly appreciated.

I hope I can now post about my company on Wikipedia, of-course provided the Wiki rules and regulations are followed. Please advise on the same.

Thanks & Regards,

Hnhusain (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Hnhusain - I have referred the matter for action to the Administrator's noticeboard, someone will contact you about this in due course. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Afrikaner identity politics, 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 Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Roger (Dodger67):

At this point, in the interest of reinforcing this proposal, might it be helpful to attempt to retrieve and incorporate the 17 June 2014 Joe Decker posting. Although I caught only a glimpse of it prior to its disappearance, it seemed at the time quite comprehensive and perhaps might even yield additional material of some relevance for the current proposal.

Please advise.

Damien Camny ````

User:Joe Decker - can you perhaps help here? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

1/15/16

Dear Roger (Dodger67):

Many, many thanks for facilitating this.

All the best,

Damien Camny 96.246.219.103 (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad to help, but I'll need a little more context -- I said something now deleted about Ruth Wolff, I gather from this, but I don't immediately see where I did so. Sorry for the confusion! --joe decker^talk 19:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

1/21/16

Having actually seen the Joe Decker post re: Ruth Wolff briefly and only once before it disappeared, all I have is the following note hastily scribbled at the time: "Seemingly comprehensive with detailed listing of plays, films, etc., dated 17 June 2014, signed Joe Decker." It is my hope that, if this now-vanished posting can possibly be retrieved, it might serve to augment my subsequent proposal of 8 July 2015.

Many thanks for your efforts in achieving this.

Damien Camny 96.246.219.103 (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Roger (Dodger67):

Having established the validity of this proposal over several month's research identifying numerous corroborative sources, it has occurred to me, in the clear light of a new year, that my well-intentioned -- but ultimately inadequate -- efforts on behalf of advancing the "containing Ruth Wolff" category to stand-alone entry may have unwittingly impeded its progress.

Of course, I am more than puzzled that the 17 June 2014 Joe Decker proposal which I saw once quite by accident and which seemed comprehensive at the time now appears lost. It was this posting that initially caught my attention and, with its disappearance, challenged me to develop my subsequent posting of 8 July 2015. When my own version soon vanished, it was through your efforts that it was retrieved from its limbo and restored. Now I fear that this too will vanish should I hit a wrong key or inadvertently make some false move.

As much as I should like to be able to master the technique of formatting this proposal according to Wikipedia standards -- I spent at least a month trying -- I fear that my limited capabilities at inter-connectivity have already proven to be counter-productive to any further progress. Perhaps, in fairness to an already well-documented proposal, now is the time to seriously consider entrusting it to some more capable Wikipedian -- or Wikipedians -- far better equipped than I with my mid-twentieth century, pre-internet limitations to format the material thus far discerned.

Please advise.

Yours in deepest frustration,

Damien Camny 108.29.43.134 (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

1/29/2016

For the purpose of formatting the 8 July 2015 Ruth Wolff proposal, the following references may prove helpful:

For biographical data, photo, etc.:

    zoominfo.com/ruthwolff
    filmreference.com/ruthwolff
    doollee.com/ruthwolff

For plays, screenplays, etc.:

    broadwayplaypubl.com/ruthwolff
    dramatistsguild.com/ruthwolff
    macdowellcolony.org/ruthwolff
    dramaticpublishing.com/ruthwolff
    writersguildofamericawest.org/ruthwolff

For film:

    Warner Bros. Archives
    "The Abdication," "The Incredible Sarah" -- tapes, DVDs available (may be downloaded for viewing from a
    number of internet sources)
    Royal Portraits in Hollywood (Ford/Mitchell 2009) -- Chapter I analysis of "The Abdication" film

For essays:

    NY Times comprehensive website (accessible in libraries) -- actual essays dating from 1977 to 1999
    may be downloaded

Plus Lincoln Center Library of the Performing Arts (Theatre Collection) for archival materials, manuscripts, clippings, etc.

Damien Camny 108.29.43.134 (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

1/30/2016

Also . . . .

For foreign language productions (on foreign sites):

    "Confessione Scandalosa" (The Abdication) Italian
    "L'imperatrice della Cina" (Empress of China) Italian
    "De Troonsafstand" (The Abdication) Dutch
    "L'Abdication" (The Abdication) French/Canadian

For author's account (in English) of the Italian premiere of "Confessione Scandalosa":

    "We Open in Florence," NY Times Magazine feature, Sunday, December 4, 1977
         Available for downloading on NY Times website
         Reprinted by permission in NOTABLE WOMEN volume

Damien Camny 108.29.43.134 (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that I can change your position that there are no sources for the 'notability' of the article about the VB's. The following is from the congressional record and as a stub would cover the inclusion of the organization as the first black fraternal to win a discrimination lawsuits in the US and pave the way for the consent decrees of the 70's to the present multi-million dollar judgements being assessed municipalities across the country to redress clear cases of racial discrimination. ^[1]

THE 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CASE OF LOUIS R. HARPER, ET. AL. V. MAYOR 
                    AND CITY OF BALTIMORE, ET. AL.

                                ______
                                

                       HON. ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS

                             of maryland

                   in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, December 6, 2011

 Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the occasion of 

the 40th Anniversary of the case of Louis R. Harper, et. al. v. Mayor and City of Baltimore, et. al. This lawsuit, filed on December 6, 1971, to address discrimination within the Baltimore City Fire Department, BCFD, was the first federal lawsuit to combat discriminatory practices in hiring and promotion decisions in the public safety profession.

 The BCFD hired its first African American fire fighters on October 

15, 1953, from a group of 41 men found eligible for appointment after the opportunity for them to take the entrance exam was opened in the summer of 1952. Almost 20 years later, one of those pioneering men became the architect behind the scenes of the legal action filed in 1971.

 Mr. Charles R. Thomas was the founding president of the Vulcan 

Blazers Incorporated, the Baltimore City Chapter of the International Association of Black Professional Fire Fighters. Mr. Thomas approached Kenneth L. Johnson of the Johnson & Smith law firm asking if he would take on this monumental case. After hearing the facts of the case, Mr. Johnson and his law partner, Mr. Gerald A. Smith, agreed to take the case.

 The named plaintiff in the case was Mr. Louis R. Harper, Jr. It was 

his bravery and selflessness that led the team of plaintiffs, including Mr. Thomas G. Deshields, Mr. Carl E. McDonald, and Mr. Alphonso Thornton. These BCFD members put their careers at risk to demand that the BCFD treat all employees equally.

 This case addressed discrimination in the BCFD entrance examination 

and promotional practices. At the time of the lawsuit, the names of fully qualified African American candidates were marked in red by the civil service commission before being sent to the BCFD. The lawsuit also dealt with disparity in the Department's practices for disciplining African American fire fighters.

 Upon the filing of the case, an injunction was issued to halt 

promotions into 44 newly created battalion chief positions. Finally, in the spring of 1973, Baltimore City was found guilty of discrimination in the management of the BCFD. Federal District Court Judge Joseph H. Young ordered a complete revamping of the Department's entrance examination and promotional procedures.

it ends - These men are true heroes who opened the doors of opportunity to subsequent generations. I thank them for their service to Baltimore and to our nation--and for their willingness to lead the fight against injustice.

Lets mic drop... Robco311 (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robco311, here we have a good example of the problem. The document you have placed here contains only one passing mention of the Vulcan Blazers, it simply identifies its founding president in this sentence:

"Mr. Charles R. Thomas was the founding president of the Vulcan Blazers Incorporated, the Baltimore City Chapter of the International Association of Black Professional Fire Fighters."

Then it never mentions the VB again. What you need is at least a few news or magazine articles that specifically discuss the Vulcan Blazers itself in significant detail. You might in fact have sufficient good sources for an article about Charles R. Thomas and maybe even a few of his colleagues. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Roger (Dodger67):

Since, at the moment, my 8 July 2015 draft article seems to have been relegated to an archive, might it be possible to retrieve and insert it adjacent to these current postings for the sake of consolidating all pertinent materials?

And, with luck, should that phantom 17 June 2014 Joe Decker posting just happen to reappear, perhaps it too might be positioned here.

As always, many thanks,

Damien Camny 108.29.43.134 (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Most of them are in subcats already - about half, I think. Maybe more than half. The others can be placed into subcats, one of many long-term goals I have. The main "writer" category should be depreciated, like it is for Category:French writers or Category:Spanish writers, for instance. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

thank you Dodger for your recent editorial suggestion.

You gave me something I can work with. (The second editor who mentioned to "add more context" didn't, as we had already added much theoretical context to the earliest submission; the first editing suggestion was useful and followed).

I realize this entry is a stretch for the wiki, and only submitted at the suggestion of a colleague.

Though doing so gives me some practice at making more mainstream/appropriate entries.

I will perhaps try once more to follow your suggestions.

This was a "case study" application of a novel theory of choice.

mark c. Markcalogero (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello there,

Many thanx for review and approve the page 'Dhufi'

I am sorry, it's my mistake and have the typo in 'Dhufi' page (it is approved as Dhuff)

Requesting you to do the needful.

Thanx and rgds

Dhuffiwala (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I have created an article for Wikipedia starting to write on my personal Sandbox then I submitted the article for review. The article was accepted. However, when I click on Sandbox from my user page a "redirect page" to my article appears. What can I do to have my Sandbox back to start new articles? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco73it (talk • contribs) 15:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Marco73it, when you get to the article via the redirect you will find a small text "note" just below the title that says "Redirected from... and then a link back to your sandbox, follow that link, then simply edit the sandbox to delete the redirect link. However an even better way is to simply create a new sandbox by first creating a link on your userpage like this [[User:Marco73it/New draft article title]], which display as User:Marco73it/New draft article title. The advantage of this method is that your new draft already has the right title and the page doesn't carry over any of the irrelevant history of the previous sandbox. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Roger, So sorry to bother you. You very nicely commented on a draft article I have written. You suggested that I needed to use "roper references", but am afraid I have no idea what you mean; I've searched, but can't find a definition. Could you point me in the right direction? I've added links to avoid using copyright-protected images. Thanks. Unionpearl (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your invitation! I'm not completely sure if I have what it takes to be part of the project. Let me take some time to experiment and see what it takes. Any feedback you have for me is appreciated. silvalejandro (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi silvalejandro, you do indeed have what it takes to be part of the project; 1. You are quite obviously capable of writing a coherent sentence in English, and 2. You are interested in the topic. That's all you really need, so welcome on board! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, You sent messages to some of my students. We are indeed engaged in some Wikipedia editing, and this is an exercise for them to learn about how Wikipedia operates. Please allow some time for them to make mistakes; I will be following up to ensure their changes follow Wikipedia's core principles, but part of their learning process is to be corrected from time to time by other editors. This is a class in emerging media and disabilty. I've joined the Project as well.Dr. red pill (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Dr. red pill

Hi Dr. red pill, I'm really happy to get this message. A student project on disability is really good news. WikiProject Disability has been very quiet for some time, an injection of student activity is very welcome, particularly if it will be a regular event. I'm thinking if you would introduce yourself and your program on the WikiProject talk page, we could probably come up with a more structured method of engagement, rather than random chance encounters. Bringing a little academic discipline into some of our key articles would be very welcome -Disability in the media is one that really needs better structure and coherence, a downside of crowdsourcing an article over an extended period is some incoherence. I also have an idea or three that I think might work as class projects, so let's start a discussion over at WT:WikiProject Disability, where others can also join in. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

PS. I'd like to extend the invitation to join the WikiProject to your entire class, I've probably missed some of them. Would you mind posting the invitation template {{subst:WikiProject Disability Invite}} to those that haven't got one from me.

Registering your course at the Wikipedia:Education program has many advantages, for you as well as the students. The Education Program has a very well designed set of systems for assisting course leaders and students. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

PPS. There's another editor I think you should meet, User:Penny Richards, she's been around a while and shares many of your interests. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Roger. Funnily enough, I'm acquainted with Penny Richards, as we were both at the same university some years ago. I'd be happy -- and they'd be charmed -- if you'd send them the invitation. I can provide you their user pages in the coming days when I have some free time. Meanwhile I'll say that for this part of what we're doing in my class, I don't want us to be organizationally embedded with Wikipedia. I'm happy to do that at a later juncture, but for the next week or so we'd like to continue to edit on our own. They have done the training modules, as have I (although please be patient with stumbles along the way). We will also definitely be able to re-work Disability in the media. I'm glad their contributions will be appreciated, and once this particular segment of our course comes to a close (probably at the end of next week) I'll be more active on WT:WikiProject Disability to discuss everything with other editors.Dr. red pill (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Dr. red pill

Ha, and now I'm going to be wondering who Dr. red pill is.;) Always glad to know students are working on disability topics at Wikipedia, so welcome!Penny Richards (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

This month:

Development of the extension for setting up WikiProjects, as described in the last issue of this newsletter, is currently underway. No terribly exciting news on this front.

In the meantime, we are working on a prototype for a new service we hope to announce soon. The problem: there are requests scattered all across Wikipedia, including requests for new articles and requests for improvements to existing articles. We Wikipedians are very good at coming up with lists of things to do. But once we write these lists, where do they end up? How can we make them useful for all editors—even those who do not browse the missing articles lists, or the particular WikiProjects that have lists?

Introducing Wikipedia Requests, a new tool to centralize the various lists of requests around Wikipedia. Requests will be tagged by category and WikiProject, making it easier to find requests based on what your interests are. Accompanying this service will be a bot that will let you generate reports from this database on any wiki page, including WikiProjects. This means that once a request is filed centrally, it can syndicated all throughout Wikipedia, and once it is fulfilled, it will be marked as "complete" throughout Wikipedia. The idea for this service came about when I saw that it was easy to put together to-do lists based on database queries, but it was harder to do this for human-generated requests when those requests are scattered throughout the wiki, siloed throughout several pages. This should especially be useful for WikiProjects that have overlapping interests.

The newsletter this month is fairly brief; not a lot of news, just checking in to say that we are hard at work and hope to have more for you soon.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I looked at your most recent edits with the script and determined that you're not using the most recent version. You can use that version by removing the line in your common.js file pointing to User:Theopolisme/afch-rewrite.js, and then checking the setting at Preferences → Gadgets → Editing →   Yet Another AFC Helper Script. New features that have been introduced include previewing decline reasons, putting your comments on the author's talk page during a decline, and adding {{Talk header}} to new user talk pages. APerson (talk!) 17:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

  Done Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Roger (Dodger67):

Some thoughts while revisiting the "containing Ruth Wolff" Wikipedia site:

Although it is clear that Wolff wrote the screenplays for both THE ABDICATION and THE INCREDIBLE SARAH films, her credit in both cases -- central as author in each -- is not as yet linked to a stand-alone biographical page. As you can see, almost all the other participants -- many far less prominently involved in each (composers, supporting actors, etc.) -- are already so linked. It would seem, at this point, a more than compelling reason to suggest the creation, at the very least, of a provisional "stub" based on previous postings for others far better equipped than I to implement.

And, of course, the many references on the web, in archives and elsewhere relative to the publications, plays and essays as outlined in the postings of 29 and 30 January 2016 should serve to amply reinforce the validity of such a proposal.

After months of fruitless attempts on my part, might it now be possible to achieve this in a timely fashion.

Damien Camny 108.29.43.134 (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I can send you a full text pdf of:

• Hayashi, R. & Okuhira, M. (2001). The Disability Rights Movement In Japan: Past, Present, And Future, Disability & Society, 16, 6, 855-869

in partial fulfillment of your request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Articles about disability in Japan. Please use Special:EmailUser to email me so that I can reply with the pdf as an attachment. Regards, Worldbruce (talk) 05:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Worldbruce, you've got mail. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• Lerak kesedud (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Minus delta t (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have added some links which I found they are in English, most of the other links are in German language. There is in the German WIKI, a page about, minus delta t see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minus_Delta_t

I have worked and learned to use the wiki over the weekend, please can you kindly have a look, if this is going into the right direction for your approval? pls let me know all the best from Vienna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lerak kesedud (talk • contribs) 16:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lerak kesedud - The next reviewer will probably express an opinion about the sources you have added - unfortunately I can't read German. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dodger67,

Thanks for your time to review my article. I was wanting to know what in particular I can change to strengthen my article for publishing. A lot of my references are on my ancestry.com website on family trees. The public can view this here : http://person.ancestry.com.au/tree/85900097/person/44531419815/story Please assist me in making this publication possible, as it would mean a lot to me.

Kind Regards,

Edward Thian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.255.253.49 (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry Edward Thian, I have no idea at all what article you are referring to - please provide a link to it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Roger,

Thank you so much! You are a life saver!

Jenny Patranella (talk) 20:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but what did I do to deserve this? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Please do not remove discussions from article talk pages, particularly when other editors contributions are also deleted. Talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't delete I archived it, standard practise. Esemono (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Esemono Please use edit summaries so that others can know what you're doing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• BergKaprowLewis (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:BKL (Berg Kaprow Lewis) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am not so much requesting a re-review as I am seeking some prescriptive feedback as to why my submission is deemed to read like an advertisement. Are there any sections in particular that I should look to rewrite? Your help will be greatly appreciated.

BergKaprowLewis (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Michael

Hey Dodger. I just wanted to let you know that the MfD that was suggested has been since been withdrawn by the nominator (which was I). So you may proceed with reviewing the article. I've also removed the MfD tag, to prevent any confusion. Thanks. Boomer Vial^Holla 21:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for getting involved- you are totally correct. We a running a edit-a-thon for newbies from Disability Arts organisation at the moment and the template was thrown together and needs some tlc. Please keep it on your watch list and join in.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Clem Rutter, and in return I'd like to invite you and your fellow edit-a-thon-ers to please join WikiProject Disability. I hope your participants stay and become long-term Wikipedians. BTW Does the edit-a-thon have a page, on or off WP? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

yes: Wikipedia:Meetups/UK/Disability Arts Online Editathons, Clem's co-tutor, Leutha (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetups/UK/Disability Arts Online Editathons and also User:ClemRutter/training and User:ClemRutter/training#Messages has a list of out students. More later- we lose the room in 15 minutes!-- Clem Rutter (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Your deletion of old Talk page discussions from Talk:Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 appears to have been rather clumsy. You cut off someone's comments mid-sentence, and deleted a lot of material that was appropriate discussion of article content that should have been retained. Your edit summary implied that you were deleting a lot less than what you were actually deleting. If you were just wanting to delete old stuff because it was old and stale, there's a better way to do that – it's called archiving. I have just tried to repair the sitation. I suggest to please try to be more careful about that in the future. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@BarrelProof You're templating me about an almost five year old edit? Please read this. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

There was no template used for that comment. That was a hand-written message that was about specific details of a particular edit. It was not boilerplate. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@BarrelProof Well it reads rather like impersonal templatish text, but nevertheless the erroneous edit was done 5 years ago, what do you hope to achieve by lecturing me about it now? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if the message was a bit basic. I'm not familiar with you and didn't spend time checking your edit history to see whether that edit still looked like something you might do again. I also wasn't paying much attention to the age of the edit. I had just discovered that something strange had happened to that article's Talk page and eventually traced much of it to that edit. I suppose you've become much more careful and knowledgeable since then. I am glad to hear that is the case. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You tagged User:Mannyrothman/Sandbox for speedy deletion. Please take a look at Draft: Reformat Studios, of which the sandbox is a duplicate. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Hello, I made a new userbox and wanted to make it community available. Let me know. Omysfysfybmm (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Omysfysfybmm (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Please include page numbers? You're rejecting the article because it lacks page numbers? You're kidding me?

Which AFC rejection criterion is that? 2601:283:4301:D3A6:79FB:F747:82E7:C781 (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I put in a request for the article and deleted the draft. Go find page numbers yourself. Or let someone else write the article. What a joke. 2601:283:4301:D3A6:79FB:F747:82E7:C781 (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

User:2601:283:4301:D3A6:79FB:F747:82E7:C781 I left a comment giving you advice based on WP:Verifiability. I did not do a review, I did not reject the draft. Now that you have flounced off in a huff I have removed the references to four entire books that you posted to support a stub of only four sentences. Expecting readers to read four whole books just to check four sentences is unreasonable. So now I'm searching fo verifiable references for the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Books have things called indexes. You don't actually have to read every single word in the book to find and verify the information. In fact, I used books that can be searched through Google books, rather than using a couple of other texts that I prefer. I wrote those sentences based on information from those books. I have no intention of stealing someone else's work product, so I properly sourced to exactly where I got the information. Indexes. They're a good thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:4301:D3A6:A8A8:96CD:72DD:1925 (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@User:2601:283:4301:D3A6:A8A8:96CD:72DD:1925 OK, if you don't want any advice or assistance why did you submit it to AFC at all? I'm not going to waste my time on this any more. Bye Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Roger

thanks for your comments about my draft. I have been an active blogger for some years, but this was my first attempt on Wikipedia!

I do understand your points and I'll try to fix them, especially "Very few of the cited sources are about CropWatch" and the related fact that CropWatch is to be "notable" to deserve inclusion in Wikipedia. I'll also shorten it!

Can I give some background? There are, at present, very few global systems trying to guess how much food is produced in the world. This is done for "food security reasons" but mostly to know how much there will be to buy and which countries are likely to have to buy because they have a domestic problem (like Ethiopia this year, and Southern Africa, including South Africa). Basically, it's about international food market planning, and there's a lot of dis-information going on. The EC, US and UN have their own monitoring systems... and so does China: CropWatch.

It is important that there should be several independent providers of food production information. They all publish their information (web and hardcopy) for users to compare! This does not make CropWatch "notable" per se, but stresses the relevance of the undertaking.

CropWatch has been going on for 15 years in Chinese, but switched to English in 2013, for several reasons (including international commitments under a G20 recommendation and... propaganda: showing off & making the analyses available to some countries that can't make their own assessments.) This means that there is 15 years of documentation available in Chinese, some of which could help establish the "notability" of the system. Is it possible to quote Chinese sources?

Best regards

R.

Wergosax (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wergosax the language of sources does not matter, though English sources are preferred insofar as they are available. What is important however is that sources must be independent of the subject - this means not written or published by Cropwatch itself or its associates, agents, employees, contractors or any other connected people or entities. That also excludes press releases or advertorials. Basically we need mainstream news reports, magazine articles, scientific/academic papers, and similar quality independent sources that discuss Cropwatch in considerable detail. Once you have a few such sources that devote at least a few paragraphs to discussing Cropwatch, you can then add material sourced from Cropwatch itself for "routine" uncontroversial information such as addresses, dates of events, etc. Controversial or disputable claims must be from independent reliable sources. A reliable source is one that has a reputation for responsible editorial oversight - hence the preference for mainstream news, magazines and academic sources. You could also look for reports by other entities in the global commodity trade system that discuss Cropwatch and its activities. If you can write at least a short coherent article using only the fully independent sources then the subject probably does pass the notability standard for organizations. Be careful of writing from your personal knowledge - if you cannot cite a source for a claim, leave it out. I find it easiest to write about subjects about which I know nothing and have no opinion. Hope this is useful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Wergosax I found a few sources that might be useful:

• http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-DXJZ201010004.htm
• http://dx.doi.org/10.11834/jrs.20154139
• Wu Bingfang Meng Jihua, Li QiangzYan Nana, Du Xin, Zhang Miao. Remote Sensing-Based Global Crop Monitoring-Experiences with China's CropWatch System, International Journal of Digital Earth, 2014, 7 (2), 113-137

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Dodger67, Thank you for reviewing my article "Battle of Hastings Location" I tried to edit the already existing one "Battle of Hastings", but it's locked for edits, I could not make any changes to it. Therefore I started on a new article. How would I go about unlocking the existing article, so I can make a few edits instead of starting a new article on a similar subject? This is the link to the existing article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hastings#Background_and_location Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiley Sage (talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• CD0060576 (talk · contribs)
  • User:CD0060576/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page: Loyal Regiment (North Lancashire) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyal_Regiment_(North_Lancashire)

Section:1.7 Loyal Regiment (North Lancashire), 1946–1970

Hello Roger (Dodger67) Thank you for your comments greatly appreciated. I am hoping my submission is of suitable material for this topic for the above pages. I have tried the de-personalized and create a true story keeping it factual. I hope others will be encouraged to add their contributions to this topic / period

As requested: I have created topic title: Junior Bandsman Wing Fulwood Barracks 1961-63

If you would like to tweak or adjust the language speak or take ownership you have my full authorization.

Yours faithfully Charles Dobson

i knew 3 other great persons biography i want to write about them it was my first day i mixed up i need help if you can help me to write for example i explain every think about them for you & you write it because not different for me . its importent to be write or anotherone jaust help me .thanks my gmail is : melika.diba.1@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eiman.fm (talk • contribs) 19:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a problem with AFC, which is that it doesn't detect edit conflicts. I was trying to decline the draft citing all of the real problems with it, such as no real claim for notability, ambiguity of reference to ECD, BLP violation of not citing the five wives, and you declined it as a hoax. Either would be a valid decline, but it didn't detect the edit conflict, and normally the software is quick to detect edit conflicts. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I reported the issue at the AFC review Help Desk, and noted that it is a race condition, a type of bug in electronic engineering and software engineering. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon, Imho ideally the script should "lock" the page as soon as it is invoked by a reviewer, to prevent another itteration of the script from executing on the same page until it is closed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. At least when the reviewer performs a function that saves the page, such as decline or move. In the specific case, you declined first. Then I moved the page and declined it, both of which were ignored, rather than flagged as edit conflicts. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I think the User:Mvgalea page, which is a problem because it appears to be written by the subject and is mistakenly an apparent article on a user page, has the makings of an article.

I'm transferring the content to my own sandbox in the hope of reshaping it. Will this save the user page? Tony (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tony1 - The user page is currently a WP:FAKEARTICLE violation, if you can fix that please go for it. It would be great if you're willing to give the user some guidance too, we need subject specialist editors. Unfortunately I just don't have the free time right now to mentor a newbie. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Roger. I moved it and replaced with "Main interests are blah blah". Unforturnately the user has no email enabled. I've made inquiries with someone who might know her. I'm keen that we improve our coverage of female mathematicians and scientists, so I think this is worth it. (The content does need reshaping, though, doesn' it.) Tony (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tony1, a STEM specialist and a woman, definitely worth the effort to keep her interested and involved. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, contacting you about your recent edit on Draft:Project Comfort. The creator of the draft (Redglasses13), back in September 2015 blanked the page therefore it falls under G7 criterion. Auric reverted that edit so I put the G7 tag on. I don't see how it's a "real draft" when the creator of said draft would like it deleted. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Expansion: It hasn't been edited by the original creator since September 2015 meaning they've probably lost interest already, meaning sooner or later it's gonna be deleted under G13. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@User:Anarchyte thanks, so Auric didn't actually take over the draft. Please feel free to revert my edit. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought I'd chime in here, since I was tagged. I reverted to give this a review, since the creator (for reasons unknown) blanked while it was under review. In any case, the name seems to have changed and the project is now known as Equal Period.--Auric talk 11:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I see you have, quite rightly, nominated one of this confusing mess of pages for deletion. I observe that there is also a page Wikipedia:A. C. C. Cigars, which clearly shouldn't exist. I would redirect it, or Speedy it, or something; but I am afraid of just making the mess worse. So I am hoping you will be able to deal with it. Maproom (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Maproom - I redirected it to the mainspace page, which will be speedied soon, then all the redirects to the deleted page will also be deleted - the whole mess will fall like dominoes. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Maproom - The User:A. C. C. Cigars page is also in for the chop as a non-existent user. Soon the whole tangle of spam will be history. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• CD0060576 (talk · contribs)
  • User:CD0060576/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello there, I am not sure (please confirm)if my article is being reviewed or declined. My understanding You needed to know the title of my article which is:-

Junior Bandsman Wing Fulwood Barracks 1961-63

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best Regards Charles Dobson CD0060576 (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi CD0060576 take a look at the pink box at the top of the page, in the lower left corner there is a blue "Resubmit" button - click it, then the draft will be sent for another review, but I wouldn't actually do that if I were you. I think a better option would be to add your information about the Junior Bandsmen Wing to the existing Fulwood Barracks article. Then there is a section in your draft about recruiting in the Isle of Man, which doesn't seem to have any direct relevance to Fulwood Barracks as such, but might fit into the Lancastrian Brigade article. I think you should consult the topic specialists at the Military History WikiProject, they could help you figure out what belongs in which article and whether a separate article about Manx involvement in the British Army (or Defence Forces as a whole?) might be viable. I'll drop them a note to ask if they could be of assistance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

How do I accept and decline a page? because I have been seeing a Lot of pages hat I want to decline or accept — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavinfu2016 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• CD0060576 (talk · contribs)
  • User:CD0060576/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Hi Roger,

I do appreciate your efforts and suggestions. The Fulwood Barracks and the Lancastrian Brigade pages are very suitable locations for this story. The Military History WikiProject seems a sensible place to go also, but it's a mine field (pun not intended) as where to go to with this enquiry.

Guidance please; as to how I can get this story onto the Fulwood Barrack and the Lancastrian Brigades pages

Your suggestion of going to the Manx involvement in the British Army (or Defence Forces etc might also be a good place to go, if only, to see if there's any interest, thank you very much for this offer / suggestion is much appreciated.

Yours faithfully Charles Dobson

@User:CD0060576 I think the conversation I started at the MILHIST page is a good place to discuss the topic with the subject specialists. You should probably also look at the following existing articles: Manx Regiment, Manx Aviation and Military Museum and Isle of Man#Defence, there may be room for improvement. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

(CD0060576 (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC))

Hi Roger, Many thanks for you efforts it's very much appreciated. Thank you also for getting in touch with MILHIST page. Let's hope there's more opportunities / interest in sharing this story. Best Regards Charles Dobson

@(CD0060576 Just a quick couple of tips: 1. Don't start a new section every time you post - keep the whole conversation together under a single section heading. Use the "Edit" link next to the heading to add your comment to the section. 2. Get into the habit of properly signing your posts on talk pages with four tildes like this ~~~~, or use the signature button in the toolbar above the edit box. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

A few times recently I have seen that you have moved a page from article space into draft space. On the one hand, that does appear to be a proper interpretation of the spirit of the rules, as a way to help a draft that isn’t yet ready for mainspace but might be ready for mainspace. On the other hand, it doesn’t appear to comply with the letter of the rules, and so is a case of Ignore All Rules (when they are too rigid). I don’t recall having seen other reviewers do this. I am wondering whether this should be addressed somewhere, either at Articles for Creation policies as a step for articles prematurely promoted, or at Deletion policy as a form of light deletion for new articles.

I certainly think that Draftify should be added to the alternatives for a deletion discussion, since it is only a more modern version of Userfy to move the page into common draft space rather than user space.

In the particular case in point within the past 24 hours, the real problem is that the editor, after reasonably choosing AFC, chose not only to ignore AFC but to decide that I had wrongly declined the article and to push it through to mainspace. Thank you for pushing it back to draft space. Since the draft was twice nominated for speedy deletion as promotional, and the author deleted the speedy tag, which is explicitly prohibited by the author, I have given the author a Level 3 warning. (I nominated it for speedy deletion because, among other things, it used the ® symbol, which is a blatant claim of copyright. That was my reason. Someone else had their own reason.)

I think that we need to discuss draftification Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi - Robert McClenon - I drag AFC submitted drafts back out of mainspace when it seems clear that the draft writer has simply been too impatient or "too clever for their own good" and prematurely moved a potentially good draft to mainspace and so exposed it to the risk of speedy deletion for whatever deficiencies the draft has. If the draft is obvious junk I'll not bother to "rescue" it, then I simply let the mainspace deletion processes deal with it. A draft with clear potential to be a decent article should be saved from the bad decision of its inexperienced author - is my IAR justification in these cases, though I don't usually spell it out. (BTW the presence of a single trademark symbol is not, imho, sufficient grounds for G11, it can simply be removed and the draft declined for whatever other problems exist. Newbies are "by definition" not aware of our prohibition against such symbols.) I'm about to drag my weary carcass to bed, I'll be back around 07:00 UTC tomorrow to follow up if needed. Until then, goodnight... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Your point is well taken that a newbie editor wouldn't know that the (r) symbol is promotional. On the other hand, the speedy template explicitly states that it may not be removed by the creator. I would like to talk about draftification, because I think that it is often appropriate. I am not very tolerant of newbie editors who ignore rules that should be easy to read, such as not removing a tag. A newbie editor can contest a tag. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Triftgig (talk · contribs)
  • User:Triftgig/Christian Stangl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Dodger67, thanks for reviewing. Due to my article is a totally new rewrite, I thought moving would be the better way to get an new and current on Christian Stangl. If editing the live article is the way to go, I will do so. Triftgig (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Triftgig, do it in small chunks and leave an edit summary explaining what you're doing. Stating your intentions on the article talk page is also a good idea. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello!

Ok, I removed all the bolding.

Thanks!

Raymond Trencavel (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rodger, I didn't know how to respond to your comment on my draft, so I posted it there and am copy/pasting it here as well:

786wiki (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Hi Rodger. I couldn't find a "Reply" button so I hope this works! You are quite right: in Arab countries, "Sheikh" is an honorific (for an old person--the word for "old age" in Arabic is shaykhūkha!); in India and Pakistan, however, it is used as a proper name. So, unlike in an Arab country, when Ikram would have been admitted to primary school, his name would have been registered as: "Sheikh Muhammad Ikram" (which would be unthought of for a child in the Arab world), and that is how he is known! May I request therefore that in this case his actual name, as it would appear on his birth certificate had there been one at the time, be given as Sheikh Muhammad Ikram. Thanks.

PS Please, for future reference, can you educate me on the proper way to reply in this situation. Thank you! 786wiki (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dodger67 you said it is humorous rather than factual wich is not the Beijing Centrel Sky Tower is real because I am currently in Beijing,China and I have went there.The Beijing Centrel Sky Tower is not on the list List of tallest buildings in Beijing even it is the tallest building in Beijing 405m.Beijing Centrel Sky Tower is not fake it is real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.205.8.167 (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your message. I appreciate your advice and apologise for any offence. Just as a bit of background, the F1 project have been battling, for 8 months or more, with the WP:CIR efforts of a persistently disruptive, IP-hopping editor who constantly (amongst other things) submits drafts for insignificant cars which fail notability. They are habitually poorly written and if ref’d at all, they are of the standard you noted.

On the question of talk-pages, one of my colleagues began placing notes on those of sub-standard submissions and others of us followed suit. I would mention that 4 F1 articles were accepted in the last 2 or 3 days by the same reviewer (and were immediately re-directed). In all 4 cases the talk-pages were edited by the reviewer - placing AFC banners etc., but also in some cases placing incorrect or duplicated project banners. All four had notes on the talk-pages and this sort of thing has happened before. The project has lost patience with the IP editor, admin. can’t, or won’t, assist and we feel let down by the review process over a fairly substantial period of time. I'm not the only project member who has concerns about the review system, (as that page clearly shows).

I'm sure one or more of my colleagues would welcome the chance to assist with AfC. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Eagleash, the banners are placed on the talk page by the reviewing script, the reviewer does not see it. You really must place your note on the draft page itself, reviewers do not look at the talk pages, unless someone tells us to. I think it would be useful if you contacted the reviewer concerned, pointing out your concerns about his acceptances, but please AGF, he really is completely unaware of what's on the talk page. In my experience he is a completely reasonable editor, he wouldn't deliberately ignore you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Eagleash, I've raised the issue of AFC's procedures not including a look at draft talk pages at WT:WikiProject Articles for creation#Checking draft talk pages during review, please feel free to join the discussion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello again and thanks for your advice and assistance. Trust me, the F1 project appreciate it! It did occur to me that the banners might be placed by a bot or similar. I note that the Ensign draft was re-submitted without fixing (as expected) and again rejected. This is par for the course and will go on until it is deleted by one means or another. If he even sees your message on 'his' talk-page before the IP changes (at least daily) the IP ed. will likely just blank the page. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello again; the Ensign draft, which you rejected again today, has been nominated at MfD here. I did not see your post on the IP's (today's) TP but had already discussed poss. MfD with a member of the F1 proj. who has reviewed and rejected the draft in the intervening period. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Roger, thank you for your comment on my draft. The Rosenstock quote comes from the back cover of the book - can I reference the book for this quote? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doinggreatthings (talk • contribs) 11:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doinggreatthings, yes please cite the book, giving "back cover" as the page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, will do, many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doinggreatthings (talk • contribs) 11:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

I don't understand what is the problem with this page. Looking at OpenAM (which is younger than LemonLDAP::NG), I don't see more external references that what I proposed: all OpenAM links points to article written by ForgeRock. So what is the real problem, free softwares are banned from en.wikipedia.org?

--Guimard (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Guimard, OpenAM is a rather poor example to follow, it has a tag at the top for exactly the same issue, and if it isn't fixed soon it could be deleted. However, your draft article is still in draft-space so it is safe from deletion. To fix the issue you need to find a few mainstream press or magazine articles that discuss LemonLDAP::NG in considerable detail. If you need further assistance the WP:TEAHOUSE specializes in assisting new editors. BTW, there's an entire category of articles about free software and a WikiProject dedicated to the subject Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Free Software, you can get help from topic specialists there too. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Most of the press articles are written in french, is it possible to use them ? --Guimard (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the language of the source does not matter, use whatever you have. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dodger67 I removed all promotional text from the Draft:Wryst. Could you review this draft once more? Buhram (talk) 10:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Buhram, it's better to get a fresh opinion from a different reviewer. We don't want the article to become biased towards a single reviewer's preferences. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Dodger67, thank you for reviewing my submission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:World_Figure_Championship, as always I value your expertise as I am new to this and still learning.

I did find other articles from About.com about this event, but could not understand how to add them to the reference list. The following was under the reference list, so I don't understand how to edit or add to it:

. If nothing else I would appreciate advice on how to edit with this type of tag, for future reference.

Here are the articles, I'm not sure if they would add any notability.

http://figureskating.about.com/od/competitionsandtests/tp/About-the-2015-World-Figure-Championship-Judges.htm

http://figureskating.about.com/od/famousskaters/fl/World-Figure-Championship-Gives-a-AIDS-Sufferer-Hope.htm

http://figureskating.about.com/od/historyoffigureskating/fl/Summary-of-the-World-Figure-Championship-and-Figure-Festival-2015.htm

http://figureskating.about.com/od/competitionsandtests/fl/About-the-Inaugural-World-Figure-Championship-2015.htm

The event will be in Toronto this year so should receive more press attention; can I resubmit after that?

Please advise. Lakeplacidskater (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lakeplacidskater, I'm afraid about.com is not accepted as a reliable source, see the disclaimer on their "Terms of use" page. I think putting it on hold until the Toronto event is probably the best option. If you like I can move it into your userspace where it can be kept undisturbed until you're ready to work on it again. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Dodger67 Yes, if you can please move it to my userspace and then tell me how to access it when I am ready? I will certainly wait for Toronto's event, then try again. Lakeplacidskater (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the input on my submission of Articles for creation: Niko Tsonev (April 13). I hope most recent edits of proper references can help out the process! It is not easy to find news in mainstream media, since independent musicians, even accomplished ones, usually get close to no coverage. Any additional expert advice would be deeplyl appreciated! Thanks, Ddadian. Ddadian (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ddadian, for expert advice you should ask at WT:WikiProject Rock music. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Roger! Ddadian (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Roger, Just wanted to say thank you for reviewing the article Disability studies in education. The changing of the title from all caps to this is satisfactory and I appreciate your rectifying of this issue. More research is currently being done on the topic and will be added as it comes forth and is appropriate to add. Msustudent2016 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Msustudent2016, I've started a conversation on the article talk page about the lack of and the age of sources used. Most of the sources are really old, up to 50 years! They actually predate the establishment of disability studies as an academic discipline and of course have nothing in terms of the social model. There are also entire sections and paragraphs that have no sources at all. This is the most urgent problem that needs to be addressed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for you comments on the draft page for Draft:Giles Richard Cooper. Very helpful in helping me understand how Wiki works and what is required for good articles. I have made both the suggested amends that you asked for and would be grateful if you could now please review and approve. Many thanks Rodeocowboy36 (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Kchatzia (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Easirent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have improved the content and the citations. I also added more references on the subject. Can you make sure it is ok now to be published?

It's in the queue for review at AFC, it may take a few days to get to it though. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi I have rewritten the content also set the reference links.. kindly approve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arvindtamrakar (talk • contribs) 09:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

No, the draft is still clearly written like an advert. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dodge,

There's an editor on Talk:Rhodesia who claims that South Africans spell words like "recognize" (per the US spelling) as opposed to "recognize" (UK), favouring the "ze". This apparently extends to the following words, too: "organization", "nationalize", "colonize", and "civilization". Now, I was under the very distinct impression that as a Commonwealth country RSA observes typical Commonwealth spellings, which favour "se". As a long term South African editor could you confirm this?

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Katangais, indeed the "ise" form is standard, but the "ize" form is becoming more common as people are increasingly exposed to American media and spellchecker software that only recognises the "ize" form. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Roger, I was working as the technical adviser at an edit-a-thon a couple of weeks ago and, after hearing my spiel on the use of sandboxes, a relative newcomer there asked if I could help her move her draft of an article out of the draft namespace into her sandbox, which I did in this edit. I see that, without leaving a message on her talk page, you moved it back to draft and then another user moved it back to where it had started. I don't understand why. Doesn't she have the right to edit the draft in her sandbox rather than in draft namespace if she cares to do so? Why would another editor have the right to move it back after it had been moved? I don't mean those as a challenge, but only as honest, direct questions seeking to be educated. Should there have been some templates removed or something? Should I have just copy-and-pasted it to her sandbox and had her abandon the copy in draftspace? She's not approached me with any of these questions and has edited the draft back in draftspace, so I'm not asking for anything to be changed back. Neither did I ask her why she didn't want to work in draftspace; I just figured that it was her right to work on her draft wherever she wanted to work on it. Was I wrong? I just want to know what to do should the issue come up again. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:TransporterMan, the move to Draftspace is a standard initial step of the AFC reviewing process (unless it is summarily declined, usually for not actually being a draft article). When an editor submits a draft for review and it looks like a legitimate draft, it is taken to Draftspace where the reviewing process takes place. As far as I can figure it out it seems at some point there may have been two separate drafts of the same article. Unforunately I can't follow what happened after that - moves without redirects make it hard (actually impossible) to keep track - perhaps an admin can help you find it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

PS User:TransporterMan In future when you're assisting newbies tell them "Don't even think of submitting your draft to AFC before it is as complete as you can make it". Premature submissions area frequent problem at AFC that basically just waste the author and reviewers' time. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the background, I appreciate it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)