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.

Dear Roger, Thanks for your action, which I hope will lead to progress. Iberian15 (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear Dodger67, After an exchange with Orangemike, it has become clear to me that there is no point pursuing this project:

Dear Orange Mike, Does it count as a conflict of interest that I am a member of the Scientific Committee that organizes this series of meetings? Of course, as such I am well placed to describe the series, probably better than anyone who is not a member of the committee. If you think there is a COI here, please let me know what I should declare, e.g. "I am currently a member of the Scientific Committee of this series of meetings". I certainly do not get paid for preparing the wikipedia article, and my main interest is to give the wikipedia readership hopefully objective information about this series of meetings. Thanks in advance. Iberian15 (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

   Yep, conflict of interest is not always a commercial matter. You have a perfectly understandable desire to present your organization in its best light, and to let the world know about you and what you do. Openly revealing your COI is definitely a good first step. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC) 

However, it is wikipedia policy on COI:

you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly.

Thus I no longer believe there is any point in trying to get this article included.

Iberian15 (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Heyo, just noticed that you have some AFC submissions that have been under review for a while (1, 2, 3). Cheers, Primefac (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Primefac, I've "released" them as i'm just about to go to bed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dodger67,

I have made revisions to the article that I would like to submit. It has been approved for notability and the references have been modified. I was hoping you could take a look at it when you get a chance. All the best. (Runman826 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)) (Runman826 (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC))

So what do I do? There are no easy instructions here. Do I take a template, copy it to the Sandbox, and make alterations?

Terry — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBadger7 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi TheBadger7, it depends entirely on what you want to do. If you want to create a new article you should read the Your first article guide. However imho you should rather get some experience doing minor edits on existing articles, before taking on the difficult task of creating an article from scratch. Small edits, such as fixing spelling or formatting in existing articles will allow you to get a "feel" for what an article should look like, before you dive into the deep end. The Teahouse is a good place to get more specific advice as you encounter issues. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dodger,

I could really do with a bit of help here - my enthusiasm for this endeavor is diminishing with every rejection.

I guess the spam thing is related to the references to soup with an external link - if I remove them that will sort this - right?

As an aside my intention was to use that link temporarily until I got a wiki link in but the way things are going that could take years :)

The advert ... hmmm ... ok ... I was trying to pick up on the things that the article writers had mentioned but ok - that's not valid - is that correct? The articles (with the exception of the discogs) all appeared in public in either Norway, France and Netherlands so they are a legitimate, active and working band on the continent with a following. I am no more that a fan and wanted to get them on wiki as I like them - if you could help me get a feel for this article writing and get this on here it would be much appreciated.

Thanks. Patrick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptregan (talk • contribs) 16:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The article H45 Battleship Proposal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Seems to be a recreation of material shown to be false in Talk:H-class battleship proposals#H45 Does Not Exist, referenced entirely to Porter's book that has been shown to have been sourced to Wikipedia, where the information had originally been crossposted from a discussion forum's speculations as to what such a ship would be. IOW, recreation of deleted material shown to originally stem from an unreliable source.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. rdfox 76 (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

No idea why I'm getting this. The article is already deleted, I have no opinion about it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

This Pete MacLeod here. I'm trying to add a wikipedia page for myself. Can you tell me what is issue with my entry thanks. Pete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.244.113 (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I might be able to do so, if you could tell me where it is... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

thanks for your reply.i will give my best. thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arul selvan (talk • contribs) 18:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Arul selvan What is this about? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dodger67, Can you help me? I'm trying to put an article that is being rejected. I have already inserted all the sources of the information mentioned in the article, as you requested. what am I doing wrong? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopaice (talk • contribs) 14:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Leopaice, it is not enough to simply state that reviews exist, you must actually tell what the reviewers said about the band. Each one of the listed reviews should become a short paragraph summarizing the review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dodger67!

Finally got back around to editing the page for Jonathan Rosenblum (labor organizer) per your suggestions and re-submitted. Unfortunately the page was again declined --- this time for notability problems. Notability aside, I am curious what the right protocol is for having discussion on the merits of Rosenblum's notability. I replied to the reviewer (SwisterTwister) on their talk page and added a reply comment directly on the draft but I am guessing I am missing something here. I am guessing there is something that looks roughly like code review with threaded comments on each change, but am unsure on how to keep all the comments re. notability in one place for later reference (and/or convenience of review). I am hesitant to resubmit the page with my comment embedded, unless that is how it is best to proceed. Suggestions on where to go from here most welcome!

Cpsarason (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cpsarason your comment is correctly formatted. Do you have any material from truly "national level" sources, such as newspapers or magazines comparable in stature to the NYT, Time Magazine, the big tv networks ABC, NBC, CNN? Books that discuss Rosenblum, not written by him? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• TomSmith1990 (talk · contribs)
  • User:TomSmith1990/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good Afternoon,

Thank you for reviewing my article. You declined it as it contains "too many draft articles", I do not know what this means. Please could you clarify please.

Tom Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomSmith1990 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

TomSmith1990, in reading through your draft it is very difficult to determine what the page is about. While the opening paragraphs are about Omar Benguit, there are entire paragraphs about other people (such as Danilo Restivo) who seemingly had no connection to this individual. This is why the draft was declined - a draft is about one subject, not many. Primefac (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

• Wonder1953 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Wonder1953/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I've been asked to have a look at this wikipedia page as I run the website for the team. It's my first time using wikipedia to create pages so I was wondering if you could give me a little more feedback on why this was declined and an example of the changes that are needed (feel free to give me a link to a page if this is contained somewhere I've missed!!) I'm just trying to establish what changes we need to make to get this approved. Thanks Mike (Wonder1953 (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)).

Wonder1953, your draft does not meet the criteria of the Golden Rule, specifically the requirement to have reliable sources that go into detail about the club. Additionally, there are a few places where you've used "we" - these should be removed/replaced with neutral pronouns. WP:YFA has more information about writing your first article, and WP:REFB has helpful tips about adding references. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Hi Dodger67,

I noticed my article on the restaurant Spear It was removed with speedy deletion. I would like to know if there is any way I can get the article's contents back so that I may fix my errors. In addition, I would greatly appreciate any suggestions you have as to how to make the article less like an advertisement. In creating it I never intended to advertise, so I'm not sure which parts led to the deletion. This is the first article I have attempted to create in wikipedia and would like to better understand my situation to avoid it in the future. Thank you for your time! JGundal (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi JGundal, unfortunately I don't have access to deleted content as I'm not an admin, you should ask Sarahj2107, the admin who did the deletion, to assist you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Roger

I would like to complete my article about gene of uncertain significance

You left this comment:

Comment: This is almost ready to be accepted, just expand the lead to properly summarize the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

A gene of uncertain significance (GUS) is a gene that has not been associated with a phenotype in humans or it is a gene connected with a phenotype in humans that previously had not been connected to that gene.[1]

Is it this sentence that I need to expand to properly summarize the article?

Thank you

David Bick 1-10-17 Dpaulbick (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dpaulbick, I presume you're familiar with scientific journal abstracts. A Wikipedia article lead is similar to an abstract in that it is a precis of the article, but on WP we want the lead to be fairly simple, so that someone with no more than a high school level education in the subject could at least understand what the article is about. The lead should also entice the reader to continue reading. See MOS:LEAD for the official guideline. I will accept the article now with a maintenance tag requesting that the lead be expanded. This will hopefully get the attention of interested editors to help with the task. You can also ask WP:WikiProject Genetics to assist. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Shimon k (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Annika Hernroth-Rothstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Dodger67/reviewer,

The original Wikipedia entry contains several factual errors, such as Ms. Rothstein having been personally greeted by Mr. Rouhani on several occasions, something that has never occurred and for which there is no reference nor basis. The text seems as if it has been poorly translated from other sources, and it makes little sense to an English speaker, making the overall information difficult to digest.

As for the entry on Ms. Rothstein’s career, the original post says that Annika’s topic of writing are “Jews and the Temple”, “Jihadi Tourism”, “Anti-Semitism in Europe” and “Rediscovering Jewish Identity”, and it seems the author of this wikipedia entry has simply taken the title of a few of Ms. Rothstein’s articles and pasted them into the entry, rather than actually describing what she does our what she writes about.

The section on Ms. Rothstein’s personal life is taken word-for-word from one single interview and therefore does not hold up to the regular Wikipedia scrutiny of sourcing, and much as the rest of this Wikipedia entry it is vague at best and factually incorrect at worst.

The entire Wikipedia entry on Annika Hernroth-Rothstein needs to be seriously overhauled as it is factually incorrect, badly sourced and difficult to digest as the author’s language skills leaves something to be desired.

I humbly request to have the current Wikipedia entry completely removed and replaced with the text I have contributed, I have been carefully checking all sources and interviewed Ms. Rothstein on several occasions verifying issues and details thoroughly.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shimon k (talk • contribs) 14:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Shimon k, if the existing article contains factually incorrect information, you should replace it with reliably sourced information (including the references where you found your facts). If you're planning on making a major change, it is best to start a discussion on the talk page. We do not remove an entire article simply because some of the facts are incorrect. Primefac (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Hi Dodger67,

Thanks for the offer of help. Can you help please advise me of what to do next.

I am the co-author of the science behind Digital Dynamics, the OBASHI Methodology and Digital Flow.

We published the OBASHI page on Wiki a few years back. OBASHI is an aspect of Digital Dynamics. The way the science has evolved The OBASHI Methodology became more relevant in the first instance so it seemed sensible to publish that first.

A good comparison would be the wiki pages on Thermodynamics, where there are various aspects to the science behind Thermodynamics covered in various wiki pages.

The next aspect of Digital Dynamics we will look to add in due course is Digital Flow.

Do I need to put a link in the OBASHI page to take the reader to the Digital dynamics page? any help would be most welcome.

Kind regards

Fergus Cloughley (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fergus Cloughley you need to make the distinctions between the topics/entities (that you have explained here) clear in the article draft, so that the next reviewer doesn't come to the same decline decision as mine. An existing article may never contain a link to a draft, such links may be inserted in other articles only after the draft has been accepted. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dodger67, you reviewed my submission on Silverlake Axis about a month ago. I've made some changes after reading your and the other reviewer's comments. Can you please look at the article again and let me know if it's ready for the Article Space? Thanks. Mictan236 (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mictan236, please simply resubmit it for another review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that is nuanced. :) Should we have listed the Request for comment on whether the Bronze Wolf Award by itself is enough to show notability of holders of the award at the Wikipedia:Village_pump instead? You live in a place I've always wanted to visit! Given that you too are interested in disability issues as I am, you may have something to add to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingsley C. Dassanayake. I have written to the Ceylon School for the Deaf & Blind and the descendant org for the World Council for the Welfare of the Blind, no answer to either request.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Kintetsubuffalo, I actually arrived at the Bronze Wolf debate via the link in this AFD. It's only after having participated in the BWA discussion that I have formulated an opinion about the AFD, which I have posted a few minutes ago. WikiProject Disability displays all relevant AFDs, so that's how I found it.

BTW my nuanced arguments will hopefully be to my advantage when I enter the RFA "inquisition" next week. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Good luck with the RFA!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

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

I have now added some references to justify claims of membership in Solidarity Swiss, European Solidar, Zewo, I also took references from the German language article which I had dropped because they are all in German. The now referenced ZEWO entry also allows one to download the last yearly report and financial statement. Do you think I should refer to them too? If so how?

I am not sure that you saw my User talk describing who I am and what I am doing therefore here it is again

I am a retired person acting as volunteer unpaid contributor to the Solidar Suisse organisation. Up to now I have done web site page translations from German to English. I suggested to them that the German language wiki article was much better than the current English article and that therefore an update of the English one would be appropriate. My submission is my translation of the German article with minor revisions (mostly deletions). Does this constitute a serious COI?

Allanatwork (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Allanatwork, the main problem is that you are citing only the involved organisations' own publications. You need truly independent sources such as newspapers, academic papers, books, etc. that were written and published by people with no connection to the subject organisation or its associates. You mention a current English article, where is it? If an article about the same subject already exists you should be editing it directly, not creating a separate draft. When an article already exists a new draft cannot be accepted to replace the existing article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, I beg to disagree about the origin of my references. Point-by-point

1. www.findmittel.ch appears to be a site of the Schweizerisches Sozialarchiv. This organisation describes itself in the following https://www.sozialarchiv.ch/en/swiss-social-archives/about-us. It appears to be a repository for documents related to social issues.
2. dodos.ch isa repository for Swiss diplomatic documents. This is given in its profile http://www.dodis.ch/en/profile. It is supported by the Swiss Society for History.
3. swiss-solidarity.org is a fund-raising foundation started by the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation. I refer to it to justify the statement that Solidar Suisse is a member. Note that the French and German names of the organisation do not use the word "solider" and that funds are distributed to many different charitable groups.
4. www.solidar.org is the web site associated with SOLIDAR an umbrella organisation with members throughout Europe (including Solidar Suisse). See http://www.solidar.org/en/about-us/solidar
5. ZEWO is an organisation certifying the functioning of a large number of Swiss charities. Its seal entitles donors to make non-taxable contributions. Given this certification I thought that the financial reports on their site constitute reliable evidence of how Solidar Suisse spends money and effort. See https://www.zewo.ch/en/

Of these 5 references I would only consider 4. as potentially being an "associate". Does this make sense?

I am afraid that I was mistaken in saying that an English article already exists. As of now there are articles available in French and German. Thus my English translation has to be considered as a new article.

From my point of view there is merit in having a Wikipedia article available in English to complement the French and German versions. Clearly the German one has more content therefore I have based my work on it. How would you suggest that I proceed?

Thanks for the help. Allanatwork (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Satyam2017 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Satyam2017/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am beginner. Please help me how to quote references.

I have included a list of references and these are reliable as per the guide lines. Need help to improve my article. please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyam2017 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Satyam2017 please read the whole review message and follow the links to guidance pages, in particular the Referencing for beginners guide which explains referencing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dodger,

Thank you for reviewing my article on Faia Younan. I am a bit confused. the reason of article rejection states as following:

"The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you."

yet your comment: "There is no clear claim of significance in the lead. You need to state what it is that makes this singer stand out among the millions of people all over the world who sing?"

these are completely different? . as for your comment, could you please elaborate? what would be more significant than her career? I'm not sure i understand your point. what makes a singer standout out of million of people who sing are them being "professional singers" vs "amateur singer".

Kindly let me know more of your point of view so I could make the necessary changes.

Thanks again,

TestCandidate 17:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TestCandidate (talk • contribs)

TestCandidate, there are two points on the recent decline. The first (and most important) is a lack of inline citations. Biographies of living persons require that all information is sourced, and this is done by placing the references in the body of the text (e.g. "This is a statement.<ref>...</ref>"). We cannot accept the draft until you move the references from the References section up to the statements they are supporting.

The second issue is the lead, which tells about the person. What has she done? Is she just a singer? Is there anything else she is known for? The lead is an important part of a page, which is why Dodger mentioned it when they declined your draft. See WP:LEAD for more information. Primefac (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Thank you for the clarifications. I will work on the changes and re-submit x) TestCandidate 17:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TestCandidate (talk • contribs)

Hello! You placed a "Review waiting" on this draft awhile back. Any hope of some attention? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång, it was actually you that submitted it for review, all I did was to move it to Draft-space. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I just realised that, sorry (pretty much my first article). I´d still like a review though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

thanks very much for getting back to me. how can I contacact this person s/he doesnt seem to have a talk page. tow hours of my life I'm not going to get back ;o)) tx Ann Marie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Familyandpast (talk • contribs) 16:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Familyandpast, that's not at all unusual on Wikipedia, I've had entire days of contributions wiped out. What you can perhaps do, is to try to find proper sources for the content of the article because it has no references at all. There seems to be quite a bit of information about him in various Irish newspapers and other publications, it seems he's quite a big deal there. See the Referencing for beginners guide for the technicalities. You can also get more help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts or WP:WikiProject Ireland, the regulars there are probably better suited to helping with specifics. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Roger. I wondered if you might consider running for adminship again. Your ORCP posting from nearly a year ago was very positive, and I think you would have a great chance at running again. I would be more than happy to nominate you, as would - I suspect - Ritchie333. I think you could do a lot of good work with the admin toolset and from looking through your contributions I think the community would agree. Sam Walton (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I did a provisional RfA for Roger a few months back (as an admin you can see it - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dodger67 2 - I G7ed it) with the intention of DGG being a co-nom, but he's held off for the minute as he wants more AfD experience. I particularly wanted DGG as he was a key opposer in the first RfA. Since his previous RfA in August 2014, he has participated in over 60 AfDs and I cannot see any issue with any of them. I checked CSDs going back six months and the only disputed one I can find is this. I think he's got nothing to worry about and I'm happy to reboot the RfA whenever he wants. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, indeed. No problem - and yes I though DGG as a co-nom would be a good idea if he was happy to do so. Let me know if you want a co-nom when it is restarted, and no worries if not, I'll just make a very enthusiastic support :) Sam Walton (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

From looking at my email archives, I think DGG is busy elsewhere and hasn't got time to put together a really good nomination. If he doesn't want to do it, and Roger is okay to run now, I don't think there'll be any issue in you putting your name on it instead. I would say it's down to Roger whether he wants to run now or not. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy for me to co-nom? If so I'll get to work! Sam Walton (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ritchie333Samwalton9DGGKudpung (If I missed anyone who has been or should be informed, please ping them too.) Take a look at User:Dodger67/Sandbox/RfA sandbox. I'm rapidly running out of excuses, so let's see if we can aim at running early in February. It must be done and dusted by no later than the 10th, because from then until late March I'm going to be too busy to give it the necessary attention. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've undeleted the RfA, updating the opening statement a bit and put today's date on it. Put your answers to the three standard questions on it; anyone who wants to co-nom, add your nomination, then when we're all done, accept the nomination and off we go. Any reason we can't run right now (ie: have the RfA in place by Sunday) - not that I want to rush but if you want it done and dusted by mid-February, there's no point hanging about. Plus the goodwill around RfA right now might not last forever. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ritchie333. I'm on the road for a few days starting tomorrow morning, then I have a major business presentation to do on Thursday. I'd like to spend at least a day or three crafting my first answers, so how about launch next Sunday? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, just let me know when you're ready. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 Samwalton9 I'll start composing the first three answers over the next few days. After my business meeting on Thursday I will be free to give it the attention it needs. I should be ready for a Sunday launch. BTW, my timezone is UTC+2 and my usual online hours are from about 7:00 to about 20:00 UTC. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

BTW, with DGG not available to nominate, I hope an early Support statement from him might be possible. AIUI he is currently occupied with other activities so may not be following this converastion. Kudpung apparently you have quite regular contact with him, I'd really appreciate it if you could "prompt" DGG to do so. No pressure of course, I don't want to be accused of solicitation, but it might help to neutralise some lingering "fallout" from my previous RFA. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You will get an early support. DGG ( talk ) 11:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you DGG, very much apreciated. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 Samwalton9, I'd appreciate if you would cast anmeye over my three answers, they are based on the answers I gave at my first RFA edited according to feedback and advice I recieved. BTW To what extent is is acceptable to "advertise" my RFA on my user page and mention it other project pages where I am known as a regular? Obviously I don't want to overstep the Canvassing boundary. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I've fixed a spelling mistake, but otherwise nothing stands out. For Q1, just expect questions and cross examination on what you do put there, though I know from personal experience what you've listed is what I know you for and what you want to do anyway. For Q2, check all your contributions and make sure they are all free of maintenance tags and have no obvious problems. If you look at previous RfAs, you can get an idea of what questions you might be asked, though I assume you'll have looked through that already.

I think the recent run of RfA candidates was good, and it would be nice to have a bunch running simultaneously to avoid attention being focused all on one candidate, but beggars can't be choosers.

Some people put ((RfA-notice)) at their top of the user and / or user talk page, and obviously preamble conversation on your talk here before the RfA starts is fine, as people would expect it. Beyond that, you should not mention RfA anywhere, as you run a risk of running up "Oppose - canvassing" !votes. (example) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Samwalton9 we just need your nomination statement then we'd be good to go. I'm just a bit concerned to be the only active RFA as it might attract too much "undesirable" attention. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay - plan to write it this afternoon! Don't worry too much about that; before the other week that's what every RfA has been like recently! Sam Walton (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Samwalton9. Ritchie333 It's Saturday evening here now, in the morning I will indicate my readiness to launch by posting my acceptance of the nomination. I'm not aware of your timezones so I hope it won't be inconvenient. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe you are in the same timezone as me, or near it. I'm a bit out and about tomorrow, but hopefully I'll quickly grab 10 minutes to transclude your nomination after you accept, unless you want to do it. It's not hard; the important bit is that when you comment out the subst: it starts the "timer" as 7 days from that point, so get it transcluded on WP:RFA ASAP as the community expects to have the full 168 hours up for voting on. Or you can transclude first, then do the commenting out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to do it in the morning if you've accepted before I head out. Sam Walton (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Good luck for your rfa! J947 07:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

J947, Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• 60.242.178.114 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Concordia German Choir, Sydney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for your review and your research. As you correctly assume, I am indeed focused on promoting the Concordia German Choir, Sydney. There are a number of German Choirs on the planet with the name, Concordia (meaning Harmony), but they are not related other than by the language in which they sing. I can expand on the topic, nominating important people in the choir and its history which dates back to 1883 but have few other independent sources to which I can refer. Further I can translate the article into German if this helps it to be accepted.

If any of my suggestions help, please let me know and I will be more than willing to oblige. Of course I would be very pleased if there were a way to have my article accepted but in any event I am grateful for your help and the time you have spent.

Kind Regards, Bernd (Bernie)

Hi Bernd, another reviewer, Worldbruce, has posted some good advice on the draft page. He seems to be best suited to advising you further. The German Wikipedia has its own standards and process, their help page is at de:Wikipedia:Fragen zur Wikipedia, contact them about creating a German version. Good luck! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I saw this but I'm happy to hold off on a decision on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:I.M if you want to finish the review. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather please let the MFD run its course. I suspended the review process because there's no point in wasting time on reviewing a draft that ends up being deleted. If it's kept we simply continue the review process. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Deleted now. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather, I've just taken a look at the MFD, I'm wondering if relisting would have been the better option? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

It generally is, but this is about the third AFC-MFD that SwisterTwister has created that's been closed with no !votes. I hate to sound the conspiracy alarm, but... Primefac (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Primefac I will respond after my RFA closes, I'm sure you understand why... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I could have but in general there are never any more comments. I do relist some. I feel that these are easy to delete and just as easy to restore if someone asks. I recently restored Draft:Credible and Draft:Simply Gluten Free Magazine after I was asked at my talk page. Primefac I see that SwisterTwister has nominated several and I have deleted several. However, I can assure you there is no conspiracy here. Until SwisterTwister started nominating them without signing I don't believe I had ever had any contact with them. Have you asked SwisterTwister about the nominations? Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather, I'm being a bit unfair to you. If you're one of the main admins that patrols MFD, then clearly you'll be closing a bunch of them, regardless of who started them. Despite the fact I was half-joking when I made my above post, I shouldn't have made it in the first place. You're just doing what you're supposed to. Please accept my apologies. Primefac (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Primefac. No worries and no need to apologise. I wasn't offended at all. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Interpretation of Wisdom (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC) Hello! I totally disagreed with the declined of this Interpretation of Wisdom because there is no genuine reason why this should be decline in anyway by ‪Dodger67‬. So I appeal to kindly reviewed its creationInterpretation of Wisdom (talk)

Interpretation of Wisdom, I completely agree with Dodger's decline. We already have an article about wisdom, so there's no reason to create a duplicate article. Primefac (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Congratulations Dodger67! Your RfA was successful. You are now an administrator on the English Wikipedia. I hope you have just as happy a time editing in the future as you did before your RfA. You may want to look at the admin guide to read up on any tools you are unfamiliar with.

— xaosflux ^Talk 05:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I successfully tested my mop by deleting (per U1) one of my sandbox pages. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

South Africa Paralympics

Thank you for quality articles such as South Africa at the 2012 Summer Paralympics and Death of Nelson Mandela, for articles on disability by country, for fighting vandalism and caring about articles for creation, now also as an admin, - Roger, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the admin corps! Every new admin gets a nice new mop and a brand new admin T-shirt, but it seems they're neglected food and drink. While I may not be the best cook around, I can at least prepare you coffee that isn't the crappy instant coffee you find on the store shelves! Freshly roasted beans, hand-ground and filtered through a French press... what's not to like? Have a cup before you practice your mop-fu skills. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, K6ka, make mine Jamaican Blue Mountain... :) I thought the reading list for the RFA was a lot, but the mop user manual is huuuuuge!!! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	For enduring your sometimes uncivil and bitter RfA and coming out successfully! — Iadmc♫talk  13:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Iadmc, actually my first RFA was much rougher. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Second time's the charm. Congratulations on a successful RfA! —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks MRD2014, first coffee, now pie... There seems to be a theme here! :) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Congratulations for adminship !! CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Wow! That's great! I know it was a lot of work, but it will be worth it.—Anne Delong (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks for running, congratulations on the successful run, and enjoy that T-shirt! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Congratulations :) Sam Walton (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Congratulations and best wishes. Donner60 (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Congrats on your RfA! Take a few seconds to enjoy the moment... after which CSD with its perpetual backlog is this way. :-) -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ad Orientem - You call that a backlog? Currently only 60 pages and none are urgent G10 or G12/F9 Speedies. The backlogs that I'm used to run into the hundreds or thousands of pages. I got some criticism at the RFA about my speedy tagging, so I'd rather not jump in there so early in my mop-operator career. I'm still reading up on many of the admin jobs, I'll get stuck in as soon as I'm confident about the rules and procedures. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Congrats Roger - you deserve it. Gbawden (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Gbawden, I wonder how many Saffer admins there are? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Congratulations on your appointment. Conlinp (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Conlinp, I'm still studying the mop operator's manual, I'm not diving into it hastily. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Congratulations Dodger - you previous diligent work, help that you have given to the newbies (as I once was) and the contacts that you have made over time have not been forgotten. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Canis variabilis

What do you mean? [1] --USA-Fan (talk) 09:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi USA-Fan there are several grammar errors in the article due to the sources being in German. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Don´t know what you mean. Sorry. Have you an example? --USA-Fan (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

"Have you an example?" is clearly a translitteration of "Haben Sie ein Beispiel?". A native English speaker would normally say "Do you have an example?". Thank you for writing the article, but please do not concern yourself with this problem, rather allow someone more fluent in English to fix it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I know what you are meaning. --USA-Fan (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I often have the same problem in German. ;) --USA-Fan (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

i hazte you sooo mnuch

Aggy123wills (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Aggy123wills What is this about? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dodger67,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 798 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

As you are a member of the above task force we're just letting you know about an up coming election for two coordinators for the New Page Review System. Full details at New Page Review Coordinators

If you no longer wish to receive messages from this project, you may opt out here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I did read the Wikipedia guidelines.

Wikipedia Criteria for musicians and ensembles

Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

The musical group my article is about meets this criterion.

rambles.net has been acceptably used as a source more than twenty times. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=Search&search=Rambles.net&searchToken=5shz9k66y4k300jvxsq8fu6f6

Bilgemunky has been acceptably used as a source five times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Bilgemunky&go=Go&searchToken=21c6vutmvj5x0jzih41zpalgj

My article uses both of these sources. That makes multiple sources. They are album reviews, which makes them non-trivial. They are reliable, not self-published, and independent of the group. That fits the first criterion for musicians and ensembles. And since Wikipedia guidelines specifically state that an article about a musician or ensemble may be notable if they meet at least one of the criteria, according to WP:MUSICBIO, then an article needs to meet only one. My article meets the first one.

WP:MUSIC/SOURCE requires that album reviews be done by a professional DJ or be included in a publication with a writing and editorial staff.

rambles.net is an online cultural magazine focusing on folk music of various genres. Here is a link to their writing and editorial staff: http://www.rambles.net/staffbios.html

Bilgemunky Radio was a pirate-music-themed radio show. A pirate version of Dr. Demento. Bilgemunky was the on-air moniker of Gerard Heidgerken, a professional DJ who produced and hosted the show, as well as providing DJ services for parties and festivals. The show was carried in various markets in syndication and online. There were over 200 episodes. The broadcast has since ended, and the Bilgemunky company has expanded to more general DJ services, but the online reviews of various pirate-themed groups, albums, books, movies, games, and alcohol are still available.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090522143648/http://www.bilgemunky.com/pirate-reviews/music/marooned/

http://www.bilgemunky.com/pirate-reviews/music/lost-at-sea/

http://www.bilgemunky.com/pirate-reviews/music/going-overboard/

http://www.bilgemunky.com/category/pirate-reviews/rum/

http://www.bilgemunky.com/pirate-reviews/rum/review-fortuna-8-year/

https://www.behance.net/gallery/19118491/Bilgemunkycom-Film-Review

http://www.bilgemunky.com/pirate-reviews/books/sea-witch/

http://www.bilgemunky.com/pirate-reviews/games/pegleg-petes-deck-of-royal-rogues-pirate-playing-cards/

WP:MUSIC/SOURCE requires either a professional DJ, such as Gerard Heidgerken, aka Bilgemunky, or a online or print publication with an editorial and writing staff, such as rambles.net.

Cybotik (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I've merged the oroantral fistula drafts together here link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Oroantral_fistula_(2) and submitted to Robert McClenon but for some reason he said he had too much history with the page and can't review this page link to talk page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robert_McClenon#oroantral_fistula_page . So I was wondering whether you can help review this page or should I just post this in the teahouse?. Justryingtohelp (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Justryingtohelp, Yes Robert McClenon is correct in not wanting to review it due to "too much history", and I must also pass for the same reason, having been too involved with it already to give it a proper neutral review. It is in the queue to be reviewed at AFC so someone will do it. You don't need to do anything more except to redirect the other draft to this one. If you need help to do that just let me know. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Justryingtohelp - Posting to the Teahouse would be a reasonable request. Do you want the unnumbered version of the draft deleted? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Do not delete it, the page history is required for attribution, so just redirect it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dodger67

I noticed your reversions to my edits on three pages: all related to the use of the term 'non-disabled' vs 'able-bodied'. This really is the preferred term these days, "able-bodied" having been deprecated as a description. Even the Wikipedia page on "Able Bodied" now redirects to "Disability". So I don't see this as a matter of sources, but of an article using language that's now out of date.

As I suspect you're more experienced on Wikipedia than I am, do you have any suggestions? As it stands, I'm not sure I see the problem with edits. Thanks. ClivePIA (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi ClivePIA, the established practice on Wikipedia is to follow the sources. Only when a preponderance of sources use a term are we supposed to follow suit. Wikipedia is never a trend leader, as a tertiary source it follows the general majority of secondary sources. If we allow WP to take the lead in such trends, it would end up being an "activist" site instead of a neutral encyclopedia. See for example the long time that it (correctly) took WP to change away from "mental retardation" to "intellectual disability" as the standard terminology. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there its 21 ninjas

Thanks for the additional work you've done on the Claremont High article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 21ninjas (talk • contribs) 11:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

21ninjas the independent and reliable sources, in the form of mainstream news articles, are essential, you could comb through them for further detail and search for more. One current significant gap in the article is the lack of a few "vital" statistics; numbers of teachers and students. When you're done with this one, there are a whole lot of other school articles that need your skills. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

As you have not responded to my defense of my article, I am renewing it.

I did read the Wikipedia guidelines.

Wikipedia Criteria for musicians and ensembles

Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

The musical group my article is about meets this criterion.

rambles.net has been acceptably used as a source more than twenty times. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=Search&search=Rambles.net&searchToken=5shz9k66y4k300jvxsq8fu6f6

Bilgemunky has been acceptably used as a source five times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Bilgemunky&go=Go&searchToken=21c6vutmvj5x0jzih41zpalgj

My article uses both of these sources. That makes multiple sources. They are album reviews, which makes them non-trivial. They are reliable, not self-published, and independent of the group. That fits the first criterion for musicians and ensembles. And since Wikipedia guidelines specifically state that an article about a musician or ensemble may be notable if they meet at least one of the criteria, according to WP:MUSICBIO, then an article needs to meet only one. My article meets the first one.

WP:MUSIC/SOURCE requires that album reviews be done by a professional DJ or be included in a publication with a writing and editorial staff.

rambles.net is an online cultural magazine focusing on folk music of various genres. Here is a link to their writing and editorial staff: http://www.rambles.net/staffbios.html

Bilgemunky Radio was a pirate-music-themed radio show. A pirate version of Dr. Demento. Bilgemunky was the on-air moniker of Gerard Heidgerken, a professional DJ who produced and hosted the show, as well as providing DJ services for parties and festivals. The show was carried in various markets in syndication and online. There were over 200 episodes. The broadcast has since ended, and the Bilgemunky company has expanded to more general DJ services, but the online reviews of various pirate-themed groups, albums, books, movies, games, and alcohol are still available.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090522143648/http://www.bilgemunky.com/pirate-reviews/music/marooned/

http://www.bilgemunky.com/pirate-reviews/music/lost-at-sea/

http://www.bilgemunky.com/pirate-reviews/music/going-overboard/

http://www.bilgemunky.com/category/pirate-reviews/rum/

http://www.bilgemunky.com/pirate-reviews/rum/review-fortuna-8-year/

https://www.behance.net/gallery/19118491/Bilgemunkycom-Film-Review

http://www.bilgemunky.com/pirate-reviews/books/sea-witch/

http://www.bilgemunky.com/pirate-reviews/games/pegleg-petes-deck-of-royal-rogues-pirate-playing-cards/

WP:MUSIC/SOURCE requires either a professional DJ, such as Gerard Heidgerken, aka Bilgemunky, or a online or print publication with an editorial and writing staff, such as rambles.net.

Cybotik (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cybotik, you don't need to convince me, it's the next reviewer that you need to persuade, but not by posting long-winded argumentation. The references must speak for themselves, because even if a reviewer accepts the draft, every subsequent reader also needs to be convinced that the article deserves its space on Wikipedia. I'm afraid bilgemunkey.com or rambles.net aren't anywhere near the quality and reputation of mainstream media such as Billboard or the New York Times. The notability guide speaks of reviews by professional reviewers, not DJs - anybody who owns a deck can call themself a DJ these days. BTW you need to completely drop all the Youtube references because "being famous on Youtube is like being rich in Monopoly" - Youtube references are "poison" in any draft hoping to be accepted. A good place to get topic-specific assistance is WT:WikiProject Music, post a note there asking for their opinions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC/SOURCE reads: Specifically, reviews should be written by professional music journalists or DJs. Check it yourself. Please do not change the wording of the Wikipedia guidelines as an excuse to decline. Both rambles.net and bilgemunkey.com have been used many times as Wikipedia sources. My article meets the requirements of both WP:MUSIC/SOURCE and WP:BAND as they are written. There is nothing in those guidelines about quality and reputation.

Cybotik (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Cybotik I've already told you that it's the next reviewer that needs to be convinced, not me. If you would put even a fraction of the effort that you're wasting by arguing with me here, into actually developing the article draft, it might already have been accepted. You've written about ten times more words here than are in the draft. I wish you well, but I am requesting that you no longer interact with me as I am not willing to deal with your confrontational approach. Get help from Wikiproject Music as I advised above, but do not approach them like you've done here, assume good faith is one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Roger - we have had several editathons with Wikimedia UK but haven't got far in our pursuit of adding pages about disabled artists to Wikipedia. We were hoping for support in helping us edit pages so they don't get deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinetto (talk • contribs) 14:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Colinetto, I'm afraid editathons inherently have a low "stick" rate for new articles. The two articles I had been asked to "rescue" are, imho, hopeless. The mainstream independent sources simply do not exist. With editathons very little prior research is ever done, the participants are invariably newbies to Wikipedia who do not really grok the absolute primacy of good sourcing. Editathon participants also tend to be "insiders" vis-a-vis their subject matter, which tends to give them distorted sense of the "importance" of their subjects. Most newbies confuse importance and notability. Imho one of the biggest impediments to writing acceptable WP articles is personal knowlege of the subject. Of the fifty-odd articles I've written, I had prior knowledge about only a handful of them. The less you already know the more you are forced to follow only the sources you find. I think for every hour of writing one should do about a week of research/reading (an hour or two per day). When you're planning another editathon please notify the Disability WikiProject at least two or three weeks before, and have a list of proposed subjects ready. We can then do a source search for each one, weed out the non-notables, and provide the editathon participants with a "recommended reading" list, well before the editathon starts. The "three secrets" to making new articles that stick is; research, research and research. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dodger67 Thanks for reviewing this article. I will add citations as you suggest. Let me know if you see anything else that stands in the way of this article being accepted. All the best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Objectgirl (talk • contribs) 18:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Objectgirl, I've done a few layout fixes and also placed a (slightly excessive number of) "cite needed" tags where you really do need to provide sources. The first paragraph of the "Art practice" section is actually the fundamental "core" of the entire article. It is the only place where you provide information about what other people have said about the artist and her work. Lists of exhibitions and collections are just mere "proof of existence", whereas actual notability is entirely dependent on the opinions of independent commentators and critics. That's the difference between "someone who paints pictures" and a "real" artist. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Rgschroeder12 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Operations Management for Services (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please see the revision of my article: Operations Management for Services Thank you for your helpful review. I have worked over the past week to change my article from an essay to an encyclopedia article with a neutral view. I started by revising and deleting several sentences and some paragraphs that were opinions or not factually referenced. I believe that the article now makes only factual statements.

I also revised the article by adding more references and reusing some references to support the statements that are made. The article now reads more as an encyclopedia entry that summarizes secondary sources. If there are other changes still needed, please let me know.

I look forward to your response.Rgschroeder12 (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rgschroeder12 While we wait for the next review, you might want to go over your references. Many of your book citations lack page numbers, it is also strongly preferred that book citations include ISBN numbers as far as possible. Similarly journal article cites should include the DOI or whatever other indexing systems are used (PMID, OCLC, Bibcode, etc). If there are none please try to find a website link where the source is available (most journal articles of at least the last twenty years are available online). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

HI, Thanks for your suggestions. I will make the changes. Meantime, another reviewer has declined my article. I think for the wrong reasons. Please see his comments and my response.I hope you can find them both. Let me know if you can't.Rgschroeder12 (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, I made the changes you suggested by adding isbn numbers for books and doi or links for articles. I also added page numbers for book references. Now, all of the reference have these, except for a few that I couldn't find. Note, in an earlier revision I changed my article from an essay to an encyclopedia format with a neutral view.

You can see there was a rejection by "Theroadislong" on 15 Feb for reasons that there was already an article on Operations Management. I subsequently replied to "Theroadislong" that my article on operations management for services deserved a separate article since the literature on service operations is extensive and the existing operations management article covered manufacturing only except for one paragraph, and that article was already quite long. "Theroadislong" subsequently replied to me to feel free to resubmit my article for someone else to review.

Here is the complete argument why Operations Management for Services should be a separate article that I sent to Theroadislong;

"It is true that the article, Operations Management, mentions Service Operations in one paragraph among the many pages of text. That article starts with, "Operations management is an area of management concerned with designing and controlling the process of production and redesigning business operations in the production of goods or services." While the production of services is in the definition the rest of the long article, except for one paragraph, deals entirely with manufacturing history, explanations, practices, examples and citations. Given that developed economies produce more services than manufactured goods by a large margin, it's unfortunate that operations management of services is not given more attention in that article. The reason I wrote a separate article on Operations Management for Services is that the content would be way too long if it were added to the existing article dealing with manufacturing. I received the advice from a Wikipedia editor to write a separate article to give service operations appropriate consideration and not make the current {manufacturing oriented} article too long. This does not deny the importance of manufacturing in developed economies, I am just dealing with a glaring omission. Since the 1950s there has been a very large literature in textbooks and research on Operations Management for Services as referenced in my article. Certainly, Operations Management for Services deserves as much attention in Wikipedia as manufacturing. I hope that you will reconsider, or pass the review to another reviewer, given the advice I received to write a separate article on Operations Management for Services and the length needed to address services. Thank you for your time.Rgschroeder12 (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)"

Subsequently Theroadislong said, feel free to resubmit the article to someone else.

I have now completed all the changes. Would you please review the article, Draft: operations management for services, which I have revised twice to respond to your comments? I hope it is now acceptable. ThanksRgschroeder12 (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Rgschroeder12 (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Rgschroeder12, apologies for taking so long to reply. There is one major problem with the draft that has apparently not been addressed yet. The lead currently barely mentions "operations management for services". The lead talks about operations management, in the generic sense. What it really needs to do is explicitly define what operations management specifically in the services sector is, and to properly differentiate it from "generic" operations management. That's how the lead is supposed to introduce and define the specific subject of the article. That should be done in the first paragraph of just two to four sentences. Then the rest of the lead briefly summarises the body of the article. Cut out all the current content that is about "generic" operations management - we already have an entire article about that. You only mention the generic sense of operations management to differentiate it from the "for services" type of operations management. Your current lead is like having a biography of John Doe but only discussing John's parents in the lead. See MOS:LEAD for specific guidance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Dodger67, Thanks for your helpful comments about the lead and the guidance to read MOS:LEAD. I completely rewrote the lead in accordance with that guidance. Since this was my first Wikipedia article, I had no idea there were specific instructions for a lead. I hope the article is acceptable now. Thanks again.Rgschroeder12 (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dodger67,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 798 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, please read the book cited in the article before changing Baartman's birth year back to the erroneous date of 1789. For your convenience, here is a google books link to Crais and Scully's discussion of Baartman's likely birth year: [[2]]. She spent more than a decade in Cape Town. 1789 is far too late. I find Crais and Scully's investigation of this matter more convincing than any other source. Also, why were Crais and Scully cited as the source for the fake 1789 date? The central argument of their book is that she was brought to Europe as a grown woman in her thirties, not a child. Am86 (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Am86, if you look at the page history I basically just undid an earlier unexplained edit, and brought it back to consistency as the 1789 date was already mentioned twice elesewhere in the article, and the pre-1770 estimate only once. However, you are correct that the Crais and Scully source seems to be the most authorotative, so the article needs to be brought into line with that date - everywhere the birthdate estimate is mentioned. I think a sentence or two of explicit explanation of the reasoning behind Crais and Scully's estimate needs to be added. Do you think this makes sense? BTW, I think the article title should be "Sarah Baartman" rather than use the infantilising "Saartjie", but that's a separate issue. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree there should be a mention of the varying birth year estimates. I also agree with renaming the page. "Sarah Baartman" is the spelling listed on her baptism papers and the version used by the South African government. Am86 (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Am86 you might be interested in giving your opinion about the move request at Talk:Saartjie Baartman#Requested move 21 February 2017. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. The coordinators will do their best for for the advancement of the improvement of NPP and AfC and generally keep tracks on the development of those things. Coordinators have no additional or special user benefits, but they will be 'go to' people and will try to keep discussions in the right places. This very much involves this project too, especially with growing renewed interest around the site about what WP:ACTRIAL was all about.

Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Discuss this message here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from this list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Dodger67, I hate to bother you, but did you see my post from Feb 19th on my edit page of previous posts? It's a relatively minor revision of the lead. I just want to make sure you noticed it. Thanks.Rgschroeder12 (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks, i'm rarely on. I just put stuff on that i hope will be easily fixed coz i'm not that great with the technical stuff. Thanks for having my back, it's quite an important page for me that I wish had more stuff on it about the community.

Vicky Sutherland (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other 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 military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi.

To answer your question:

The reason Wikipedia needs an article about the profession of teacher educator is the same reason why it needs articles about the professions of teacher, engineer etc. In these cases, there also exist articles about teaching and engineering. But that hasn't been seen as a reason not to have an article about the profession. A profession is very different from the environment in which it operates.

The focus of these articles is on professions, not on the contexts in which they work. The content of 'Teacher Education', is very different from that of 'Teacher Educator', although the subjects are linked to some extent. The former is about the competences required by the profession, professional ethics, etc etc. The latter is about the ways that the process of educating teachers is *organised* in different countries.

I submit that we need a separate article about the recognized profession of teacher educator.

Holdspa (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

In the absence of any reply from you, as requested, I have inserted the article on the teacher educator profession into the (already lengthy) article on teacher education and made the necessary adjustments to section heads etc.

To be consistent, will you also be insisting on the following changes to other articles:

• inserting 'teacher' into 'teaching'
• inserting 'engineer' into 'engineering'
• inserting 'physician' and 'surgeon' into 'medicine'
• inserting 'artist' into 'art'

etc?

Holdspa (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13

Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

• A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
• AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
• Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
• The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

Technical news

• A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
• Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
• A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

	The Original Barnstar
	You recognised me for my cricket related projects Abishe (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)