User talk:RogDel

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Hello, RogDel, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! DickClarkMises (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, welcome.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to Chas Smith, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. MKoltnow 04:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something else that you can do which will really help other editors is to leave an edit summary on each edit you make. Just tell folks what you're changing by leaving a short description in the Edit summary box. MKoltnow 04:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For (what ought to be) very obvious reasons, please refrain from adding gratuitous {{nofootnotes}} templates to articles with only one source. Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RogDel. It is great to find you tagging the pages. This is good for the Project though sometimes looks really amusing! However, a little help in developing the contents shall be useful. I think that you will not take this as negative comments. Cheers. --Bhadani (talk) 12:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhadani, thanks for your message. However, I'm afraid, I see myself more comfortable at tagging the pages than developing the contents, at present. I hope tagging is a real essential work too? --RogDel (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's OK for the time being, I mean the tagging work. However, I suggest that while tagging the pages, you may devote a little time to the existing contents too (I presume that you may be already doing this) to help in tasks, if required, like minor clean-ups and so on. And, sure, tagging is a fine job as it brings to focus certain missing aspects. I look forward to future when you will start enjoying contributing to contents too - you will surly be doing, I am sure. Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you write at least one article after tagging a few hundred in two days? That said, you could also extract the footnotes out of the wiki links and external links that a lot of articles have that you keep tagging. That would be work but real help.--Peter Eisenburger (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting the comma in one of my articles. But, additionally to what I said before, you should really think your actions over. I can see no sense in asking for footnotes and citations in articles like Jim Love (artist). There are five given references for this small article! You could read one of the referenced books and add well sourced information to the article. For now I deleted your tag. - You have been hinted to this point before by User:Fullstop. So will you please take a break? --Peter Eisenburger (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At your request, I have added footnotes to the Harry Pye (prospector) article, all of eight sentences. I hope that you don't find it too cluttered. I endorse Peter Eisenburger's and perhaps Fullstop's suggestion that you tackle footnoting one of these articles, as well as suggesting that it be done. It is work and not as much fun as writing or word-smithing articles. Big banners at the start of short articles are disheartening. It is often better to use the in-line fact template to identify specific facts that may be unusual or controversial, and not to use the header template Citations missing. --Bejnar (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been repeatedly moving these into the vital dates, which is exactly opposite the recommended practice. See this page.--BillFlis (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just reverted your edit to Omer Clyde Aderhold so that all fukk dates are wikified. Please read WP:Date for correct formatting of dates. --Roswell native (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Kedar Joshi, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Kedar Joshi. Bsnowball 13:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Your article edit here was nominally "Some cleanup at the vital dates." However, you replaced what was already an "n dash" (–) with the text "–". Changing what is already the correct format is not really necessary and probably doesn't read as well to other editors. — AjaxSmack 00:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to add: we prefer an actual n-dash (–) to the hypertext markup "–". - Nunh-huh 23:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled by the change from 'External link' to 'External links' - there is only one link in that section. Autarch (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm under an impression that the title should always be "External links" even if initially only one link exists. One of the good reasons may be that more links are likely to be added in future for any article. -- RogDel (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there.

Please stop removing those commas. They mark an inserted part of a sentence - kind of a dependent clause - that otherwise looks as part of the next clause, which it isn't.

An example from the Marián Cisár page: born February 25, 1978 in Bratislava, Czechoslovakia. This sentence falls into two, seperated by the comma: "born February 25" and "1978 in Bratislava".

Obviously, this is not the case. Read it out loud to yourself, and you'll find that what you read is: "born February 25 (pause) 1978 (pause) in Bratislava ...". Those pauses are the commas.

The analogy is the same for the following sentence: "Born in Akron, Ohio, to parents ..." Without the second comma it would be wrong.

Thanks.

LarRan (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Cotterill, an article that you have contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Esasus (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing great work cleaning up the opening lines of biography articles, but I am wondering how edits like this help the reader? For a reader unfamiliar with the acronym for "also known as", replacing those words by "aka" takes information away, and leaves the article more confusing. How does this improve the article? Ground Zero | t 10:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment and sorry for those abbreviation edits. I thought instead of “also known as”, “aka” is used even in good articles (sorry I’m unable to cite any examples for now), which gave me an impression that aka would supposedly be a term familiar enough. But from here onwards I don’t think I would do those abbreviation edits, unless I’m allowed/asked to by some administrator. Hope this makes sense? RogDel (talk) 04:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere Thanks. --Bhadani (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly correct to list post-noms either with or without commas (the general trend is away from using them, just as full-stops have now generally been dropped), so particualrly if it's the only edit you are going to make to an article, there's absolutely no point. David Underdown (talk) 07:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HI - I am posting to you because I noticed you had edited "George Andreasen." I am his daughter and recently aqcuired some source material on his work, (newspapers etc) and tried to add a citation. I am unfamiliar with wiki style however. I read as much as I could and tried to enter the reference and citation correctly. Could you check my work and tell me what I did wrong? Thanks, Sandybeach24Sandybeach24 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, I'm not so sure. I guess, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. RogDel (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am eliciting your help to save a wikipedia article that I see you helped on - the article in question is in danger of deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_carson - this article I feel meets the significant coverage guidelines as well as others as the first 5 pages of a google search for "on a hill they call capital matt carson" are full of articles and source material, not to mention the book was favorably reviewed by the Washington Post's Joel Garreau. In addition - Mr. Carson is running for Virginia house of delegates, quite big news in our state, and this was recently added to his page but then removed, the articles below reference his run for office which I feel is significant coverage and notable as well.

http://www.starexponent.com/cse/news/local/local_govtpolitics/article/independent_files_to_run_against_scott_in_statehouse/37182/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_House_of_Delegates_elections,_2009

http://www.starexponent.com/cse/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/delegate_races_heating_up_across_state/37866/

he is also linked throughout wikipedia such as the missatributed section of: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution etc.

Eager to get your take and any help you can provide. Thank you for the work you do. Ron Ron20186 (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The correct usage of the endash between two dates has two variations. If one or both of the dates have spaces (i.e. 1913 – January 1, 2009) then there are spaces surrounding the endash. If both of the dates have no spaces then there are no spaces associated with the endash, like this: 1913–2009. See MOS:ENDASH for further details. Please go back and revert your incorrect changes to vital dates. Binksternet (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Petra Dallmann requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ل داد (Ldud) (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Petra Dallmann has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable professional swimmer, article doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE and WP:N.

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 10:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Benjamin Abrams has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no references

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 14:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(cur) (prev) 22:31, 20 August 2009 Woodlanddog (talk | contribs) (14,016 bytes) (→Later years: Incorrect source link.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 17:30, 13 August 2009 RogDel (talk | contribs) m (14,147 bytes) (Cleanup at the vital dates) (undo)

Crowley was correct on this observation so I am not sure why Woodlanddog says the link is incorrect. Does the notariety of the author make it an incorrect source link? Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, the cousin of Benjamin Wills Newton was on the committee for the Revised Standard. Darby had a real ding dong with Newton on eschatology and Tregelles firmly supported Newton. I might be doing a diservice here, maybe Darby was judging the authenticity of other peoples faith and not Tregelles's.--Another berean (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Roy Eugene Davis, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Eugene Davis. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. B.Wind (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interested in dermatology-related content? I am looking for more help at the dermatology task force, particularly with our new Bolognia push 2009!, history of dermatology, or list of dermatologists pages? Perhaps you would you be able to help us? ---kilbad (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have noticed you doing some cleanup on those various Leavitt pieces. Sometimes I have trouble revisiting things I've done, and your assistance is noted, and much appreciated. Thank you. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. - RogDel (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		Many thanks for your kind assist. MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you! - RogDel (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Rogdel - I just undid your recent edit to Mariano Álvarez de Castro (I clicked the wrong link while scrolling my watchlist) - sorry! Fixed now. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for the greetings. Kindest regards. ~ RogDel (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, RogDel. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!-- SpitfireTally-ho! 09:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! ~ RogDel (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RogDel! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 670 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Andrew Lipsitz - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm Adriano user of it.wiki. I'm trying to add references and notes about Manon but the problem is: I don't know english (just a little) so it is very difficult for me to work on en.wiki. I put references, bibliography but I would to add notes and so on. I'm the main author of Giacomo Casanova in it.wiki, I'm am expert about life and works of this italian writer, about his family, lovers, friends. If it possible please look at the references and give me a little help. Thank you and best regards from Rome (Italy).Adriano C. (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

A discussion has begun about whether the article Abhay Thipse, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

A discussion has begun about whether the article Andrew Lipsitz, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.