Jump to content

User talk:Theroadislong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 09:49, 11 January 2018 (Signing comment by Eujoe - "→Things I should improve: new section"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Welcome to my talk page. Click here to leave me a message .


Q on reference source language

07:53:55, 14 November 2017 review of submission by FriendlyB


Dear Thereodislong,

thank you for reviewing the draft "Dr. Petry Textile Auxiliaries".

For the sources, I cited independent sources, such as - http://www.genios.de/fachzeitschriften/artikel/MTB/20080617/umweltschutz-und-nachhaltigkeit-in-/060817061.html - https://www.biooekonomie-bw.de/de/fachbeitrag/aktuell/insektenchitin-macht-textilherstellung-nachhaltiger/

In order to have more evidence, I added information from further independent sources and references: - https://www.bloomberg.com/profiles/companies/6311207Z:GR-textilchemie-dr-petry-gmbh - https://www.bluesign.com/industry/chemical-suppliers/references/textilchemie-dr-petry

Thank you in advance for re-reviewing.

Thanks for your help!

Thanks for your assistance with Draft:InnoCare. I have included

and noted it on your user page that I work for that company. They're not paying me to create this page, I just think it would cool to have a Wikipedia page. Let me know if there's anything else you can suggest to improve my draft. I appreciate your help!

05:44:48, 23 November 2017 review of submission by Lizzybunker

I've added the appropriate citations!

Invacio

Hi Theroadislong I've edited the text - please let me know if it's better this way I appreciate your feedback!

00:53:26, 27 November 2017 review of submission by Cmolaro


I added more 3rd party sources that are verifiable and are independent, professional sources (not personal blogs or sites). I now have 15 citations.

Please let me know what else you think is required to have it accepted?

12:54:53, 27 November 2017 review of submission by Llewol


08:40:08, 28 November 2017 review of submission by Salt&pepper12345


Hi there, thank very much for your care and consideration to to help build this page. I can understand why the review was rejected, as i hadn't cited enough sources on the first draft. I was wondering if you'd mind having a read over the latest draft and checking if it is better now thank you. SP

13:22:45, 4 December 2017 review of submission by 79.106.95.85


21:10:13, 6 December 2017 review of submission by Innocent Cuty


Dear Theroadislong

Hope you are fine and doing good.

I am requesting for a review again as the major comment for rejection/decline of this article was its Reference section or having less references. Now, the draft has been updated, and more than 20 solid references have been employed, with more historical details, and best possible bibliographic support in the light of the available literature. This single page article is now having over 25 appropriate references, and are strengthened with new data.

Your anticipation in this regard will be highly appreciated.

Sincere Regards

Dear Theroadislong

Thank you very much for your prompt response.

The objected references (facebook) has been udpated with the departmental URLS (links to the webpages). I think, these were the most up to dated and regularly updating references. Moreover, the last paragraph was deleted, because the book describing the paragraph and the mentioned material is in press (which is written by Dr. Ikram), and once the book got published, the three to four lines paragraph will be inserted again.

I do hope, that the draft will get approved now and will get online, as after coming across other such articles, this one seems to be far better than those.

Your prompt and positive anticipation in this regard will be highly appreciated.

Thanking you in anticipation

Sincere Regards

07:43:09, 15 December 2017 review of submission by Kgkg90


A note

Me thinks that this ought to be accepted and have main-spaced on re-submission! Can you clarify a bit?Winged BladesGodric 06:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which article are you talking about? Theroadislong (talk) 08:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your helpful annotations, I appreciate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CA:4F1E:701:78D4:9524:4A38:6A92 (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Thereodislong,

Thank you for reviewing my draft Draft:Bancroft (TV Series). As may be quite obvious this is my first attempt at creating an entry. I have added some sources for the article and would much appreciate a re-review. Many thanks in advance.

DHWorth (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft for Shehab Khan

Hi Theroadislong,

The alterations you suggested for the page have been made and sources have been changed so they are not written by the subject.

There are currently 10 sources - 9 of which are written by different authors and refer to the subject directly. These include articles from national media organisations and posts from universities.

In your opinion do you think that would suffice?

Best wishes, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asda3991 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Thank you for your help! Looking forward to improving the article and Wikipedia. Your username says it all... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclopediaeditor456 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bancroft (TV Series)

Dear Thereodislong,

Thank you for reviewing my draft Draft:Bancroft (TV Series). As may be quite obvious this is my first attempt at creating an entry. I have added some sources for the article and would much appreciate a re-review. Many thanks in advance.

DHWorth (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The International Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus Council

Hi, I drafted the page The International Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus Council and I've tried rephrasing the contest as much as I can from a neutral POV and language. Is there a specific section of the draft that you believe violates the copyright clause? The main IPOSC website is also public domain. I am not sure how to continue from here. Please advise. Eyecare10 (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns were that it was written like an advert, when you have a conflict of interest or even when you don't, forget everything you know about them. It's best to search for newspaper or magazine articles or internet content that discuss the subject, not their own website. Basically Wikipedia has no interest in what the organisation wants to say about itself, (ie. it's goals and aims) but only what independent reliable sources have to say about it. Theroadislong (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:01:32, 18 December 2017 review of submission by Trainerguy


The feedback notes that the article is written more as advertisement, and references the fact that they should be written in a neutral tone with third party reference. I'd like to make this article comply, and I certainly don't want it sounding like ad copy, so I'd be interested in feedback about why it was declined.

Just about every point in the article includes a reference to a third party news site verifying the content, and the few that aren't referenced didn't seem that significant. As well, I was trying to write it in such a way that it was consistent with other articles about software companies, so I'd love feedback on the points that come across as biased, salesy, or inappropriate. Can you point me to specific sections that are examples of unacceptable style or unverified content?

I'd like to resubmit it with changes that make it suitable, so any feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks

Sorry but the whole article reads like it was written by somebody who works there. Theroadislong (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

references are genuine

Given links/reference are genuine and supports the facts mentioned in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.2.236.196 (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks and request for immediate assistance

Hi Theoroadislong,

Thank you for your feedback on my first draft. I am completely aware that autobiographies are discouraged by Wikipedia but this is to certify this all the information provided by me was factually correct.

After my recent contribution as an Actor on an Indian Television Channel, it has been brought to my notice that audience has started looking me up on google(thus, in turn, wikipedia) and I, would not appreciate them coming across wrong information about me. It is therefore only apt that the such traffic meets with right and correct information as it is going to change their perception of me or my show, 'Woh Apna Sa' which airs regularly on ZeeTv(India).

I would therefor like the editors, such as yourself to assist me converting this draft into a successful article and help me present right information about myself.Bhavyasachdeva08 (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. There are plenty of social-networking sites like Facebook where you can do that, Wikipedia is different - a project to build an encyclopedia. This is explained at Wikipedia is not about YOU and Wikipedia:Autobiography. Theroadislong (talk) 10:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Elcka

I wish to delete my comments so they are NOT in the public domain

Many thanks & best wishes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJSC123 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It will need a LOT more reliable sources first, the sources you have included do not demonstrate that the subject meets our guidelines for notability. Normally, this is done by showing that the band has received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Theroadislong (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help on draft validation Camilo Ricordi

Hi Theroadislong, thanks for your tip on how to make more interesting / valid my first page about Camilo Ricordi. I have added some changes there and just wanted to drop you a line to see if is ok now or still need some improvements from my side. Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaraGWik (talk • contribs) 14:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:REFB for help with formatting the references which are bare url at the moment.Theroadislong (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:22:37, 19 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Kooligan123


Hi, thanks for the advice, just a beginner and trying to get my head around all this. Does an entry and cataloging at the British Library count as 'notable'? Thank you!

Kooligan123 (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It helps, but what we really need is to demonstrate that the subject meets our guidelines for notability. Normally, this is done by showing that the magazine has received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. So a listing in British Library is not sufficient on it's own. Theroadislong (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will Erwin Headache Research Foundation References

I have added two newspaper mentions of the Will Erwin Headache Research Foundation.

Also, I wanted to point out that the Will Erwin Headache Research Foundation and the Will Erwin Headache Research Center are not the same thing. The center is run by Memorial Hermann, and is named after Will Erwin who took his life.

This article is about the foundation. I hope that isn't too confusing.

--Longstation (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft for Shehab Khan altered

Hi,

You left a comment on my article saying that The Sun and Facebook were not considered reliable sources.

These have now been removed.

Is the draft now acceptable?

Kind regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asda3991 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick review of my article

We'll strive to become more notable and try again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cramshorn (talk • contribs) 20:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:42:34, 19 December 2017 review of submission by PrajwalMohan


I have added references as requested — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrajwalMohan (talk • contribs) 20:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

I'd like you to know, I just need a stub, and a Wikipedia user-created group written by that user doesn't have any sources. Please approve it. GermanGamer77 21:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Camillo Ricordi Article

Good evening:

I'am writing to enquire about the activitation of my article on Camillo Ricordi. I think that I correctly made the changes you requested. Can you let me know if it is ok? What more can I do to get this approved?

Please let me know so that I can fix whatever you need.

Thank you! SaraGWik (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has three references the first is to a paper he wrote, (a primary source) the second is a Wikipedia article (Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference) the third is to Youtube which is not a reliable source. In order to demonstrate notability, you need to provide references to articles written about Camillo Ricordi in unrelated, independent journals, magazines, books, etc. Theroadislong (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In-depth coverage

What do you mean by in-depth coverage? Martinc1994 (talk) 08:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The links to follow are in the grey box at the top of your draft article. In order to demonstrate notability, you need to provide references to articles written about Danielle Judovits in unrelated, independent journals, magazines, books, etc. The two sources you have used, are user generated content and not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hii theroadislong! thank you for alerting me to my mistake. i really appreciate it and ive fixed it now :). i hope u dont mind me asking..... im new to wikipedia. is the draft now acceptable? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shallnotbenamed (talk • contribs) 10:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12:44:31, 22 December 2017 review of submission by Georginablue25


Hi Theroadislong,

Do you have any specific recommendations on how I can improve this article to have it approved?

Thanks

There are helpful links in the grey box of the decline at Draft:Spaceslide. We need multiple in-depth coverage in independent sources. The current sources come no where near establishing notability. Theroadislong (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Jean Daverio

Hello and many thanks for looking into my article! I have an obvious problem with grasping what you mean when you say that seven articles are by himself: he is a researcher and I am naming the texts he has published about his research, both in the art history field and the, more relevant, medical field where he is very notorious in transgender circles and named in a number of chat forums to be one of the world's top surgeons if you need a new penis (sorry, that is his specialty but it is quite necessary, isn't it, whether you lost it by accident -burns etc.- or never had one). So how can I prove that? In the German speaking world (I have put him already on German wikipedia) I had less problems as there are also articles which speak about his approach, very respectful, to anybody who feels he is in the wrong body, but how to quote those in the English wikipedia? Is it useful at all? Many thanks again for your help!!! Drakegreune (talk) 13:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the English Wikipedia may be stricter in it's following of guidelines. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have published about it, in reliable places, so his own works do not establish his notability only others reporting on them can do that. Theroadislong (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:13:37, 22 December 2017 review of submission by Wikilover2604


Hi, thanks for taking the time out to review Buchalter. I followed the exact pattern of Goldberg Segalla who is a close competitor of the company and whose page has been there for a while. Is that incorrect? Law360 which is a major publication for legal news has covered Buchalter frequently. In California, it is one of the top 10 law firms. So notability (hopefully) should not be an issue. It is to do with how I have written it perhaps. I will definitely rework this. But any suggestions that you can give me? I am relatively new here so trying to learn Wikilover2604 (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have not chosen a good article on which to base yours, Goldberg Segalla was full of promotional links and written in list format, please see [WP:Other stuff exists]]. Such is the disdain that when you are being paid to edit the bar will be set much higher too. Theroadislong (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cornshed sisters draft

Hi! I drafted a page which was declined for publication. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on why and how to fix it. The page was clearly of interest - this is a band with two albums, that has appeared on a film soundtrack and on the BBC, whose members are present or former members of well-known bands - so I can't see the issue. But I'd appreciate a bit of guidance to resolve it. Thanks. JamesLance (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft contains a number of Wikipedia references, these need to be replaced, (Wikipedia is not a reliable source) also Twitter. Allmusic and Youtube are not reliable sources either, see WP:BAND for the notability guidelines for bands. Theroadislong (talk) 08:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arishfa khan

hey this is chiranjiv i want to create an article about mys sister she is an actress her name is arishfa khan so can you help me to write an articlejivarshu 19:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiranjiv138 (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid your sister doesn't appear to pass the Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion. Theroadislong (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23:49:06, 23 December 2017 review of submission by Pearl ally


The submission's referencing was improved as advised, and I added a few more. More information on his teachings and publications were added. The page exists in 3 other Wikipedia: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Russell https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Russell https://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Russell

In-depth coverage

I added RPG Site. Is that a reliable source?

In-depth coverage

I added RPG Site. Is that a reliable source? Martinc1994 (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Compulsive Hoarding

Hi Theroadislong I have just tried to correct and update my url in the last 30 mins from cityclearances.com to averyassociates.co.uk but I see you may have thought it was not a legitimate correction, would you kindly take another look and reconsider the action I appreciate your assistance in this matter jeffreyavery53 Jeffreyavery53 (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looked like spam to me i.e..promoting your own website. Theroadislong (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Theroadislong, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018.
Happy editing,
JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

St Lawrence Shakespeare Festival

Hi. You rejected my article because you believed it sounded more like an advertisement than an article. I disagree, and unfortunately you have given no facts in support of your opinion. This is, in itself, a violation of first principles of Wikipedia, regarding the emphasis of evidence over opinion. So, here are my facts. First, let's look at the article. Why does it seem like advertising? There is only factual information here---it has information attesting to the importance of the Festival (an essential qualification for Wikipedia articles), about the origins of the festival, and some brief information about the fifteen-year history of the festival, including its leadership and the highlights of their contributions, as well as mentions some of the more significant productions. In no way does it advertise upcoming seasons. That is exactly the sort of information that I would write (on a different scale) if I were preparing an article on any theatre company. Second, while I find it distasteful to cite my credentials as point of debate, it seems necessary in this case, because you have effectively suggested that I do not know how to write an article about a theatre company. I don't know upon what basis you have made this judgement, because you simply deleted my work with that sneer about advertising and without offering a single helpful comment. But the fact is that I certainly do know what an article about a theatre company needs. I am a full professor at Queen's University, I have a PhD in Drama and have edited a great number of encyclopedia articles and written contributions to various journals. So, please tell me about the factual basis upon which you have made your decision and perhaps you would also be so good as to explain what your credentials are to make this judgement. Craig Walker (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith, I have edited the parts I deemed advertising and your article has been accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You will understand, I hope, why it is difficult to assume good faith when a whole article is rejected without any specifics offered. But I am grateful for your helpful alterations.Craig Walker (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft for Shehab Khan

Hi,

You asked me to remove sources from The Sun and Facebook.

This has been done - I was just wondering if you could possibly have another read and see if the article is now acceptable?

Also, Merry Christmas! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asda3991 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

02:14:50, 26 December 2017 review of submission by Pearl ally


Please see references 15,18,19,21,22

World-Ecology article

Hi Teahouse!

What are the criteria for notability for a new academic field? The links indicate for World-Ecology: 1) 3,300 followers on academia; 2) annual conferences with 60-plus papers every year; 3) high profile scholars; 4) over 250 published essays in the field.

Can you help clarify? By way of contrast, Wikipedia includes an article for the field, Object Oriented Ontology, which has a far more narrow reach relative to world-ecology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_ontology

Warmly, Jason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonwsmoore (talk • contribs) 19:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your article has no references. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject, if these sources exist then notability might be established but with no sources it is unlikely. The article Object-oriented ontology has 53 sources by contrast. Theroadislong (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:52:55, 26 December 2017 review of submission by DgpG201AS


I have converted all references to inline citations to publicly available documents with access dates in them. I just wonder whether the problem I had in the page page originally has now been addressed. Thank you.

Thank you, article has been accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo gottesmann

Thanks for any help you can give me. Mary Jane Doerr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C40B:F50:A51C:4763:6371:E9E0 (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


The article should be included on the Wikipedia page giving that Tor Madira has been one of the upcoming writers in South Sudan who have as a matter of facts attracted the attentions of thousands of South Sudanese readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junubipedia (talk • contribs) 09:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tor Madira Machier

Dear Theroadsilong,

Thanks for reviewing the article I created, Tor Madira Machier. However, to my surprise, I see that the article is rejected. As I did, I mentioned independence sources such as the Sudan Tribune, and Tor's own blog. I wrote the article because Tor has attracted the attention of thousands of South Sudanese readership in recent years.

Thanks

looking forward to seeing you reconsidered my article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junubipedia (talk • contribs) 09:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tor's own blog is not independent? In order to demonstrate notability, you need to provide references to articles written about Tor Madira Machier in unrelated, independent journals, magazines, books, etc. Theroadislong (talk) 10:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10:35:14, 27 December 2017 review of submission by TheoSalisbury


The "Copyrighted" text taken from www.exiliansudios.com is information that I own. I am the owner of the website and should be aloud to use my own words from my website www.exilianstudios.com . I understand that you would not have known this and I am requesting that I am able to publish my article on wikipedia.

Thankyou.

If you insist on using content from your own website then you will need to read to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials

and change the text on your website which currently reads "2017 Exilian Studios. All rights Reserved." Please be aware that writing an article on Wikipedia is difficult and writing an autobiography is about the hardest thing to do and is STRONGLY discouraged. If you are truly notable someone else will write it eventually. Theroadislong (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Reference

How to remove reference link from my draft article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikas9gupta (talk • contribs) 12:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I don't understand your question. Theroadislong (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Medal for Italian Architecture

Dear Theroadislong, the Gold Medal for Italian Architecture is wide known internationally as the most important architectural prize in Italy. Strange enough most of the available references I know are in Italian language. I'm trying to collect more. as much as I can at least. in order to re publish the article with more comprehensive data. In any case I suggest you to consider that the entire argument "Triennale di Milano" is treated in wikipedia eng in a very curious way as it looks like we are speaking of museum or a local institution while instead The Triennale is the most important cultural institution for art, design and architecture promotion of Italy. If you may and have time, please help me to correct all this issue. Best, EnghireSpika — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnghireSpika (talk • contribs) 13:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has only one reference which is to the subject's own website. Wikipedia requires independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Women in Red's January 2018 worldwide online editathons.



New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/64|"Prisoners"]]

New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/65|"Fashion designers"]]

New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/66|"Geofocus: Great Britain and Ireland"]]


Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)


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

Thank you but I am already a member. Theroadislong (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! That part wasn't supposed to be included. I'm going back and removing by hand. :P Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:29:46, 28 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Faremusic23


What information do you recommend to implement this artist in wikipedia?

Faremusic23 (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FUTSOC WIKIPEDIA

We have received your message rejecting our submission. Kindly imndicate specifics so that we may proceed to edit and re-submit for consideration. Thank you! 2601:589:101:6725:5027:926D:B0CE:CD5E (talk) 04:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Esteffan Lopez[reply]

07:39:46, 28 December 2017 review of submission by Nat.johnson


Hi Theroadislong! I have recently uploaded a draft of the article "Admitad" here and you have declined it. Could you kindly explain what can I do to make it right? Is it possible to work with you as my mentor on the draft? Or, maybe, you can help with writing, could you kindly tell me what is the best option? admitad is a global company, it already helps over 630,000 people worldwide. I believe, that it needs to be on Wikipedia.

11:49:18, 28 December 2017 review of submission by Nicholaspanteliwiki


Reposted from WP:TH My question concerns Draft: Logic Sticks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Logic_Sticks). As per Wikipedia’s need for significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondarysources that are independent of the subject— Logic Sticks are an emerging skill toy which have their own website, social media (I know, off-limts for WP referencing) but have yet to have their coverage in academic journals or other approved media. What should I do? For full disclosure, I am working towards a brief set by my client, the creator of Logic Sticks, Mitchell John but want to put forward a stub (or possibly an article) worthy of the well-meaning, and nobler, aims of this encyclopaedia.

Best wishes,

Nick

Nicholaspanteliwiki (talk) 11:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Reposted from WP:TH My question concerns Draft: Logic Sticks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Logic_Sticks). As per Wikipedia’s need for significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondarysources that are independent of the subject— Logic Sticks are an emerging skill toy which have their own website, social media (I know, off-limts for WP referencing) but have yet to have their coverage in academic journals or other approved media. What should I do? For full disclosure, I am working towards a brief set by my client, the creator of Logic Sticks, Mitchell John but want to put forward a stub (or possibly an article) worthy of the well-meaning, and nobler, aims of this encyclopaedia.

Thank you! Best Wishes, Nick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholaspanteliwiki (talk • contribs) 11:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that, like many others, you have misunderstood what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent sources say about a subject. You would need to provide detailed references showing the subject has received significant coverage, in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. You also have a conflict of interest I'm afraid that, like many others, you have misunderstood what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent say about a subject. You would need to provide detailed references showing the subject has received significant coverage, in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. You have a conflict of interest because you are working for the. Theroadislong (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help is needed Theroadislong

Greetings Theroadislong,

I trust all is well. Please advise me in simplest terms of what I need or must do in order to have a wikipedia page for the Mayor of Greenville, MS? I am seeking assistance because I am unsure of what mistakes or necessary changes are needed. Any assistance with this matter would be greatly appreciated. I'm thanking you in advance!! Much obliged- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erchinn37 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of links in the decline notice which explain what is required but basically... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent sources say about a subject. You would need to provide detailed references showing the subject has received significant coverage, in reliable sources that are independent of the topic.. You would need to provide detailed references showing the subject has received significant coverage, in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. His own website confers no notability at all. Theroadislong (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Innovations

How does it read like an ad? It's an objective history on the company citing regional newspapers and industry publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankiestar (talk • contribs) 15:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

style

Thank you so much for helping. This is totally new to me and I didn't know that I was reversing your help. I did not mean to do that. I have edited it again but I haven't gotten the line that you put in under Military Service under all the sections right. I have made the changes recommended on the references.

I will not touch it until you have looked at it. Please let me know when you have seen it. I hope I have gotten things better  !! Dec. 28, 2017 10:47 am. Mary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary Jane Doerr (talk • contribs) 15:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't thank you enough for your kind help. Can I resubmit it now? ```` Mary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary Jane Doerr (talk • contribs) 16:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

style - page numbers

Hi, I just put in the page number for Tully Potter's book.

The Hugo Gottesmann - Gestorben 1970 is a published world wide by the Rathaus in Vienna. I have given that source and the date. 

  THANK YOU AGAIN FOR HELPING ME.  ````  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary Jane Doerr (talk • contribs) 17:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:47:59, 28 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Mri2018


Dear Reviewer, This article mentions about a person who lived in one of most underdeveloped states of India when there was no internet. Hence, many resources are not available online. Request you to kindly guide. Warm regards, Martand S

Mri2018 (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't have to be online but they do need to have been published somewhere like newspapers or magazines. Theroadislong (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Hello! I was wondering if I could have a bit of an assist with your comments on the article I created on the IPSF. I already wrote the wikipedia pole sports article with a variety of academic sources. As I wrote that article, I realized that other sports federations have pages but not the IPSF. I wanted to create a quick simple article that gave basic statistics on this federation. I looked at other sports federation pages and they mostly discuss such facts as well as any historical controversies. I edited my article to add in academic sources like peer-reviewed journal articles as background but the details of that are in the pole sports general page. Since this is a relatively new federation there is not much to write about controversies. I now reference some media sources, as pole sports getting GAISF observer status made some headlines. Can you please let me know what I am doing wrong or if this is sufficient. Thanks! Dmfennell (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)dmfennell[reply]

22:16:45, 28 December 2017 review of submission by KarsOG


Theroadislong, changes are made with information from reliable sources only, could you review this article again?

Looks like you requested deletion and it has been deleted? Theroadislong (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too Bold

Thank you for your guidance, I have cleaned up the article per your suggestion. Blackflute (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)blackflute[reply]

page` numbers and publishers

Hi, I can't thank you enough for helping me. I clarified the information on Tully Potter and the Information on Wiener Kultur-Notizen published by the City of Vienna.

Mary Jane Doerr (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HNY

Happy New Year!

Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 13:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I don't know how to do LINKS I have tried but wasn't successful.

There are numerous possibilities: Busch Quartet, Das Gottesmann Quartett, Hugo Kauder, Hugo Gottesmann Wikimedia Commons. Vienna Symphony,

Also I have pictures but I have failed to figure how to incorporate them.

Thank you so much for your continued help. Mary Jane Doerr (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simply enclose the words with two square brackets either side. [[Busch Quartet]] will give you Busch Quartet. There are details here Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Link specificity Theroadislong (talk) 14:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Clifford Inniss

Hey. I've read the references guide and made some changes. Thanks once again for your help. BajanBrent (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's great...I know nothing about cricket so will leave it to another reviewer to work out if he is notable or not. Theroadislong (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I understand. I've decided I don't want to be a member of this site. There are too many things I don't like. Too many bad editors who spoil articles and make life difficult for the better editors. I see all this and don't want any part in it. Can you delete the draft for me, please, because it will be a waste of somebody's time. You have been a real help and I appreciate that. One of the good guys. So long and thanks again. BajanBrent (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin so can't delete your draft, I have accepted the article, if he is not notable then someone might tag it, but it seems fairly good to me. 17:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Dear Theroadislong, Thanks for the message about Wikipedia not a legal reference. I will remove those before it gets reviewed. This is the first draft of my first submission. Cheers Sandwich58 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandwich58 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article Help

Hi Theroadislong,

Thank you so much for reviewing the article I submitted for review. The notability of the subject of the article was questioned, could you please provide some additional insight on how I can edit this for publishing? This is my first article on WIKI and I want to ensure I am meeting all guidelines. If you can provide any additional tips/advise I would really appreciate it! Thanks again for your help, look forward to getting my first WIKI article published! Esmarin (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I put the LINKS in. It says the the Wikimedia page does not exist but it does. You have been a wonderful help. Thank. Mary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary Jane Doerr (talk • contribs) 22:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You listed the linked the words in a separate section though?? The idea is to link relevant words in the body of the article, I have linked a few terms for you as an example. Theroadislong (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on those links. You have been so fabulous. Mary Jane Doerr (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Years new page backlog drive

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

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

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

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

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

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

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

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

I hope that I have these correct now. Thanks Mary Jane Doerr (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and verification...?

Thank you for your feedback on my submission for Texas Consilium. I have reviewed the notability requirements and am trying to better understand the disconnect and your concerns so I can take appropriate actions.

From my perspective, the recognition of Texas Consilium by the State of Texas with the State's own House Resolution HR 922 dedicated to Texas Consilium, read on the House floor and published in the House record on behalf of a state representing 28 million people, would constitute "notable." As I understand the Wikipedia guidelines, this recognition by the State of Texas would constitute published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of Texas Consilium.

It is unclear to me whether the concern is that this does not constitute notable, or whether this notability of HR 922 is not adequately verified by the referencing, or if I am missing the standards in some other way. Would you kindly provide further insight and guidance for me? Thank you.

JimKarla (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a primary source [1] This is a press release [2], and I’m not sure what this is [3] but none of them are independent sources which discuss the subject in-depth. In order to demonstrate notability, you need to provide references to articles written about Texas Consilium in unrelated, independent journals, magazines, books, etc.Theroadislong (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Deddy (talk • contribs) 17:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and verification...?

Sorry, but I couldn't figure out how to add a comment to our existing talk dialog so I've copied and pasted it here for reference.

You said "I’m not sure what this is [3]" and I wonder if that confusion might be the root issue here, since [3] is the key documentation presented here for the notability of Texas Consilium. [3] is the .gov official online publishing verification of the resolution by the State of Texas, documenting the State's evaluation of the importance of Texas Consilium to the State of Texas and Texas Consilium's impact on the economy of the State. The State of Texas is independent of Texas Consilium, was published as a representation of the 28 million residents of Texas, and this entire resolution is dedicated to Texas Consilium. While many organizations can be discussed in journals, magazines, books and other commercial publications, we are not aware of another business improvement organization that has received this level of published recognition by the State of Texas, or any other state government.

If we clarified the importance and this meaning of [3] in the article, would this be helpful?

JimKarla (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify who you are referring to as "we" ? Theroadislong (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


PRIOR DIALOG

Notability and verification...?[edit source] Thank you for your feedback on my submission for Texas Consilium. I have reviewed the notability requirements and am trying to better understand the disconnect and your concerns so I can take appropriate actions.

From my perspective, the recognition of Texas Consilium by the State of Texas with the State's own House Resolution HR 922 dedicated to Texas Consilium, read on the House floor and published in the House record on behalf of a state representing 28 million people, would constitute "notable." As I understand the Wikipedia guidelines, this recognition by the State of Texas would constitute published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of Texas Consilium.

It is unclear to me whether the concern is that this does not constitute notable, or whether this notability of HR 922 is not adequately verified by the referencing, or if I am missing the standards in some other way. Would you kindly provide further insight and guidance for me? Thank you.

JimKarla (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a primary source [1] This is a press release [2], and I’m not sure what this is [3] but none of them are independent sources which discuss the subject in-depth. In order to demonstrate notability, you need to provide references to articles written about Texas Consilium in unrelated, independent journals, magazines, books, etc.Theroadislong (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC) Hi, Thank you ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Deddy (talk • contribs) 17:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Notability and verification...?

My apologies for my ambiguous writing. I can only speak for myself, so please replace "we are not" with "I am not." Thank you.

RE: Could you clarify who you are referring to as "we" ? Theroadislong (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

PRIOR DIALOG

Notability and verification...?[edit source] Sorry, but I couldn't figure out how to add a comment to our existing talk dialog so I've copied and pasted it here for reference.

You said "I’m not sure what this is [3]" and I wonder if that confusion might be the root issue here, since [3] is the key documentation presented here for the notability of Texas Consilium. [3] is the .gov official online publishing verification of the resolution by the State of Texas, documenting the State's evaluation of the importance of Texas Consilium to the State of Texas and Texas Consilium's impact on the economy of the State. The State of Texas is independent of Texas Consilium, was published as a representation of the 28 million residents of Texas, and this entire resolution is dedicated to Texas Consilium. While many organizations can be discussed in journals, magazines, books and other commercial publications, we are not aware of another business improvement organization that has received this level of published recognition by the State of Texas, or any other state government.

If we clarified the importance and this meaning of [3] in the article, would this be helpful?

JimKarla (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

PRIOR DIALOG

Notability and verification...?[edit source] Thank you for your feedback on my submission for Texas Consilium. I have reviewed the notability requirements and am trying to better understand the disconnect and your concerns so I can take appropriate actions.

From my perspective, the recognition of Texas Consilium by the State of Texas with the State's own House Resolution HR 922 dedicated to Texas Consilium, read on the House floor and published in the House record on behalf of a state representing 28 million people, would constitute "notable." As I understand the Wikipedia guidelines, this recognition by the State of Texas would constitute published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of Texas Consilium.

It is unclear to me whether the concern is that this does not constitute notable, or whether this notability of HR 922 is not adequately verified by the referencing, or if I am missing the standards in some other way. Would you kindly provide further insight and guidance for me? Thank you.

JimKarla (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a primary source [1] This is a press release [2], and I’m not sure what this is [3] but none of them are independent sources which discuss the subject in-depth. In order to demonstrate notability, you need to provide references to articles written about Texas Consilium in unrelated, independent journals, magazines, books, etc.Theroadislong (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC) Hi, Thank you ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Deddy (talk • contribs) 17:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimKarla (talk • contribs)

Request on 14:30:17, 2 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Shenalyn2018


all the citations came from notable Asian newspaper. Shenalyn2018 (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shenalyn2018 (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reference number 1 is to his own website which is a primary source, refs number 2,3 and 5 don't mention him, refs 7, 8 and 9 are to his own website. Theroadislong (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ubagroup.ci

Sorry, but this is not CSD A7. This just makes double work for accredited reviewers. I suggest you read WP:NPR and the tutorial and apply for the reviewer right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I already have had the right for some years. The article was about a website with no indication of importance why wasn't it CSD A7 ? Theroadislong (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have now completed the text along with references

I have now completed the text along with references I hope it can be now accepted Alfons Helbert (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:REFB for help with formatting sources we need in-line citations to verify the content. Theroadislong (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shehab Khan

Hi,

As you requested I removed the links from The Sun and Facebook and have provided other external sources about the entry which include the BBC, Press Gazzette, Manchester Evening News and LBC.

Could you please read over the entry, would be great to hear from you and happy to make any other changes you deem necessary.

Best, Asda3991 (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne A. Rogers

Hi there: I don't know Suzanne A. Rogers but just chose her as a subject to try my hand at writing a Wiki entry, for learning. She is a fashion influencer in my city. If you can give me some guidance, I'd appreciate it. I was concerned about altering the wording as much of it is referenced in articles and other sources. I did get permission from the photographer to use the main image, so if you can give me a sense of what needs to happen to put it back up, I will do what is required. Thank you.Katie Dupuis82 (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The photo was deleted as a copyright violation. The photographer would have to release the photograph under a creative commons licence letting anyone use it. Theroadislong (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

help

You left a message on my talk page for George S. Flinn sandbox. Can you glance at that page again and give me additional feedback. I'm made some revisions. I appreciate feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orual1963 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Submission Rejection

Hello Theroadislong,

Thank you for your prompt review of the article submission for Delta H Design, Inc.

I believe the company should be part of Wikipedia's database so I wanted to ask what should be explicitly omitted and/or added to get the article in proper shape for publication.

Once again thank you for your time and expertise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gottaloveham (talk • contribs) 21:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article reads like an advert and some content has been copied and pasted from here [4] Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously you need to re-write the article entirely in your own words using available independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC),[reply]

Re Theo Brown

Theo Brown - I thought she was notable enough, but I am not sure I can do more to confirm that - so I may have to give in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles.bowyer (talk • contribs) 22:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed the external links you had added, I have used these as references. It could do with a bit of editing still but I think she is probably notable enough to pass the notability guidelines. Theroadislong (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Theroadislong

I just wanted to ask. On average how many citations do I need for an article to be considered acceptable?

Regards,Theroadislong

Jakelewis2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakelewis2 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If they are reliable, in-depth and independent then two to three would suffice more details here Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

23:24:44, 4 January 2018 review of submission by Yesterdaysfire


Hi there!

I was just wondering what the issue was with my article submission? I tried to follow all the guidelines. I hope that I can make any revisions that you may require!

oops!

Sorry about that!

I'm new here and just learning how all this works! haha!

I think I messed up and clicked in too many places and ended up in the sandbox instead of in my user profile.

Thank you for your help so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yesterdaysfire (talk • contribs) 23:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My Milan Diekman draft

I've submitted a draft which you then declined for obvious reasons so I improved it and resubmitted it, then you declined it again with the exact same message. So I changed it again with the exact same structure another (accepted) page had, and I also addressed the problems in my draft (according to your message) head-on and re-submitted my draft again. Now you've declined it once again, which I don't mind, but I'd just like to know the reasons why because I feel like I can't do anything with the message you've send me three times now. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucaKlijn (talk • contribs) 13:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LucaKlijn:You have ignored the comment I left, that says that you cannot use Wikipedia as a reference which you have done three times. The remaining reference is a primary source and also not acceptable. Notability requires verifiable evidence, sources of evidence include newspapers, magazines, peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally. See WP:WHYN. Theroadislong (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gerhard W Goetze

Hello Theroadislong, Thank you for looking at the draft on Gerhard W Goetze. What suggestions would you make to improve it? I left out an interview with Walter Cronkite because I need to verify the date of the broadcast. Many thanks, rgromanRgroman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rgroman:You have done a very fine job for a first article! It could do with some more categories being added. Theroadislong (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Theroadislong, could you clarify what you mean by adding some more categories. Does that mean adding more material or just sectioning into more categories the material that is already there. I am a first time contributor and tried to follow all the suggestions as best as possible so thank you in advance for your patience in answering my questions to make this the best possible article! RgromanRgroman (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rgroman: categories can be found at the bottom of the article I have just added the category inventors but there are probably many more that could be added I will take a look. Theroadislong (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that sure makes more sense now. RgromanRgroman (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for improving Marisa Peer article

Just stopped by to say thanks for improving Marisa Peer article. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You just stepped all over me... with glacier cleats.

You changed a section of the Marshall HS page I was working to correct as I was doing it resulting in a complete reversion of two sections; completely wasting two hours of my time. Did Wiki not tell you that before you saved your change? I am demotivated to spend the time to fix it again. It will just have to remain the mess it is. Charley CarlitosCorazon 14:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharleyHart (talk • contribs)

My edit removed a very ungainly, poorly formatted table, with non notable alumni. Theroadislong (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gerhard W Goetze Draft

Hello Theroadislong, I wanted to share this youtube link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IeG5aZPwms. Is it possible to use some of the words in this article - it was a CBS broadcast on July 21, 1969. The reel to reel tape is in the Goetze Family collection. In gratitude for your time and efforts with all of Wikipedia, Rgroman Rgroman (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't usually use Youtube as a source and in particular this type which looks like a copyright violation of CBS. Theroadislong (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15:13:55, 6 January 2018 review of submission by Hhpop

Hello, Re: the Esmee Visser article submission - the content is a carbon copy of the Dutch page for Esmee Visser. The Dutch version, incidentally, is also sourceless. (Edit: someone has inserted an ISU source, by the looks.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhpop (talk • contribs) 15:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there are poorly sourced articles on another Wikipedia is not a good argument, and you or I watching a programme is NOT a reliable published source, somebody else has helped out and added a source so it will be accepted soon. Theroadislong (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft for Shehab Khan

Hi,

I hope you are well - you have not replied to last few messages.

As you requested I removed the links from The Sun and Facebook and have provided other external sources about the entry which include the BBC, Press Gazzette, Manchester Evening News and LBC.

Could you please read over the entry, would be great to hear from you and happy to make any other changes you deem necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asda3991 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks

As a new wikipedia user I appreciate the assistance. Shawn M. Kent (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft for Shehab Khan

Hi,

Thanks for the feedback - unfortunately that's the best I can offer at this time in terms of sources.

I am very disappointed but no bother, maybe there will be more sources in the future.

Would just like to thank you for your time and feedback.

Best wishes, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asda3991 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Banglar Bodhu, Theroadislong.

Unfortunately Winged Blades of Godric has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

None of the sources mention the film.How did you pass it without any tag?

To reply, leave a comment on Winged Blades of Godric's talk page.

Winged BladesGodric 07:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The film has a notable award, I assumed with good faith that the foreign language reference confirmed this. My mistake. Theroadislong (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12:24:07, 7 January 2018 review of submission by JoeyFeeni

I think the page now meets Wikipedia's standards

I will leave it for another reviewer to look at. Theroadislong (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tai Lopez (Entrepreneur) declined

Hey Theroadislong, I saw you declined this draft on basis of notability. I'm not sure that was a fair assessment, given the three reliable sources I added to the article yesterday (Forbes, Vice, HuffPo) which are mainstream media outlets that have significant coverage of the subject of the article. Could you please take a moment to look over the article again? I think it easily meets WP:GNG. Thanks, AdA&D 14:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My decline was before your addition of sources, I'll let another reviewer take a look. Theroadislong (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that now. My mistake! AdA&D 15:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sherry Sufi

Hi @Theroadislong ,

In regards to the submission for Sherry Sufi, given that we have articles such Karina Okotel and Avi Yemini, who have similarities with Sufi in regards to being right-wing former or prospective candidates who have a public profile, hold political positions, and were featured in interviews and write opinion pieces, I believed the article is sufficiently notable. He has multiple television appearances both related and unrelated to his political candidacy. The original draft wasn't mine, but I've taken it up for consistency's sake. Thanks, Judeti (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't decline the article? I pointed out that no changes had been made since the previous decline. Theroadislong (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donovan J. Greening

Hi, please give me a call I have a few questions on how we can adjust the Donovan J. Greening wiki page so that it can be more reliable and remain on wikipedia. 248-225-0882 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.70.133.170 (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks you can tell me here. Theroadislong (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:41:05, 7 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Camdavis


I don't understand. I made the mechanical fixes requested. Then the article was rejected for a completely different and more fundamental reason. I would not have made the mechanical fixes requested had I known earlier about the newest and different reasons for rejection. A lot of us understand that Wikipedia relies heavily on volunteers. All the more reason that respecting people's time is paramount.

I'm not sure what to do now. And even if these latest problems are fixed, whether Wikipedia will reject the article again for completely different reasons.


Camdavis (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is entirely unsourced? No articles are ever accepted without sources. The first decline was for being poorly sourced, the second was because it doesn't show why the subject is even notable enough for an article. WE need reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject in-depth. Theroadislong (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

edited

Hi there Thanks for your comment. Made the edits per your notes on the page for David A. Hurwitz. GigiH0118

Thank you for your quick review

I appreciate your quick feedback on the draft page for thank you for reviewing the draft for "Krishan A. Canekeratne". He truly is an interesting man from the creation of several major companies, receiving the Sri Lanka Sikhamani Honor to being the number 1 ranked under-16 table tennis player in Sri Lanka. I would love to be able to get this page up there for him. I have removed all in-line external hyperlinks as you requested to improve the overall readability.

I look forward to your re-review!

Greenough Ben (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13:36:39, 8 January 2018 review of submission by Tearstosweat


More reliable references like newspaper sources(Times of India, Decaan Chronicle) are added

Liz Hannah

Hello! I saw back on the 14th of December, you reviewed my Liz Hannah page. I have added three sources, so I think it should be fine now! I am just telling you because it has not been reviewed again in around 24 days. Thanks for your initial review, and will accept and change anything that you point out. Thanks a ton for the help!

DrChicken24 (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)DrChicken24[reply]

Gerhard W Goetze Draft

Thanks for the heads-up on the YouTube. Will try to contact CBS directly since we probably have the only tape of that time period. Also, just FYI made a donation to Wikipedia Foundation with gratitude for your work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgroman (talk • contribs) 20:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:35:18, 9 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Orlando Murrin


Hello, thank you for your comments. No I didn't create this page, it was done by an academic at Exeter University but he asked me to check it for accuracy and provide citations, and then I ended up posting it myself because he found the publishing system confusing. It seemed to me was disproportionately long and detailed. Regarding notability and verifiability, a lot of the facts in the biography are recorded: e.g. books and articles published. Would you suggest I ask him to try again, sticking only to these 'published' facts? Would you rather he actually published it, rather than me? Thank you again Orlando Murrin (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Murrin (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16:07:57, 9 January 2018 review of submission by Bgrandone80


Hello, can you please help me with the edit of my article? I've tried to follow all your notes and I've quoted each time certain peacock terms are used. It's my first time here, I'd love if you could point out more specific edits I can do to improve the article! thanks Bianca — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgrandone80 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving feedback on my article so quick! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimbo.lo (talk • contribs) 20:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

01:36:45, 10 January 2018 review of submission by Sparx.kfukui



Hi Theroadislong,

I updated the sparx group draft page and resubmitted for publishing. I had originally not done enough citing; I found 5 or so articles that directly discuss Sparx group. There are many more articles in Japanese than English, wondering if I should add Japanese references as well.

Would appreciate if you could take a look when you get a chance.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparx.kfukui (talk • contribs) 01:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese references would be fine, I will not be advising you further though, because you are being paid to edit. Theroadislong (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

11:01:59, 10 January 2018 review of submission by JWegel


Hello, I don't know what I have to change in this article that it can be published. Could you please tell me exactly what I need to change or give me examples in the text? I do not quite understand why this article is considered advertising. What is exactly the problem?

I look forward to your reply. regards

Do you work for the company by any chance? Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything the company has to say about themselves. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with them have chosen to publish about them. Your article has no sources except the company website and so is not acceptable. Theroadislong (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you edit my BeepBox article?

If you find more about fixing my references, please let me know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by StinkerB06 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion

Hello,

I'm new to Wikipedia editing and I accidentally deleted the template for speedy deletion that you put in the Tammie Shannon article I am working on. I want to finish the page and contest the speedy deletion properly—not trying to play dirty here—but can't figure out how to reinsert the template, can you add it back? Sorry to bother you

here's the link to the page I'm talking about

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammie_Shannon

PJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evan07x (talk • contribs) 22:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have found more sources so speedy deletion wouldn't be right now, I have tagged it for notability. Theroadislong (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

23:03:11, 10 January 2018 review of submission by Rossmoody88

Please tell me what exactly about Discogs makes it an unreliable source, so I can re-do the article with sources that will be considered reliable. Also please let me know what exactly (if anything) needs to be changed about the article besides what you mentioned in your comment.

Thanks.

The Discogs links merely confirm the existence of the music. You need to provide detailed references showing the subject has received in-depth significant coverage, in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. The essay, Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability, may explain this better. Theroadislong (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

01:11:13, 11 January 2018 review of submission by Sparx.kfukui


Hi Theroadislong,

My apologies, I didn't see you last response. I do work for the company, I attempted to disclose that according to the guidelines.. but perhaps I did not do it right. The citations and references I made were all second party articles, and I did not use anything the company publishes. Please let me know if there is anything I can do.

Hi again, just read up about COI and sounds like I should not be publishing this article. Would it be allright if I ask a non-affiliated friend to start this page? Thank you

Thank you Sparx.kfukui (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sparx.kfukui (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Things I should improve

Hello.. I have unsuccessfully edited the article. bt I need help. I cannot seem to reference well and put everything in order. In short I am not able to fix the notability part of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eujoe (talk • contribs) 09:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theroadislong&oldid=819798613"