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 12:13, 9 March 2018 (Signing comment by Bad brahmin - "→Please Review again: 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


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]

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

Hey,

I gave enough external links to support everything, I have mentioned.

So what's up with that page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyam.alex (talk • contribs) 12:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you added were to his books plus one commercial link to buy his book these are notreliable sources for establishing notability. Theroadislong (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vashmere Valentine

Would any of the several interviews that Vashmere has done be acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Johnathan Katz (talk • contribs) 16:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really no. I'm afraid that, like many others, you have misunderstood what Wikipedia is about. We only summarise what reliable, independent published sources say about a topic, we have no interest in what Vashmere says about himself. You need to establish his notability by adding references that show there is widespread coverage of him in reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Focus Investment Banking - Page Deleted

Hello, someone named Hut 8.5 deleted a page that I made for the investment bank that I work for (Focus Investment Banking). It is a real company with about 50 people who work there (www.focusbankers.com) I added it to the pages for "list of investment banks" and made it a page -- based on a number of pages for other banks. However the code is now gone, and I am afraid if I create it, Hut 8.5 will just speedy delete it again. What should I do?

FrozenMan (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the conflict of interest guidelines. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your bank. Theroadislong (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the Article Geoeges Deicha? He has a sufficient notoriety in the French German and Russian Wikipedia.

Why did you remove Georges Deicha? He has a sufficient notoriety in the French and German edition. Bestr regards Alfons Helbert Alfons Helbert (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove Draft:Georges Deicha? I left you a comment about help with formatting sources. Theroadislong (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masthaven

Hi Theroadislong, yes this is the first article i created on Wiki. Following the reaction from the first attempt in December, we tried to keep the article as clean from marketing as possible. This is 100% factual now. Can you point me to what's wrong please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reubenv01 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Reubenv01: Who is "we" Wikipedia accounts are strictly for single person use, if you are editing for your company you will need to read and comply with WP:COI. Advertising terms include… "Masthaven offers specialist property finance, mortgages and savings products" "Masthaven has formed a strong team" "It has the philosophy of "Human Digital Banking" to offer customers personalised and flexible solutions." plus a list of non notable awards. Theroadislong (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong: by we - the MD and I sat down and removed what we thought was promotional material. Sorry - should have been clearer. reading the WP:COI shortly. re the advertising terms above, that's who we are, that's what we do and we are definetly not considering that as advertising :(
I don't mean to intrude on this page but I would state that the fact that you don't see how the terminology you are using is promotional would suggest that you aren't able to write an article with the objectivity and neutral point of view required. In order to successfully write an article about your business, you need to forget everything you know about it and only write based on what independent sources state. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Growth Capital Venutres Amendments

Hello Theroadislong

Thanks for taking the time to review the submission. May I ask what sections you think come across as an advertisement so that I can amend and resubmit. Furthermore I do work for GCV, however, I decided to submit this article for educational purposes not because I'm being paid to do so.

Kind regards,

Luca — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucaPeterson (talk • contribs) 14:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you work for them then you are considered to be a paid editor. The entire draft reads like an advert not a neutral encyclopedia article. From the very first spam link in the first sentence to each unreferenced section afterwards. Please read WP:42. In short: Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything that a subject says or wants to say about itself: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have published about it, in reliable places. Theroadislong (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some issue with the curation review toolbar

Hi Theroadislong. I was reviewing Charles Akinyele Akindayomi, and had decided to nominate the same for Afd using the curation toolbar. When I clicked on the button to nominate, I got the message that the page was already up for nomination, and that the curation script was cancelling my nomination. But strangely, it went ahead and actually created the nom page. Just wanted to apologize for the inadvertent inconvenience this might have caused you. Thanks, Lourdes 17:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries I think we were both editing at the same time, I've never managed to get the curation toolbar to show up despite having it installed? Theroadislong (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You could follow the instructions I've given at User:Lourdes/PageCuration (check the trouble shooting link). Lourdes 07:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that!!! After 11 years I have found the curate this article link! Theroadislong (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome :) Lourdes 12:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changes done, help please!

Dear Theroadislong,

I wanted to let you know that I have been working very hard on this article and I have made all the changes you requested. I have also been studying how other wikipedia articles look like and I think that finally my article is starting to look like it should to be approved by you. I also added some citations, by the way. In conclusion, I have been doing my research and homework and I think you will find this new article to be much more aligned with the wikipedia style articles.

I wanted to ask your advice on something. I have found some relevant foreign language articles about the doctor. Do you think I should include them?

Finally, I wanted to ask you if I could get the article publishsed as is and then I can continue to add on it over time.

Can you let me know? :-)

I look forward to your feedback, and thank you for everything!

SaraGWik (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See here]

You posted a COI notice. I would note that user has been scruplous in noting his paid editing. Just sayin ... 22:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes I know he has, but I would still strongly advise them not to directly edit the article as per best practice. Theroadislong (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
please help. Lacypaperclip (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help, but what with? Theroadislong (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Revelstoke, Devon

Hello Theroadislong. Thanks for accepting my draft so very quickly, especially as it says there is a two month waiting list! Could you also look at my other similar articles Draft:Pathfinder Village and Draft:Monkokehampton? They are also places in Devon. Thanks. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much :) Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Nick Moyes. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Kifanga, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Nick Moyes (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it was a close call so I erred on the side of caution and tagged it with notability. Theroadislong (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance at AfC

Greetings Theroadislong and please forgive my intrusion to your talk page. I am a newbie AfC reviewer and I stumbled upon your name as an AfC reviewer on countless AfC submissions. I recently encountered an AfC submission and would be in need of your help and judgement. Hope you won't find it all too uncomfortable. My apologies if you do.

I declined the submission as I thought the list was redundant per WP:LISTCRUFT and not a legitimate encyclopaedic topic. Thanks in advance. EROS message 15:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on list type articles but your reasoning seems sound enough as per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Theroadislong (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you User:Theroadislong. Have a great day. EROS message 04:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kifanga

Hello Theroadislong, you recently reviewed my page kifanga and am looking forward to rectifying the issues you highlighted.But another editor tagged my page for speedy deletion.Am asking if you would please write to him informing him to reconsider my page as it is work in progress and that the notability issues highlighted can be sourced elsewhere is only that i have not yet referenced in the article yet. Let me know of the outcome.I would really appreciate your help on this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patpatrick (talk • contribs) 16:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should create the article using the WP:AFC process which gives you all the time you need to work on it. I do agree with Nick Moyes though, the article still doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Theroadislong (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Theroadislong Thank you for your input I have made some changes to page Sina Ghanbari, adding more independent sources.Please see if you like them. Thanks.Alex-h (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to list of CEDM artists edit

Hello,

I am replying to your message sent to me earlier. I do not understand why you revised my edit back to your previous redirect. I clearly explained why I was taking down the redirect and that I was going to revise the page. I went to submit 8 hours' worth of edits just now only to have them completely erased due to your edit in the meantime. The current redirect is to a page that lists artists who claim to be Christian whom have produced EDM-type music. The redirect page is not a list of CEDM artists. These are two different things. The page that this is redirecting to is a mess anyways. Many of the listed artists are decades removed from their last production of Christian EDM music. Many of the listed artists are even improperly categorized under what that page does represent. The redirect page has completely outdated sources too. This page would be better off taken down than redirected there because, as of currently, it is spreading false information by redirecting the readers there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newens (talk • contribs) 23:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit here [5] added nothing at all? None of your edits were erased because all you did was remove a redirect. Theroadislong (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome articles!

Hi!

I checked out some of your articles. Great stuff! I have been doing my research for some time and finally ready to submit. I just submitted my first one for review. I saw that someone else tried to start it. Any advice or suggestions for this and future articles?

I look forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabian0821 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Wilson (basketball coach)

I am interested in the history of Nancy Wilson (basketball coach), plus I want to see if I screwed something up by interrupting.

I do a fair amount of editing, but I haven't been involved in the review process, so I don't know the protocols.

I stumbled across this for reasons I'm not now remembering, but I wanted to work on it because of my interest in the subject matter.

I see that you initially rejected this when it was in a sandbox, but, to your credit, you quickly apologized when you realized you misunderstood the subject of the draft.

I confess I am puzzled that you decided to move it to draft space (was there a request that I missed?) and then immediately rejected it. I agree it wasn't ready at the time for article space, but it isn't clear to me that moving it to draft space was useful. Am I missing something?

The original editor clearly did not (initially) know how to do refs, but figured it out and largely fixed them, but did not know how to remove the redundancies. Unfortunately, the editor hasn't edited since then. I hope they aren't disillusioned, but they did not enable email, so I don't know how to contact them.

I did some minor editing, and checked just about every reference to make sure it supported the text. IMO, it is fine now, so I moved it to artivle space. However, I see a template suggesting it is still part of the review process – am I right you are the reviewer? So Im writing this to determine next steps.

FYI, I'm traveling, and may have limited online time until Weddnsday.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick, just a few comments; we almost always move drafts from the user sandbox into the Draft space; it had been submitted for review, so Theroadislong did not "move and immediately decline". As far as I can tell it was never in the article space until you moved it. As far as "the editor hasn't edited since then" goes, they resubmitted the draft for review, and many draft-submitters do not edit after they have done so. As far as you moving it to the article space, you should remove the various AFC templates after moving a draft to Article space; if you add yourself to the AFCH list you'll be able to use the script which does it automatically.
Also, to address your very first statement, I don't see that you've "screwed anything up", if anything thanks for moving an acceptable article out of the draft space. Primefac (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]
Thank you Primefac I don't think I have anything to add to your excellent answer. Theroadislong (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: Thanks to both of you. I was worried when I saw the templates, which I am not used to seeing, that I was doing something out of process, which is why I wanted to ask rather than simply remove them. Thanks for the detailed answer.--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CSD of Truebil

Hi Theroadislong,

I removed your CSD template on Truebil. I originally found and cleaned up a lot of the COI in the article, and warned the user for COI - however, I don't feel that the subject is suitable for CSD A7: it has credible references (e.g. India Times) to indicate notability, even with the initial COI.

Feel free to put it in for AfD if you disagree.

All the best! | Naypta✉ opened his mouth at 10:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Motty Steinmetz deletion and general criteria for musicians

Hi Theroadislong, you put up my page Motty Steinmetz up for deletion. I'm a bit confused about what the criteria is for weather a person is notable or not. Could you explain this please and what was wrong with the page Motty Steinmetz. Thank you very much Adam Bernstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Bernstein (talk • contribs) 17:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability explains it, we need multiple secondary sources that discuss him in depth, your article did not have these. Theroadislong (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Would it be possible for you to have a look at a draft when I've changed it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Bernstein (talk • contribs) 13:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC) Hi can you take a look at this, does it meet all the necessary criteria? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adam_Bernstein/sandbox Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Bernstein (talk • contribs) 15:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think he passes the criteria set out here Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles ? Theroadislong (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you put the article into main space and it has been tagged for deletion. If you want to be able to work on an article it is best to use the WP:AFC process. Theroadislong (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I dint realise you could get articles reviewed before they went up. Adam Bernstein (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Adam Bernstein[reply]

Help Please!

Hey can you help me create this page for this director. I found out about her back in October. It was around for a bit that she is the first Jamaican filmmaker to have her work distributed. I think that is an amazing accomplishment.

I would appreciate your help. Thanks man.

Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Toni_Morgan_Haye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabian0821 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Poole

Hey Theroadislong,

Thank you for reviewing the Dan Poole page. Can you please provide me with some help on what I need to do to get it into the mainspace? I've added external sources and sourced everything, so any help would be much appreciated.

Thank you in advance,

Niki Awaywithwords.ink (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:49:22, 18 January 2018 review of submission by Wilson 8297


Hi There, My name is Alex Wilson and I'm trying to publish my friends Theodore Salisbury Wikipedia page but some reason got declined. If you could inform me of why and how to improve it that would be great. Wilson 8297 (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has no in-line citations, see WP:REFB for help, it was previously declined because of poor sourcing it looks like you have improved the sources somewhat. You have included a large quote from Theodore R Salisbury but Wikipedia has very little interest in what the articles subject says about himself, only what reliable sources have reported. You have two copies of the draft one of which has used IMDb 10 times and Facebook 4 times as a source neither of these sources can be used. Finally if you know the subject you have a conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sina Ghanbari

Dear Theroadislong Thank you for your input I have made some changes to page Sina Ghanbari, adding more independent sources. Please see if you like them. Thanks. Alex-h (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

Thanks Theroadislong for your concern, but I can assure you there is no Conflict of Interest from me. I contribute to my interests only, and I am not affiliated with any page I have contributed to. I am still quite new to contributing so I have stuck to only 2 pages as I improve my skills with Wiki syntax, rules, and reference building. I hope to be a good asset here on Wikipedia with the hope of creating pages. I haven't contributed any information that does not follow the rules and is backed by credible sources. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadsignal (talk • contribs) 14:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Every time I contribute to the University of the People page, user Adrin10 reverts my work. Why and what can be done about this? I provided information about Transfer Credits, with proof, and it has been removed. Also the I removed the Criticism section as the only reference is from a propaganda website, which I am lead to believe Adrin10 is affiliated with as much of his page contributions lead to this propaganda reference. As I am new, perhaps you can help me?

You need to discuss your concerns on the talk page here Talk:University of the People. Theroadislong (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm CASSIOPEIA. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Patrik Kincl, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Theroadislong (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Klara Kazmi Bio

Hi,

I've just tried to submit a Artist Bio page after a request from the artist, and it has been deleted?

Can you assist ?

Kind Regards

Kevin Klara Kazmi (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You submitted a draft article Draft:Klara Kazmi which I declined because it reads like an advert, it hasn't been deleted. Please be aware that writing a new article is difficult, and start by reading your first article: you first need to show that she meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability - Wikipedia is only interested in what people unconnected with her have published about her in reliable places such as major newspapers. Theroadislong (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07:21:23, 22 January 2018 review of submission by Bookbinder 01


The article about child protection in Canada, can you request it? Bookbinder 01 (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I don't understand your question. I declined the draft because 12 of the references are to their own website, we require independent sources. Please also remove all in-line external links we don't use them. Theroadislong (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

University of the People

Hello,

I read your note on why you undid my edits on University of the People. I do not understand what is considered "promotional material" that I have referenced. My edits referenced 3rd party news sources (i.e. New York Times) as well as primary sources. My additions reflect factual articulation agreements that have been made between the University of the People and UC-Berkeley, University of Edinburgh, and NYU-Abu Dhabi. This is not promotional, but explain how it is in your opinion?

Additionally, you undid an edit which I added the fee for transfer credit under the Tuition section. What is wrong with that?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnelsonii (talk • contribs) 13:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition started with the statement "University of the People has a rich diversity of academic partnerships with several world-renowned institutions" how is this anything but promotional? You should also declare any conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:06:51, 24 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Diogopedrol


For your information the picture I put up on the DJ VIRGIN page, it was me who took it, and with her permission so it is mine and not copyright


Diogopedrol (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted from Commons by User:Túrelio because it was a Copyright violation, you will need to take it up with them. Theroadislong (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Novares Group

Hi Sir,

I'm Leo, I'm working for Novares Group in the digital communication of the group.

I'm sorry, I don't speak very good english and I don't undersatnt what is the problem with the Novares Group page.

Can you explain me? I don't want to see this page deleted so if I have to modify some sentences, I will do it.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoFermin (talk • contribs) 16:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated it for deletion because it is an article about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject, it is also written in a promotional manner and you have a conflict of interest as a paid editor. Theroadislong (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Article on Susan Merdinger

I am writing to get some clarity on why the citations of "COI" and "Payment" for this article have appeared above the Article on Susan Merdinger. I represent Susan Merdinger, as Wikipedia user SusanGreene. However, neither I nor Ms. Merdinger created this article, or paid for it and have no relationship to whomever composed it. I did, however, make a recent very minor correction/addition to the article at the request of Susan Merdinger to honor a notable musician who was omitted from the list of collaborators by the original Wiki editor, and do not feel that the article should be flagged or taken down as a result, when clear notability of the subject of the article is established with verifiable sources. The addition of these flags or citations at the top is a source of concern for the subject of the article, Ms. Merdinger, because it is potentially damaging to her reputation and integrity. It would be better not to have the article at all. However, I have no idea how to remove either the citations at the top of the article or the article itself. Now, the article is reduced to a stub and most pertinent biographical and career information has been removed, which is what I think may have prompted the flag about "notability" to be inserted automatically. Please advise and make a recommendation. SusanGreene SusanGreene (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed unreferenced puffery and added the notability tag because the article doesn't make it clear why she is notable. Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything you want to say about your client. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with her have chosen to publish about her. Theroadislong (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the update to Ken Ham

Dear Mr. Theroadislong,

The Reason for my update to the page on Ken Ham was to remove information that gave away an obvious bias of the writer, as "what science(supposedly)" tells us has nothing to do with what Ken Ham believes. It is an evolutionists attempt to propogate his beliefs as something other than what they are (certainly not science), as such defining factors of (macro)-evolution, to which he is referring, are not repeatable or testable. As the theoretical physicist Dr. Michael Ebifegha specifically states in regards to those studying evolutionary ancestry, the study of the origins of DNA ¨do not (fall under the purview of science), because this event is not testable and repeatable¨ (xii). My reason for looking at the page in the first place is because I am writing a "Thesis" (not actually that long) on "Evolution in the Public Schools", and it deeply disturbed me that someone would so blatantly blur the lines between relevance and irrelevance, science and philosophy. What is sad is how many ignorant people are deceived by these claims that Macro-evolution is a scientific fact. It matters not if a large majority of specialist scientists agree with the model, it is still a belief. 75% of Americans are Christians, according to a recent poll, but it is still a belief- faith, the defining factor of religion.

In know you are dedicated to the informational quality of every page on wikipedia, and this addition lowered such vastly.

Anyways, thank you for your concern. I recognize I should have explained myself more fully originally (rather than just saying "removed irrelevant information".

Good day, sir. I hope you will consider returning what I edited.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.109.96 (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Johnuniq reverted your edit with the summary “an encyclopedia has to record the facts as known,” I'm afraid Wikipedia has a bias for reality and mainstream science, by policy and we adjust the weight of articles according to the mainstream and scientific views of relevant experts in the field, supported with reliable sources (WP:RS). Macro-evolution is a scientific fact it has absolutely nothing to do with "belief". You might be better off editing at Conservapedia. Theroadislong (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Thank you for your contributions on multiple pages and for your instruction on proper editing techniques! Sadsignal (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stub

Hi Actually I wanted This Particular article I'm writing and others that ill do soon to be under the stub category. can you help with that?

If the article is accepted a stub category can be added then, but at the moment you need to read the link I gave you on formatting sources at WP:REFB and find some more reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Azeez Shobwale Shobola

Hello Theroadislong. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Azeez Shobwale Shobola, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: playing for Al-Hilal Club (Omdurman) and winning a national league and a national cup with your club is a sufficient claim of significance. Thank you. SoWhy 12:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Tommy Cecil

Hello Theroadislong. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tommy Cecil, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: writing songs for notable musicians is a credible claim of significance. Thank you. SoWhy 17:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) So, SoWhy, you saw a page about a songwriter signed to Sony/ATV Nashville, written by an editor called Sonyatvnashville whose only edits are to promote that business, and you declined speedy deletion? Didn't a tiny bell ring somewhere? It is an unmistakeable G11, and should be immediately deleted as such (please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that once nominated for speedy, a page can be deleted under any applicable criterion?). What's the next step here? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Justlettersandnumbers: Unfortunately, no. WP:G11 is only for text that is exclusively promotional. It does not cover promotional intent, because intent is sometimes hard to prove and thus easy to abuse. The next step is blocking the editor for the username violation and taking the article to AFD if you believe the subject not notable enough to warrant an article. Deletion of articles on notable subjects merely because they started out as part of promotional editing violates WP:PRESERVE and would be against the interest of our readers who don't care how an article started as long as it now neutrally informs them about the subject. Regards SoWhy 19:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your considered explanation, we live and learn. Theroadislong (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, sort of ... except that that is not how the G11 criterion is defined: "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION". That doesn't say anything about text, nor does it say that advertisements shoved into Wikipedia by commercial interests are not "exclusively promotional" – in fact, our definition exactly describes the page you declined to delete. Anyway, I've already reported the editor and an apparent sock, Sonyatvnash, to WP:UFAA, and will doubtless send the page to AfD if no-one beats me to it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

00:32:49, 28 January 2018 review of submission by Innocent Cuty


Dear Reviewer (The road is long) Kindly have a look of the modified form of the page, you reviewed earlier. Will wait for your kind suggestion and approval to review this as soon as possible, as it has been in the reviewing queue for over two months.

Thanking you in anticiaption

Regards Innocent Cuty (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feburary 2018 at Women in Red

Welcome to Women in Red's February 2018 worldwide online editathons.

New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/67|"Black women"]]

New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/68|"Mathematicians and statisticians"]]

New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/69|"Geofocus: Island women"]]

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) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Westbrook University entry

Hi,

I wrote to Doc James two weeks ago saying I believed his Jan. 15 revision of the Westbrook University entry was incomplete and biased. He has not responded. I had written an earlier entry, which he superseded with his.

Are there any steps I can take to get an agreeably accurate, fair and thorough entry for the university?

Thanks very much!

Gerryharrington (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Feminism on Reddit

Greetings once again, Theroadislong. I was wondering if it'll be just to reject this submission under "what wikipedia is not" as it is to me that the submission is original research. EROS message 12:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would have thought so it reads rather like an essay and the sourcing isn't independent either. Theroadislong (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Theroadislong for your help. Have a good day. EROS message 02:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Harvey Butler

Can you please tell me where you found the picture of Secretary Butler? I've known one existed, but I've been unable to locate one. I've written a book on Tennessee's secretaries of state, and Butler is one of the few I don't have a picture of. Thank you so much!

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolyn gregory (talk • contribs) 15:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find it, user:TN615RNB added the image they uploaded it here [6] Kind regards. Theroadislong (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Black Coffee (Beth Hart and Joe Bonamassa album)

So sorry to disturb you again, I was wondering if my declination on this album was logical.. What are your thoughts? Seems to me it has vague notability, poor sources and the tone is somewhat editorial. EROS message 08:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks borderline doesn't it, it has a few reviews but as you say vague notability. I'm having a bit of a break from Wikipedia because my wife has been seriously ill but hope to come back to more useful editing in the near future. All the best. Theroadislong (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry to hear that. I hope she gets well soon. EROS message 12:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Netta Eames

Hi. Please don't delete the article Netta Eames. She is was the editor of a well known and historic magazine and recognized writer. She was effectively the mother in law of the author Jack London along with being his mentor and promoter as a writer in his early years. It's a bit of a skeleton right now, but I hope to be growing it in the next day or two. Please view my profile. I have a longstanding participation at WP and a good reputation. I have been less involved lately, but in the early days was very involved in developing the notability guidelines and am deeply devoted to the project. I would not include an article which is detrimental to the best interest of the project. Hopefully with the spirit of collaboration among other editors we can build this to very meaningful article. Best regards! --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I really appreciate you taking a second look. Best regards! --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm wondering whether you feel that the Netta Eames article now meets the notability standard sufficiently that we can remove that tag. If so, I would like to invest more time and start with inline citations. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but it's not remotely clear why she is notable? Theroadislong (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bummer. I guess being fairly immersed in Jack London research right now, I see her as important to the story, but too much to be merged into his article. In the context of early San Francisco, California and turn of that century culture, she is notable. But in the greater context of life today, maybe not so much. Maybe think on this as a less egregious violation of the guidelines and doing an old wiki-has-been a favor. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UCTV Page

Hello, I'm the assistant operations manager for UCTV and one of my tasks is to update our long neglected Wikipedia page. It appears you removed the majority of the page claiming it was promotional. A list of our departments and their series hardly seems promotional to me and I'm very confused as to why it was removed. Thanks UCTVOpsAssistant (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should restrict your edits to suggestions on the articles talk page, you have a conflict of interest as a paid editor. Wikipedia is not a means to promote UCTV, Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have published about it in reliable places. Theroadislong (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) @MikeyFromUCTV: Just to add to what Theroadislong posted above, it's very important that you and everyone else at UCTV understand that UCTV (University of Connecticut) does not belong to the station; in other words, it's not "your long neglected Wikipedia" page, but rather a Wikipedia article written about the company. Nobody at UCTV has any final editorial control over what content is added and what content is removed as explained in Wikipedia:Ownership of content.
So, what I suggest you do is to follow Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and use Talk:UCTV (University of Connecticut) to propose any major changes you'd like to make to the article. (Please note that by "major changes", I am referring to how the term is defined by Wikipedia in Help:Minor edit#When to mark as minor changes and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Making uncontroversial edits.) You can use Template:Request edit to proposes changes; after that you just wait until someone responds. Since there are only so many volunteers going around assessing these requests, you can help them out by clearly wording your request and keeping things as simple as possible as explained in Wikipedia:Edit requests; in general, long wordy requests asking for multiple changes tend to take more time to reassess, but short "Change A to B in Section C using this website as a supporting source" types of requests tend to take less time to evaluate. If you post a request and nobody responds within in a reasonable time (say about a week), don't assume that means you have a green light to make the changes yourself; in such a case, ask for further help at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.
Even though COI/PAID editing is not something expressly forbidden, the Wikipedia community expects that such editors comply with certain policies and guidelines because unmonitored COI editing often quickly leads to other more serious problems. Your best chance of having the changes you'd like to make accepted by the community is to follow these established policies and guidelines because doing so will help you avoid any problems with other editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I get what's being said above and how I have a conflict of interest. But I wasn't trying to use the Wikipedia page to promote us I was simply trying to update it so it would be accurate. My view on this is that only someone from within the organization is going to know anything about updating it so if we don't who will? I feel removing the section about our various departments was totally unnecessary. It doesn't promote us in any way it just says what departments there are. The conflict of interest rules seem a little bit silly to me in this case because I actually know the facts to be updated and that's all I was trying to do. MikeyFromUCTV (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We know this Wikipedia page doesn't belong to us but at the end of the day it's reflective of us and we just want the information to be accurate. MikeyFromUCTV (talk) 06:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't take this the wrong way, but even though your "view" may work fine on UCTV's own websites, it doesn't work well when it comes to Wikipedia. It's not really what you know which is relevant per WP:VNT, but only what can be found in reliable sources (preferably secondary sources) which matters here. A person doesn't need to have inside information on UCTV to edit the article; what matters more is that their edits are in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Moreover, Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project which means that disagreements over content inevitable and when they aoccur they are supposed to be resolved through discussion per WP:DR. Not everything that is verifiable or factual about a subject needs to be added to an article per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, article content is determined through consensus. Now, if you feel the guidelines regarding COI are too restrictive, then you can propose changes at WT:COI. My sugestion to you still is that if you feel the article written about UCTV requires updating, then make edit requests on the article talk page in accordance with these guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rowboat Film- und Fernsehproduktion

Hello Theroadislong, you've deleted the filmografie of the page mentioned above and I don't understand why. You've said, that Wikipedia is not a directory, but it is common to list the filmografie of an actor, a director, producer and so on. So why has it been deleted? I would like to restore it. KatharinaRB (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The content was entirely sourced to their own website. We only summarise what reliable, independent published sources have to say about a subject. Theroadislong (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick reply. The filmography is important to show the show the subjects notability so I would like to add it again. And if I do so without the sources of the own website - how it is common on every other wikipedia page of an actor, director and so on - is that ok with you? KatharinaRB (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist, but I fail to see how adding a list of non notable work will help establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong the production company won an won an International Emmy in New York for one of their films A Day for a Miracle - which is very very rare for a German production company. Winning an International Emmy, which along with the Oscars are the most recognizable entertainment award worldwide. And the TV serie Murder by the lake was last year the most successful TV series on the broadcasting channel ZDF. So I think that should be enough to show the notability of the company. I will add the filmography again. KatharinaRB (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that, it was the other non notable film list cruft I was objecting to and also your motives being a paid editor. Theroadislong (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newark Renaissance House

I appreciate the comments as I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing. However, there seems to be an aggression you are displaying. I am trying to add content that I truly believe a) I have a right to add and b) the Wikipedia community will enjoy and from which it will derive benefit. Please give me a chance to fix things before you pull everything down! Now my photos are gone? All of them from the gallery? Is your goal to winnow the field of content providers because I am becoming discouraged by this process.DocSavageNJ 16:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocSavageNJ (talk • contribs)

You appear to have an undisclosed conflict of interest and you are adding promotional content to an article and pointless photographs which add nothing to a topic of dubious notabilty. Theroadislong (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Theroadislong, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!
The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

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

New Year Backlog Drive results:

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

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
  • Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

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

Thank you for your comment. Have removed the links as you suggested and resubmitted. Philacevedo (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Professor T (German TV series)

Hello Theroadislong, you've declined my submission of the above mentioned article because the submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. The German TV series is in fact very notable like the series Der Kriminalist, which is on Wikipedia and by the way doesn't have any sources at all. Also the Belgian original series Professor T. has an english Wikipedia article, so why shouldn't the German (which is very popular) have one? If I add some more sources, would you accept the article? KatharinaRB (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there are other poorly sourced and written articles is not a valid reason for creating this one, as User:Bradv points out, the press releases and reviews are insufficient to establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:04:44, 8 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Mina-tonic


Hi, Theroadislong. I am really struggling with this article. Could you please clarify whether the problem is the tone or choice and quantity of references. Also it would help if you could highlight the areas that read like an advert. Please keep in mind that I do not mind changing any section of the article to make it strictly factual and not advertising.

Mina-tonic (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The whole draft is promotional in tone for example...
  • "delivering multibrand in multi-market food solutions and reaching over 150 branded units across the GCC region."
  • "YYT provides its customers with F&B concepts in both fast casual and quick service sectors"
  • "Centered on a live cooking experience, the Yum Yum Tree Food Court offered fast food at comparatively affordable prices."
  • "to meet the high demands of investors for innovative investment solution"
  • "Vanellis has been serving fresh Italian food for over 30 years across Canada and worldwide"
  • "Subway is the world's largest submarine sandwich chain known for the quality and variety of its sandwiches prepared on demand"
  • "Menchie’s is the ambassador of frozen yogurt quality worldwide"
  • "The Tandori restaurants take customers on a journey with the cuisine of Northern India"

None of this is acceptable for a neutral encyclopedia. Theroadislong (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newark Renaissance House

Your comment about the photos is wrong. Photos showing people engaged in addiction therapy are highly relevant to an article about an addiction treatment center. Photos of nurses and teachers working with children affected by substance abuse are also highly relevant. There is nothing about those photos that could be reasonably considered "self-promoting" or "self-congratulatory." Please stop looking for ways to limit my efforts. I am following the rules. You are obstructing.DocSavageNJ 14:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocSavageNJ (talk • contribs)

Have these patients given their permission to be photographed? Group photos of patients add absolutely nothing to our understanding of the article's subject and their copyright status is in question, did you take the photographs? Feel free to discuss this on the article talk page or at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. Theroadislong (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response.

Hi there,

First time editing wikipedia, so a bit new to this. I work for Vision Express UK ltd and noticed that there was a problem with our wikipedia page. It contains a 'Controversy' section which includes several items relating to SEO malpractice, which I believe are down to vandalism.

Firstly, there's reference to a situation in Sept 2010. This is way before any of us started, but it links to an article which claims there was an event of spammy practice.

Secondly, there is mention of Vision Express editing their own wikipedia page in an attempts to gain links from wikipedia and further keyword relevance. This is not something I've been aware of during my time working at Vision Express. Like I said this is the first time, I've ever edited a wikipedia article!

Thirdly, we have had television articles featuring both Trevor McDonald and Julie Walters respectively, but I'm not sure why these would be listed as controversial.

Charliephair (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Charlie Phair[reply]

I have removed the poorly sourced content, but please note that the page is NOT yours (our wikipedia page), Wikipedia has articles about subjects but you have little control over correctly sourced content, if the blog spamming was reported in reliable sources it could be added back. If you need any more changes made please suggest them on the article talk page. The vision Express article was edited for some time by an employee against best practice. Theroadislong (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Connor Morgans

Sorry, think we ended up edit-conflicting. But to the same end. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Backlog Drive Appreciation

Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar
For completing over 500 reviews during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog Drive please accept this Special Edition Barnstar. Thank you for helping out at New Page Patrol! There is still work to do to meet our long term goals, so I hope you will continue your great work. Cheers! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Geneva Drive
For maintaining a streak of at least 50 reviews per week during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog drive, you are awarded the Geneva drive. Well done! Keep up the good work. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on Answers in Genesis article

Hello,
I recently edited the article Answers in Genesis. You reverted this edit, claiming it is wrong. Your revert changed "Critics state that Creation science, which is promoted by AiG, is a pseudoscience that "lacks the central defining characteristic of all modern scientific theories"." to the previous version, "Creation science, which is promoted by AiG, is a pseudoscience that "lacks the central defining characteristic of all modern scientific theories"." You claim this is "incorrect information" and "could be interperted as vandalism," while this is not what is shown at WP:Vandalism: "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose," (emphasis from source). This edit was not made with any negative intention. By no means or interpertation is this false. Critics certainly do state that this is a pseudoscience. All we are left with is which state of the article better meets WP:NPOV. I would say that my edit is a more neutral point of view. The sentence cites two sources. Both are books, so I cannot read either at short notice, but I am fairly certain that they are both written by critics of AiG (of course, that's a large portion of the scientific community at this point). Because of that, my statement is not wrong, and labeling it as such is. The original statement states this extremely factually - which, I would say, is biased towards critics.
Please let me know why you think otherwise, and if I'm missing anything.
Thanks,
LittlePuppers (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact! Wikipedia has a bias towards science, creation science is pseudoscience and is not given equal weight, it is not just critics who state that creation science is pseudoscience it is the whole of modern science in general. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Theroadislong (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying they're wrong (and I'm afriad that's a subject we'll probably never come to terms on - this isn't the place for a creation/evolution debate), however you yourself say that "Wikipedia has a bias". That's exactly what we're trying to aviod! I say that evolution doesn't make sense. Evolutionists say that creation doesn't make sense. That's their opinion, and obviously one of those opinions is right - again, this isn't really the place to debate it. There are quite a few Christian scientiscts who would dispute that, although, again, that is a minority of scientiscts and, again, this isn't the place to debate it. The point I'm trying to make is that critics do state that, and it is factually correct (isn't that the basis of science?)


What is factually incorrect about the statement, "Critics state that Creation science, which is promoted by AiG, is a pseudoscience that "lacks the central defining characteristic of all modern scientific theories"."


I find no factual errors in that statement.
Thanks again,
LittlePuppers (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not just "critics" it is the whole of modern science!!!! Please take this discussion to the article talk page where it belongs. Theroadislong (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then either "the whole of modern science" can and should be considered critics or this should be moved out of the criticism section. LittlePuppers (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong:
If you check the article history you will see that actually User:Roxy the dog reverted your edit, it was a revert with which I agree, please take the discussion to the article talk page. Your opinions (or mine) on evolution are of no interest to Wikipedia, we merely report what the reliable sources say. Creation science is pseudoscience and is not given equal weight. Theroadislong (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Continued on the talk page. LittlePuppers (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments for your edits to "The National memo" page

Dear Theroadislong please provide arguments for your latest edits to The National Memo article (deletion of the e-books section) at The National Memo Talk page]. Thank you. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Many thanks for your quick review of my User:Aarre/Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures submission! I appreciate the feedback. I will work on it. —Preceding undated comment added 16:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

DECENT Network edit

Hey Theroadislong,

yesterday I made some edits for DECENT Network wiki page as I noticed the information which was published is outdated and incorrect. Could you please explain me the reason why you have removed most of my edits and verification links? Those were technical information about their system which was verified by links.

Thanks, Naward

@Naward: Please check the edit history, I removed one external link from the body of the article (we don't use them) and I edited for neutral tone. Please be aware though that for everything you write, you need a source unaffiliated with the company (newspaper articles by professional journalists, etc. are good independent sources). Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything that a subject says or wants to say about itself: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have published about it, in reliable places Theroadislong (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Harvey Newquist II

Hi,

I just wanted to respond to your comment regarding Harvey Newquist II's page. I do have sources but they're all primary sources, would these still be okay to include? I was told I would need more online sources but most of the references mentioning his career are all from primary data. Wafflesandpancakes (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to be online, but they do need to be [[reliable. As a paid editor I would have expected you to be aware of this. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which summarises what independent sources have published about subjects. Theroadislong (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

?

Could you possibly explain just what condition is the reason for issuing this warning of a conflict of interest? Just when is it a conflict of interest when I see a film, review the plot on WP, see errors and attempt to edit them? Should I consider this a sign of conspiracy thought among WP'ians just the same as there about accusations about being a sock puppet, or the inability to understand that I cannot sign into a registered user account name because I do not have one and have no intention of establishing one --and that WP needs to deal with how the technology reacts in a way that i have absolutely no control?2605:E000:9143:7000:4541:FEA4:B7BA:FDE9 (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the conflict of interest notice because your IP addresses are assigned to you by Time Warner in Los Angeles. Theroadislong (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my expression but I find that the most incredible stupid reason when everyone's IP is provided by the provider. I have absolutely no control about an IP or that system. Why out of the thousands of people connected with WP you decide that there is a conflict of interest is mind boggling! This I have to rank among all those that cast aspiration about my participating on WP and because my IP changes that somehow I am involved with some sort of conspiracy to deceive people when anyone reviewing my edits will see that they are limited to certain activities. And then i get the "suggestion" that i should establish a registered user name when all that I am doing is using the system endorsed by WP of using my IP address as my identifier. I find this conspiratorial attitude among those that are far more invested in WP than to be astounding and not in a positive way. That is what happens when a web site functions on a decentralized system. What next, there will be some other warning issued because sometimes my spelling goes in and out of British/American English? That somehow in that manner I am attempting to deceive people in some evil manner? And then by voicing my concerns I get labled as uncooperative and hostile and therefore undermining WP? What next from what people would like to describe their minds as so developed? It's incredible and unbelievable.2605:E000:9143:7000:4541:FEA4:B7BA:FDE9 (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My humble apologies, I didn't realise that Time Warner was an IP provider I am an arse. Theroadislong (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17:24:56, 16 February 2018 review of submission by Thines Shankar


This article is a translation from non-english wiki. Heres the non-english version: https://ms.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sekolah_Menengah_Kebangsaan_Anderson

If so, how can I improve the article more to be accepted? Thanks

Thines J Shankar (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thines Shankar: Other language Wikipedias have less stringent notability guidelines. The English Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Your draft has no such sources so cannot be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Garden Window

Hi! I noticed you somehow decided a garden window was a plastic box hung outside a sash window, causing a minor edit war. In the future, consult google to find pictures of things for which there is nothing of the sort anywhere on Wikipedia. I shall now revert garden window to its original content. --John Moser (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluefoxicy: If you check the edit history I tagged it for notability and lack of references, it was user User:Bluefoxicy who made it a redirect. The article requires independent reliable sources, Google search is NOT remotely suitable. Theroadislong (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About protest-too-much people at Teahouse

Thanks for note. I just felt that it should not have to be you who pokes the troll back. David notMD (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A question on your note

Hi,

I noticed an amendment to a draft that I submitted today (Ana Khouri) but am unsure which changes you were recommending that I make. Apologies to bother, but was hoping you might be able to elaborate here.

Thank you in advance.

JamesGoodman (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)James Goodman James[reply]

Please read WP:REFB as suggested. I have formatted reference 3 and 4 as an example for you, it will help get the article accepted if the reference formatting is corrected. Theroadislong (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation: sandbox (February 18)

Thank you for your prompt review of my draft entry for SPICMA, a charity. You have turned down my request for approval, citing my CoI and a lack of verification for encyclopaedic content.

I wish to challenge your review, on the following grounds:

1. My CoI has been declared. Moreover, I am a volunteer, as is everyone who works for/ assists this charity. Consequently, the only risk raised by my CoI is that the charity receives more donations than otherwise. I fail to see how this outcome constitutes a 'conflict' - of any kind.

2. Every statement of fact is verified by links to the website of the UK Government's Charity Commission, where SPICMA's financial returns and other details may be viewed in full. These returns and details are independently audited and continuously subject to review by the Charity Commission. There can be no more solid or independent verification.

3. The draft entry appears to conform to the precedents set by existing entries for charitable organisations, such as CAFOD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAFOD), OxFam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxfam), and Save the Children (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Save_the_Children).

Please reconsider your review of SPICMA's entry in light of the above.

Thank you for your attention.

82.163.147.49 (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Shane Norman[reply]

In order to demonstrate notability, you need to provide references to articles written about SPICMA in unrelated, independent journals, magazines, books, etc. Wikipedia has no interest in what the articles subject wants to say about itself, only what reliable sources have reported. You have a very clear conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Lida Sherafatmand

Hello Theroadislong. Thanks for your note regarding the COI policy. I have basically provided the academic URL links for the references asked for this article. Is that ok please..is there a standard form for declaration about having provided reference links please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidasher (talk • contribs) 15:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your question is? You do need to declare your conflict of interest on your user page though. Theroadislong (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Theroadislong.. I found the standard template for COI declaration and added it.. Thanks again for your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidasher (talk • contribs) 15:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I was looking for:

... I did not know how to add it :-)

thanks

Theroadislong, may I please one more question: I uploaded photo of a painting of mine, but I could not find the right "licence" to contribute to it, so it has been deleted. Could you please help me: basically I want to show the photo of my art only for reference, academic, or journalistic use. I do not want to give permission for commercial users to use the photo of my painting. In this case, WHICH LICENSE number should I contribute to it please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidasher (talk • contribs) 16:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answer is you can't! Please see [7]. Theroadislong (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. Just read the "free enough" section. yes so I am afraid I cannot allow my art photos on Wikipedia...because some online sites have already taken the images and selling them without my permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidasher (talk • contribs) 17:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

European Center of Sustainable Development

It looks like the article has been sustained (pun not truly intended) almost entirely by COI accounts; I'm dubious as to whether it's notable. Do you think this merits AfD? Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same! Theroadislong (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested a block on the primary account, with the observation that she's apparently using multiple accounts. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update Adler and Allan page/article

Dear Theroadislong,

hope you can help me.

i believe you just deleted most of the information on the Adler and Allan article/page, which has been there for quite a few years. however would the below content be ok to change the current content on the adler and allan page?

Revised Wikipedia contentItalic text

The Adler & Allan Group is an international provider of oil and environmental services, including 24/7 emergency response to protect essential assets from environmental risk and damage, throughout the UK and in selected overseas markets. Adler & Allan started trading in 1926 as a Coal and Coke Merchants in London, since then it has grown and diversified, to become a provider of a range of Oil, Environmental, Compliance and Asset Resilience services. They have been involved in the clean-up of some of the UK’s most infamous disasters, including Buncefield and the extensive floods of 2007 and 2013. Following Storm Desmond in 2015, they worked closely with the Environment Agency and where involved in the clean-up operation, sanitising equipment and preventing pollution as well as helping communities in Cumbria access available flood grants. As part of its work to help flood-hit regions, they became a founding member of BERG (Business Emergency Resilience Group), BERG is part of the BITC (Business in the Community), an initiative of His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales, BERG helps businesses and communities across the UK to prepare for, respond to and recover from emergencies such as flooding, cyber-attacks and civil unrest. In 2008, Adler & Allan were chosen by the Olympic Development Authority (ODA) to run a secure supply chain for fuel to the London 2012 Games construction-phase site contractors. Supplying the fuel for the 600-plus generators and providing main-line and back-up power to over 40 Olympic venues around the country. The group’s services are provided from 24+ depots nationwide 24/7/365, including a purpose-built Technical innovation centre in Brize Norton. Company History 1926: • Adler & Allan begin trading as Coal and Coke Merchants in London 1967: • Company diversifies into oil tank cleaning 1969: • Oil distribution begins 1974: • Ceased coal and coke sales 1993: • Mark Calvert (CEO) joined 1998: • Henry Simpson (Commercial Director) joined 1999: • Started fuel distribution operation in the West Midlands – first base outside London 2000: • Acquired Environment Management Ltd, with oil spill response bases in Hartlebury, Stansted and Exeter. 2002: • Acquired the tank cleaning division of Shanks based in Rainham, Essex • Acquired Tank Clean Group based in Manchester 2003: • Acquired CW Tankers of Thetford 2004: • Rainham depot granted a licence as a Special Waste Transfer Station 2005: • Adler & Allan Yorkshire established with a base in Sheffield 2006: • Acquired the assets of Dew Remediation Ltd.

 • Appointed principal contractor for the clean-up of the Buncefield oil terminal following the catastrophic fire that destroyed 20 tanks. Work completed April 2008. • Acquired the business of Cerva Ltd., a division of Conder Environmental plc, becoming the new Separator Services division at New Alresford • Set-up a specialist Tank Services Division providing OFTEC compliance audits, tank installations and maintenance • Established Adler & Allan South based at Crowborough, East Sussex with particular emphasis on spill response and hazardous waste handling 2007: • Attracted the backing of Aberdeen Asset Management Private Equity • Acquired the distribution and fuel services businesses of Meridian Petroleum and Nexus Petroleum in Watford • Adler & Allan Rainham Waste Transfer Facility awarded ISO14001 and PPC Permit 2008: • Acquired the business of Fuel Installation Services Ltd. in St Albans • Acquired the goodwill and assets of Tramar Tankering of Stowmarket • Adler & Allan Manchester Waste Treatment Facility awarded ISO14001 and PPC Permit • Established Adler & Allan Scotland based at Montrose • Acquired the goodwill and assets of the UK response business of OSRL/EARL • Adler & Allan were chosen by the Olympic Development Authority (ODA) to run a secure supply chain for fuel to the London 2012 Games 2009: • Stratford depot moves to Barking as part of the Olympic redevelopment • New National Enquiries Centre opened at Barking • Acquired the goodwill and assets of Cleanex Ltd based in Liverpool • E&S Environmental join Group • Waste transfer station opened at Standlake, Oxon • First major project in Ireland at Tarbert Power Station 2010: • Goodwill & assets of Abzorboil Ltd. acquired • New base in Doncaster opens 2011: • Transfer of Briggs Environmental Services business in England & Wales to Adler & Allan including base at Droitwich • Tank projects in Nigeria, Sierra Leone, The Falkland Islands & Canary Islands 2012: • Acquired the assets of Alpha Environmental in GB • New purpose-built depots open at Waltham Cross, Tunbridge Wells, Doncaster & Manchester • Delivered the fuel for the London 2012 Olympic Games 2013: • Acquired the goodwill and assets of AMW Ltd. based in Carlisle • Acquired the business of Aquilo Environmental Services Ltd based in Teesside 2014: • Henrik Pedersen (Business Development Director) joined • Andrew Clarke appointed Operations Director • Acquired the business of Aalto Technical Services Ltd. in Manchester • New private equity investment from Lloyds Development Capital • Adler & Allan Teesside Service Centre opens at Wilton • Acquired the goodwill and assets of GNE Ltd. in Exeter and UK Spill Response Ltd in Burford, Oxon • Awarded contract with the Environment Agency for emergency spill response and hazardous waste handling • Acquired the goodwill and assets of Baker Environmental Lining Services Ltd • Adler & Allan becomes a founding member of BERG (Business Emergency Resilience Group), helping homes and businesses affected by Storms Desmond and Eva 2015: • Nick Horler appointed Chairman • New Technical Innovation Centre opened at Brize Norton • New National Operations Centre opened at Eynsham near Oxford • Acquired the goodwill and some assets of King Tanktechnic in Manchester • New Scotland Service Centre opened at Uddingston near Glasgow • Acquired the business of MTB Environmental Ltd. in Hamble near Southampton 2016: • Acquired Worcester Electrical Services Limited (WES) • Acquired the goodwill and assets of Contra Corrosion Services Ltd • New office opened in Swansea • New office opened in Edinburgh • A&A Federal Services LLC registered in San Antonio, Texas • UKAS accreditation achieved for A&A’s fuel testing laboratory 2017: • Adler & Allan’s Rainham waste management depot expands • Adler & Allan starts delivering Cathodic Protection services • Win the Barclays Award for building resilient business 2017

External sites / references 1. "Adler & Allan Facilities Management (FM) Microsite". http://fm.adlerandallan.co.uk/. External link in |website= (help) 2. "Adler & Allan Defence FM Microsite". http://fm-defence.adlerandallan.co.uk/. External link in |website= (help) 3. "Adler & Allan Asset Resilience Microsite for DNO's and Water Industry". http://assetresilience.adlerandallan.co.uk/. External link in |website= (help)

Right hand side information. Industry Environmental services

Founded 1926 Headquarters Harrogate, United Kingdom

Key people BoB Contreras (Chairman), Mark Calvert (CEO) , Henry Simpson (Commercial Director), Henrik Pedersen (Business Development Director), Keith Potts (Compliance Director), Andrew Clarke (Operations Director) Products JBAR®, Sockit™, Soakbag™,, Ethanol Coalescing Filter®, Tank Technic Linings™ , ContraCorrosion™ , BoxSep™, Flexibund™, EquiSeal™ Services Compliance & Asset Resilience, Tank Services, Spill Response, Waste Management, Fuel & Forecourt Services, Pollution prevention, 24/7 Emergency Response (Oil, Chemical, flood, fuel spills and oxygen depletion), Protective Coatings & Linings, Tankering, Contaminated Land Investigation & Remediation, Spill Training, Consultative Services, Non-Destructive Testing (NDT), Site Decommissioning, Flood services, PPM and testing Number of employees 600+ (2017) Subsidiaries E&S Environmental , WES (Hazardous electrical services) Website http://www.adlerandallan.co.uk

Absolutely NOT. Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what you or I have to say about your company. We only summarise what reliable, independent published sources have to say about a subject. Theroadislong (talk) 12:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the above history and intro are reliable and factual they are not for any commercial gain or marketing, they are indeed factual! i am confused by what can and cannot be said on Wikipedia as i see pagess with more commercial and company information than the information provided?

please help as i am getting slightly confused about what the information should consist off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rene Willemsen (talk • contribs) 12:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said twice on your user talk page, Wikipedia articles can only contain information found in independent reliable sources, sources from third parties not associated with your company. Unless your company's history is written about by third parties not associated with your company, it cannot be on Wikipedia. You should use your company's website to post information about what it sees as its history. Company representatives like yourself are usually too close to the subject to write about it with the proper neutral point of view and do not understand that we have no interest in what an article subject wants to say about itself. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You should post your declaration on your own user page instead of this page. Thank you for making it. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try this another way; in order to be able to contribute any information about your company, you need to forget everything that you know about it and only contribute information you can find that does not come from your company. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for you help so far 331dot:

i have added the deceleration on my own page and have done some investigation adding the required references / independent 3rd party resources, relating to the content and the left the history out.

Changes have been made below including the added references / resources.


The Adler & Allan Group is an international provider of oil and environmental services, including 24/7 emergency response to protect essential assets from environmental risk and damage, throughout the UK and in selected overseas markets. Adler & Allan started trading in 1926 as a Coal and Coke Merchants in London, since then it has grown and diversified, to become a provider of a range of Oil, Environmental, Compliance and Asset Resilience services. They have been involved in the clean-up of some of the UK’s most infamous disasters, including Buncefield and the extensive floods of 2007 and 2013. '- Reference hhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78981/buncefield-recovery-plan.pdf' Bold text

Following Storm Desmond in 2015, they worked closely with the Environment Agency and where involved in the clean-up operation, sanitising equipment and preventing pollution as well as helping communities in Cumbria access available flood grants. Reference - http://www.yorkshirebusinessdaily.co.uk/2017/07/06/adler-allan-wins-bitc-award-flood-support-services/ Bold text

As part of its work to help flood-hit regions, they became a founding member of BERG (Business Emergency Resilience Group), BERG is part of the BITC (Business in the Community), an initiative of His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales, BERG helps businesses and communities across the UK to prepare for, respond to and recover from emergencies such as flooding, cyber-attacks and civil unrest. Reference - https://www.bitc.org.uk/node/359403

In 2008, Adler & Allan were chosen by the Olympic Development Authority (ODA) to run a secure supply chain for fuel to the London 2012 Games construction-phase site contractors. Supplying the fuel for the 600-plus generators and providing main-line and back-up power to over 40 Olympic venues around the country. Refence - http://fueloilnews.co.uk/2013/06/crossing-the-finishing-line/ Bold text

In 2017 the Adler & Allan Group has expanded its range of services with the acquisition of specialist environmental consultancy, OHES Environmental. - Reference https://forecourttrader.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/14218/Adler___Allan_buys_OHES_to_expand_its_services.html'Bold text'

The group’s services are provided from 24+ depots nationwide 24/7/365, including a purpose-built Technical innovation centre in Brize Norton. - Refenrence https://forecourttrader.co.uk/news/archivestory.php/aid/11717/Green_demo_centre.html'Bold text'

'Infobox company information.'Bold text

Industry Environmental services

Founded 1926 Headquarters Harrogate, United Kingdom

Key people Bob Contreras (Executive Chairman), Mark Calvert (CEO) , Henry Simpson (Commercial Director), Henrik Pedersen (Business Development Director), Keith Potts (Compliance Director), Andrew Clarke (Operations Director) Products JBAR®, Sockit™, Soakbag™,, Ethanol Coalescing Filter®, Tank Technic Linings™ , ContraCorrosion™ , BoxSep™, Flexibund™, EquiSeal™ Services Compliance & Asset Resilience, Tank Services, Spill Response, Waste Management, Fuel & Forecourt Services, Pollution prevention, 24/7 Emergency Response (Oil, Chemical, flood, fuel spills and oxygen depletion), Protective Coatings & Linings, Tankering, Contaminated Land Investigation & Remediation, Spill Training, Consultative Services, Non-Destructive Testing (NDT), Site Decommissioning, Flood services, PPM and testing Number of employees 600+ (2018) Subsidiaries E&S Environmental , WES (Hazardous electrical services) , OHES Environmental Website http://www.adlerandallan.co.uk


Hopefully by mentioning and adding in the independent resources this is now ok to post and update the article.

kind regards,

Rene — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rene Willemsen (talk • contribs) 13:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of this belongs here, you need to make your suggestions on the article talk page here Talk:Adler and Allan. This [8] is NOT a secondary source? Theroadislong (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


regarding this link - [9] is NOT a secondary source? the link has been changed see above, however you not just now added this - 11:40, 20 February 2018‎ Theroadislong (talk | contribs)‎ . . (Reference edited with ProveIt add reliable reference). how can it be that the above links are not found reliable. i have done everything you mentioned previously but now you are saying that this is still not correct. also why is the Infobox company information been taken down and the new info not allowed as this was and is genuine company information. i even referenced it.

kind regards,

rene

I am saying that none of this conversation belongs on my talk page you need to discuss this on the article's talk page here Talk:Adler and Allan. Theroadislong (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

my apologies i just asked for your help as you deleted all the content that has been there for many years this morning that is all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rene Willemsen (talk • contribs) 13:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dachshund

How do I pull what I posted from the archive to include the sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayrubess (talk • contribs) 14:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Women's History Month 2018 at Women in Red

Welcome to Women in Red's March 2018 worldwide online editathons.


Historically, our March event has been one of the biggest offerings of the year. This year, we are collaborating with two other wiki communities. Our article campaign is the official on-line/virtual node for Art+Feminism. Our image campaign supports the Whose Knowledge? initiative. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/70|Women's History Month 2018]]

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) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Thanks

Hi there! I seem to have lost the ability to thank (is that everyone, or just me?). Anyway, that gives me an excuse to drop by and thank you for your edits at George Dury (and please don't take my talk-page post there as criticism). It seems I've upset that editor; yet again, it seems that no (attempted) good deed goes unpunished. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all! I have also lost the ability to thank! Theroadislong (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a known technical issue. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Thanks_not_working --NeilN talk to me 19:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


How to modify a Draft title?

Hello Theroadislong, I wish to ask how can modifications to the TITLE of a draft be made please? Lidasher (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You use the move function from the toolbar under "More". What would you like it changed to? Theroadislong (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong oh thanks so much for the quick reply. Well not to change it actually..but just to add in front of it in brackets (Fine artist). So the title instead of "Lida Sherafatmand" will be "Lida Sherafatmand (Fine artist)". Where is the "move" button? :-( sorry I don't see it.. Lidasher (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Theroadislong found the 'move'...! thanks(talk)[reply]

Unless there is another Lida Sherafatmand then the fine artist qualifier is not required. Theroadislong (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong(talk) oh really? I thought to add it only because a reviewer left a comment about "person in-depth" information, and since this is basically about an 'artist' I thought maybe it should be added. Now what should I do please? I already added it...shall I delete the 'fine artist' and leave it as it was ? Sorry for all these questions! Lidasher (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Theroadislong Ok I put it as it was once it is not required. Thanks Lidasher (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Articles for Creation barnstar
for your great work at AfC. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft for Ron Baird

Hi Theroadislong,

Thank you for your prompt review of my Draft for Ron Baird, Although its decline is disappointing, I understand your reasoning and hope you will continue to assist me in the creation of the article. here are the current steps I will take (let me know what you think)

reference all the rewards to the website/news-article that shows his acomplishment
hook up the other references in the reference section to pieces of the article with live URLs

My only question is to the response that the rewards are not in a neutral tone, if you have recommendations to make it more neutral, I would like to hear them.

Thanks for your time,

Sincerely ,

Artscanada (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't the awards section that was non neutral it was parts of the article in general, I have pointed these out in the comment now. The awards are mostly not notable, it would be better to concentrate on two or three that have articles about them with reliable sources. "'Best of Show' prizes for his prints and sculptures" for example is just plain puffery. Theroadislong (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13:04:23, 25 February 2018 review of submission by Vliander


Good afternoon, I finished the required corrections from your side in the meanwhile. May I kindly ask you to give your approval for publishing of the WIKI article. Thank you in advance.

Vliander (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

re: emma freud

That was an enormous error on my part in mistaking the page for that of Emma Chambers. I'll not venture outside my expertise again. Thanks for catching it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joinks (talk • contribs) 22:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

00:42:00, 26 February 2018 review of re-submission by Vliander


Dear Theroadislong,


Thank you for your valuable time and timely reply.


The bellow listed recognition letters and independent press publications may provide a more in-depth coverage regarding different subjects about Carl-W. Röhrig's life and work mentioned in the WIKI article.


I now additionally added the following references to the Citations and References section in the article:


8. Röhrig, Carl-W. (1992). "Newspaper Article". DIE WELT - Independent Daily Newspaper for Germany.

9. Röhrig, Carl-W. (1993). "Newspaper Article". East Grinstead Courier, United Kingdom.

10. Röhrig, Carl-W. (1989). "Recognition Letter". by the National Geographic Society, Washington D.C.

11. Röhrig, Carl-W. (1993). "Newspaper Article". THE PRESS, Christchurch, New Zealand.

12. Röhrig, Carl-W. (1992). "Recognition Letter". by Heinz Sielemann, Munich, Germany.

14. Röhrig, Carl-W. (1993). "Newspaper Article". BILD Newspaper, Germany.

17. Röhrig, Carl-W. (2003). "Newspaper Article". Fränkischer Tag, Newspaper, Germany.


I am looking forward hearing from you.


Sincerely,

Vliander


Vliander (talk) 00:42:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09:58:10, 26 February 2018 review of re-submission by Vliander


Dear Theroadislong,


Thank you for your fast reply. Here my reply to your comment or query.

As far as I can tell, independent journalists wrote the newspaper articles. But the press articles were published years ago before the times of the Internet, and the online archives provide no direkt links for this time period.

That's the reason I can't provide you direct links to those items. However, the newspaper articles themselves have been written by independent journalists and were published by independent and well-known newspapers.


Sincerely,

Vliander


Vliander (talk) 09:58:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't have to be online, it is YOUR conflict of interest I am questioning. Theroadislong (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12:27:00, 26 February 2018 review of re-submission by Vliander

Dear Theroadislong,


The article was written from a neutral point of view and reliable sources where provided.

The questioned links in regards to Röhrig letters could be removed if required.


Sincerely,

Vliander

Approval

we are awaiting for our page approval which was re-submitted. We hope for the positive response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasavishal (talk • contribs) 11:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://steemit.com/life/@sencopglobal/social-enterprise-network-cooperatives-sencop-project. Theroadislong (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
<3 Nasavishal (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I wish to delete Draft page

Dear Theroadislong (talk), I am thinking to delete the Draft: Lida Sherafatmand. This is because I get the impression that the reviewers discredit the material due to COI of the editors, despite the fact that there are major newspapers/TV/Radio of different countries quoted (they all have carried out full interviews and full articles, plus academic journals which have no connection whatsoever to the subject in the article. But I would like to be sure, that in case I delete this draft, will this prevent other people in future to create an article about it? ...because if 13 major media and over 5 academic reportages discussing the subject is not enough, I feel there a bias from the side of the reviewers due to the COI of the editors. So best is to delete it, and whoever in future wishes to recreate the article is welcome. These are the media which have given full coverage which are still not considered 'notable' puzzling enough:

Rahavard Iranian Studies Journal (Los Angeles, U.S.A), Radio Free Europe (from Paris), Voice of America TV (from Paris), Kayhan London (from London), Times of Malta, The Independent (Malta), The Guardian (UK), Xinhua (China), Radio Rossi, Main National Radio (Russia), NTV , Main national TV station (Russia), Lark News English Newspaper (Pakistan), International World Business Communicator (Pakistan), Prima Edicion (Argentina).

I do not need any Wikipedia 'promotion/advertising'. This article submission was just to inform the general public who use internet to be informed about artists who may not be on auctions passing at millions of euros/dollars, but who are known on grassroot levels in many different countries. Lidasher (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Writing an autobiography is probably the MOST difficult thing to do on Wikipedia and is STRONGLY discouraged. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which summarises what independent sources have published about subjects and has essentially no interest in what anybody says or wants to say about themselves, on Wikipedia we need reliable sources independent of the subject. Your draft doesn't really establish what makes you notable I'm afraid. Interviews are not considered reliable sources. When notability is clearer someone will write an article about you, that is for certain, I might even write it myself! All good wishes. Theroadislong (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying Theroadislong (talk). Ok as long as someone can still propose it in future, it is fine by me..because I thought maybe the name of the draft 'gets registered' or something. Well the notability is basically the 'Humanitarian Art Mnifesto', which was indeed to be included in the 2nd edition of acclaimed book "100 Artists' Manifestos" by the British philosopher professor Alex Danchev -expert in art and international relations-. But he sadly passed away two years ago before completing that. That manifesto is now "Florescencism", which is counter-balancing the Duchampian trend. But I definitely refrain from any further editing indeed, no time for that in all honesty. Better someone else writes it later on. With thanks and appreciation for your attention once again. Lidasher (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the source of information

Sir please check out this page as I've fixed it now. Just waiting for your approval. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rahul_Singh Nakulsharma.2001 (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improved the page

Sir please check, this page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rahul_Singh and please remove your comment. Nakulsharma.2001 (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this [10] doesn't look like a reliable source and it appears that you have copied and pasted your content from there which is strictly not allowed. Theroadislong (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the reliable source of information

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rahul_Singh please check this page now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakulsharma.2001 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

22:02:25, 28 February 2018 review of submission by Controlerna


The article only describes a software product. Why is this one declined and similar articles are accepted? See the article for Maximo (MRO)

What is my intention to add this article:

  • i work for a public company in Germany, we were looking for a software solution for a public railway fleet (tram)
  • our research was difficult, not all of the relevant software solutions are to find in just one internet database or in wikipedia
  • we know, that many other municipal institutions in Germany have the same issues with research
  • for the current project we saw presentations from Maximo, "zedas asset" and "boom software"
  • only one of them is currently to find in wikipedia, we would like to add the other 2

Maybe you can let me know how to write the article in a right way. Thanks in advance.


Controlerna (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have used a VERY poor example article Maximo (MRO) to copy, I have nominated it for deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help Please?

Hi Theroadislong,

I'm curious to know why Paragon Footwear was rejected. Please guide me in writing it better. I'm still trying to collect more information about the brand from news sources and have also tried to contact the brand themselves. Wikipedia is a tiny project I've taken upon myself to upskill and your help will be really appreciated. Bad brahmin (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't appear to be written in a neutral tone. I would strongly suggest NOT contacting them, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which summarises what independent sources have published about subjects and has essentially no interest in what anybody says or wants to say about themselves or their company, on Wikipedia we need reliable sources independent of the subject. Theroadislong (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MR draft

Hi,

If I can't use IMDB - which source do you recommend to verify the work?

Thank you, Paige

You are being paid to edit Draft:Mubina Rattonsey please read the links in the decline notice which indicate what reliable sources are required. Theroadislong (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Branham reversion

Hello, you reverted an edit I recently made. I believe there is consensus. The only user who is favor of keeping it, based on talk page review is Taxee (also known as Darlig Guitarist). Me, DoctorG (articles GA reviewer), Rev107, DEvan, Electseed, Danpeanuts all support removal. I can provide quote from the talk page, or you can review yourself. Are you in favor of keeping? Right now consensus is clear. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 20:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any consensus at the section headed "Reply 27-FEB-201" ? Theroadislong (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, the discussion is across two sections. Check the section "Branham and Jim Jones" and also section Jim Jones. Between both of those sections there is only one editor in favor of keeping it. It appears consensus to remove has existed for some time, and just not been followed through with. I am agreeing with prior consensus and making the change. I am open to compromise. :) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 20:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't suggest you are lying, but I can't myself see any consensus, just you agreeing with a user that works for his ministry. It seems that the article will be a whitewash. Theroadislong (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously disagree. But I will leave it as is. I do think it is an issue though. Here is my personal opinion: everyone involved with article except me, DoctorG, and StevieTheMan all seem to be biased and are twisting sources to fit their agenda... I think fair read of the talk page will demonstrate as much. :) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs)
I have no interest in Branham per se, I am only concerned that we have a well sourced, neutral Wikipedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. :) I think you will find it is not white washed after you read through. All the criticism has been kept intact and actually expanded. I think it has been improved by making it more thoughtful and contextual than it previously was. The sole part I want to remove is the Jones part, primarily because it was not in a single one of his biographies, including the most critical. Its sole valid source is to a biography on Jones (Reiterman), and one primary source (Collins) which sites Reiterman as it's source. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bald Knobbers post addition

I appreciate your note about what can be posted. I am quite new to the process and clearly didn't understand what was appropriate for adding. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsgraves1 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

14:25:54, 3 March 2018 review of submission by Sannanmahboob

Sannanmahboob (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:I want you a long time

You're such a killjoy. And stop biting the newbies. I've rarely seen a more suitable submission. And it made me cry. KJP1 (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heart wrenching reading! Theroadislong (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting article

Hi, I'm Jonblz, and I'd ask you why my article was rejected. The page refers to a company that is new, so what references would I insert? I only have the site and a pdf with several informations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonblz (talk • contribs) 22:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ecumenical Order of Charity

Ecumenical Order of Charity is a Religious Order of Monks and Nuns - not a charity. Brphillipoc (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Brphillipoc (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was a charity? I declined the article because it read like an advert for them and has no independent sourcing. Theroadislong (talk) 07:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Take This To Heart Records submission

Thank you for taking the time to review my submission.

Can you help me understand how other entries like this are approved in comparison to mine?

They are very similar, and I find many of them, such as:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topshelf_Records https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_for_Cover_Records https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Crown_Records

i'm happy to use other resources if the ones I provided are the problem. there's plenty to find on the web with a google search, i just tried to pick ones that were most relevant and discussing the exact matters i was stating in my entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaytaylorpub (talk • contribs) 23:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't clear what makes them notable they have a string of non notable artists. I haven't looked at the three examples you quote but please read WP:OSE. Theroadislong (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Draft:CEJN

Hi,

I didn't create the page for promotion or advertising but it was more inclined towards Carl achievements and success and history of him. I have read the rules and regulations for publishing content on the wiki. I request you to keep the content drafted for CEJN so that I can make modifications and change the content according to the wiki guides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanikacejn (talk • contribs) 07:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the comments here [11] your draft was totally unacceptable, Wikipedia is not a means to promote your business. Theroadislong (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solution for Draft: CEJN

Can you tell me what could be done so that I can start with the same topic again? I am looking for solutions. Please guide me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanikacejn (talk • contribs) 08:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are a paid editor trying to promote your business I am not prepared to help. Theroadislong (talk) 08:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

Were you not edit-warring too, in the same subject? How can you send that warning without applying it to yourself too?

180.149.231.229 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on you, you are the one wanting to change the content. Theroadislong (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that, but then why was the change not fought when that content had been there for months and months and then changed in December last year, and why are there so many other situations in which even the reverter is found by admins to be warring too, the way the rule over edit-warring states it (both editors will be scrutinized)? 180.149.231.229 (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Submission declined on 8 March 2018

hello, thank you for your review. as you may already know, i am a new user on this platform and would love to be engaged more often. would you like to help me? what can i do to improve on the article and would you like to contribute to help me grow? thank you Jemila abdul (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft Draft:Ayo Omidiran requires more reliable sources. The Sun is not a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance with my The Spot Barbershop page.

Thank you Theroadislong for your previous advice and assistance. I would like to make an attempt to edit and resubmit the page as it has already been deleted. I do have sources for my page as well as the rights to utilize the images therein. What is the proper protocol for resubmission without angering the powers that be?Ciroamiranda (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to try again by clicking here Draft:The Spot Barbershop but it will be speedy deleted again if it is promotional in tone, you will of course need multiple reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft : Guy Van Nueten

Dear Theroadislong,

Could you please tell us what references/sources are missing or required concerning GVN's page ? Please do consider that the whole original Dutch text has been revised and approved. This original text is based on sources mainly in the Dutch language. Do you want us to translate these press articles, reviews, databases etc? Thanks in advance,

Kat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kat Van Tichelen Belgium (talk • contribs) 20:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Dutch text has no bearing on the English article, your draft has no in line citations just a list of references at the end please read Wikipedia:Inline_citation#When_you_must_use_inline_citations. Theroadislong (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok Theroadislong. Thank you for that advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.175.22.182 (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

06:14:22, 9 March 2018 review of submission by EmiliaWiki


The only comment I was given is to cite sources with footnotes, which I had done. I based this entry on the available entry about her in Russian and German, with added citations to scientific journal articles, as in the English entry for Vitaly Shafranov. It is my first article, can you please be more specific on what you think is inappropriate? Thank you. EmiliaWiki

EmiliaWiki (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ksenia_Razumova

Dear Theroadislong, thank you very much for your help, and for being so quick with it. I asked a colleague to help with formatting of citations to journal articles (I had copied the format from an old page, I think standards are higher now). I fixed as much as I could, we are still chasing a source for her paper on runaway electrons.

The issue on citations for her honors is especially tricky. I don't speak Russian, and the Russian presence in the web is very sketchy. Note that the same information on honors is present in her existing German and Russian wiki pages. But the link to the citation in those pages leads to a Russian page that I am told does not contain the information required, although they probably could be consulted about it.

FYI, she is a giant in Nuclear Fusion, only recently acknowledged with the Alfvén Prize (after 19 previous prizes were all given to men). I think it is important to have this wiki page for her because many of the younger people in the field do not know how much she has done. Therefore it may be best to publish a page with missing information than not to publish at all.

I'll remove the uncertain information on her career, she was leader of Russian tokamak research for many years, but I don't have any sources to cite.

I am also chasing copyrights for a photo of her. EmiliaWiki (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please Review again

Hi Theroadislong

I took your suggestions here and did my research. I've submitted another draft. Can you please review it and let me know what I can add or edit?

Page: Draft:Paragon_Footwear — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bad brahmin (talk • contribs) 12:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theroadislong&oldid=829563755"