User talk:Theroadislong/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Lorrie Goulet

The Lorrie Goulet page is 100% non-profit and not advertising. Lorrie Goulet is a fine artist like many others on Wikipedia including her husband (now dead) Jose de Creeft. I am having a hard time understanding why the post is being contested since there are no companies mentioned, no business, no products, no advertising. The page is for art historians; Lorrie has also been a teacher at the Museum of Modern Art, Art Students League, and many other fine institutions. She has been honored by the Smithsonian and more. Please help me understand precisely which content does not meet Wikipedia guidelines and why. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cynthia Artin (talk • contribs) 23:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any advertising concerns? This is an encyclopedia and our articles need to be neutral and based on independent sources. Wikipedia only reports on what the reliable sources say about a subject. This article has no sources. Theroadislong (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The section called "Selected Articles & Publications" lists some good potential sources, mixed in with lower-quality "Who's Who" type of sources. The best of those should be transformed into inline references. I commented at Talk: Lorrie Goulet as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It's getting late, I'll take a look over the weekend. Cheers. Theroadislong (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

THANK YOU I think I meant "the royal we" - I am an individual and I am doing my best to organize the collective research work of volunteers and am the only person working on the article (except with the Wiki peeps like you) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cynthia Artin (talk • contribs) 12:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverting article for Epigram Books

Hi, The new article that has been uploaded by user Chestnutdrivesecondaryschool NLBS50 did not remove information from the original article. Instead, more information has been added into the original article to supplement the article. As the information have been shifted around the article to make it flow, it is possible to overlook the incorporated changes and thought that information from the original article was removed unneccessarily. Have attached some examples below:

(I have removed your copy and paste from my talk page not required). Your edit removed the lead section of the article and added a more promotional tone which is why I reverted it. Theroadislong (talk) 08:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - Pseudoscience

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please Try To Understand My Feelings For Begginers About Webpage.

Sorry,for re-adding it but that is only an example of a webpage made in HTML and don't you think that there should be an example of everything in encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshit raj123456 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It was entirely inappropriate content for an encyclopedia. Theroadislong (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I am not an experienced editor. I have edited the site on Ernest Everett Just. I noticed that some of my recent additions were removed. This is okay with me; I don't care that much. But I am wondering what the rationale is for the removals. When I've edited, I've tried to include as much information about Just as I can, using any and all published information. It turns out that I have written some of the recent articles on Just, and I have included those. I have been trying to make the site as up-to-date as possible. But if the Wikipedia managers think that I am biased, then I will not attempt to alter the site, and I will allow it to lapse. Maybe you can find another person who is willing to do this. I really don't care that much.

I'm also wondering about the sudden attention to this E. E. Just site. Could it be that he has somehow recently become a controversial topic?

Signed: Malcolm Byrnes (138.238.231.13 (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC))

I assume you are editing whilst logged out, there are no managers here, just editors like you and me, I removed the further reading additions you made partly because they duplicated what was already being used as references and partly because it is considered bad form to add links to your own work. I patrol recent changes which is when I noticed the edits, there is no controversy. All good wishes Theroadislong (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for help with Wiki article - thank you in advance!

Hi there, thank you so much for your message about the misuse of a quote. I am quite new to Wikipedia so learning all the time! I have read the copyright terms and have now simply referred to the quote by paraphrasing to make it appropriate. I hope this is ok, do let me know if not. I have also edited the page a little more to keep it neutral and journalistic. I also added a reference as well as new categories. I have removed the notifications because I hope the standards have been met - however, please let me know if there's still a problem or feel free to add notifications on the top of the page so I can attend to them. I also added this message to the page's Talk section: "Hello, I recently created the 'Guillem Ramos-Poqui' wikipedia article. Ramos-Poqui is an important contemporary artist associated the Arte Povera movement. I study art history so I hope to create more pages dedicated to contemporary artists. This is the first article I have created and a few notifications have come up about the reliability of the page. I have now edited it to keep it neutral and journalistic, and have ensured the correct use of quotes." (Art world88 (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC))

Thank you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Art world88 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC) (Art world88 (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC))

the link to Amazon is a commercial link and not considered a reference. You need to assert that he is notable with sufficient references to verify that notability. The references must come from reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I've added lots of reliable references now so hope this verifies the article's notability. This has been a great help, the article is much stronger now. Do let me know if there's anything else that should be altered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Art world88 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

National Fibromyalgia Association page

I'm very grateful that you posted an "advert" flag on the article. I believe that the article was hijacked by a commercial organization. There is evidence in the history - 25 Feb 2012 is where the most abrupt change has occurred. I also contacted the organization, verified their trademark and their 501c3 tax filing. Contrary to the claim in the info box, the original National Fibromyalgia Association is alive, in operation. I'm ready to revert to that version, but I'm relatively new to this. Can you help? Wikieditor 3833 (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

A linkbak would be nice, wouldn't it? National Fibromyalgia Association Wikieditor 3833 (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree it looks like it should be reverted to the25th Feb 2012 version. Theroadislong (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Battersby photo

Dear Theroadislong. Here is my webpage registration for schoodicsound.com.cutestat.com/ Web Analysis for Schoodicsound - schoodicsound.com ... Page Title of schoodicsound.com. Schoodic Sound .... Registrant Name: DEIRDRE MCARDLE. Here is my Facebook page information Schoodic Sound | Facebook https://www.facebook.com/pages/Schoodic-Sound/299605090169146 Schoodic Sound an independent record label focused on the digital ... To connect with Schoodic Sound, sign up for Facebook today. ... Deirdre McArdle. You've visited this page 5 times. Last visit: 10/28/14 I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I own the Schoodic Sound digital recording label, which owns this image. Please let me know if you need any further information to reverse the removal of this photograph. Thank you. MildredJirak (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

NHSBSA Draft copy of article recently deleted

Hello, I'm trying to update the wiki page for the NHS Business Services Authority. At the moment it is wrong, incorrect, out of date. I realise that all my changes have been deleted and reverted back to the factually incorrect version of the site. Please can I have a copy of the full amends I made yesterday that were deleted? Can you review the amends that I made yesterday? I am unable to identify why these changes were rejected, as they are all factual and do not put the NHSBSA in a positive or negative light but are simply the services offered by this governmental body. I look forward to your response. Many thanks,

Kayla — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaylaMcCormack (talk • contribs) 14:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You can see the deleted edits in the history of the article, please don't add them back again though. Content needs to be sourced correctly and neutral in tone, you have a clear conflict of interest so it is better to suggest your changes on the articles talk page for others to consider. Theroadislong (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks very much for your help with this I will have to reiview it with your suggestions in mind.KaylaMcCormack (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the tipOwlsofeurope (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Bristol Article

Thanks Theroadislong

I'm not sure exactly how to go about reviving my edit, but as soon as I've got a moment I'll find out and do as you suggest. All the best Michael W Chance (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

DGM

Can you please help me. This is driving me crazy. The article on DGM is riddled with inaccuracies. THis company has only two shareholders and directors (Robert Fripp and me) - it would be reasonable to assume that we know the truth about how our company was founded, the artists it releases, the truth about its name, its logo etc. Virtually everything there is incorrect (and is unsupported by verification), I have started trying to correct them (there are about another twenty to go) and you have removed it because of a lack of external verification. The facts that are there are wrong and are not verified (such as the fact that Robert Fripp founded the company in 1992) and yet when I correct it to the truth (that Robert Fripp and I founded the company) it is removed. How do we get it corrected? Or can it please be removed as it is factually inaccurate and damaging.

We are very happy to supply the correct information.

Your help would be much appreciated.

If we take the sentence that I recently added about the fact that DGM published the diary of The Vicar, publish the book The Vicar Chronicles and release the album, The Vicar songbook, this is easily verified on the DGM website. I am not a wikipedia editor, but the faults in this article are repeatedly brought to my attention. How do I cure it?

Thank you

David Singleton

DavidGRSingleton (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You need to bring up your concerns on the article talk page not here. Theroadislong (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I am sorry to keep asking, but I am going round in circles here.

I am still trying to find a way of getting this correct. I just looked at the DGM entry to see that someone had altered it today so that it now read that DGM was founded in 1992 by Robert Fripp, Diane Aldahl and me - citing a site called DueDil. This again is factually incorrect. I have checked DueDil and it does not refer to the founding of the label, it refers to the incorporation of the company Discipline Global Mobile Ltd in 1998 - six years after the label was founded. Diane did not join the label until about 1997, so she could not have founded it in 1992! I don't understand how someone can use a citation for a fact that it doesn't support. The truth is that the DGM label was founded in 1992 by Robert Fripp and David Singleton (as Robert Fripp confirms in The Wire Aug 2014). It was indeed changed in to a corporation in 1998 (as confirmed by the citation) and has two shareholders, Robert Fripp and David Singleton, each owning 50% of the shares (as would be confirmed by companies house). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGRSingleton (talk • contribs) 17:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

As long as you cite reliable sources you are free to add the correct content. Theroadislong (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Please provide more details

What was it about my edit that you found warranted a removal? I felt I provided a link to address a citation needed. Please advise why you feel this does not meet the guidelines. -AgreiConsulting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agreiconsulting (talk • contribs) 10:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It was a link to your own website which is considered spamming. Theroadislong (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Blount Springs edits

Hi Theroadislong, I received a message from you that one or more of your edits to the page Blount Springs, Alabama have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. I am new at editing on wikipedia but I know all the edits I made were accurate and truthful. Blount Springs (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Blount Springs

Wikipedia requires all edits to be referenced to reliable sources none of your edits so far have been referenced. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use in line external links like the ones you added. Theroadislong (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Blount Springs edits

Dear Theroadislong, Blount Springs, Alabama is a historical area. The recolonization of Blount Springs is part of the history of Blount Springs. Adding a link to the Blount Springs website is not a self promotional link, but a link that further defines the history of Blount Springs. Being knowledgable about a subject and offering to share that knowledge to better define the subject would seem logical. Blount Springs (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Blount Springs

I placed the link in the External links section? Wikipedia doesn't use external links in the main body of it's articles. Theroadislong (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not involved in an Edit war, I am trying to rectify misinformation which is plaguing the page.

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol4/pp148-150

As you will see it states "The village of Golborne is near the centre of the township, on the north side of the brook. A road from Warrington to Wigan passes through it, and is there joined by another from Newton; there are also cross-roads between Ashton and Lowton."

Golborne is a Village. This isn't an edit war this is trying to resolve an error in the page which ignorant people keep reverting back without finding or citing sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditingpagesGolborne (talk • contribs) 22:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You need to discuss this on the articles talk page not here. Theroadislong (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Your link says that there is a village in the township of Golbourne. It doesn't say that Golbourne is a village? Theroadislong (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No The township includes the village of Golborne, http://openlylocal.com/wards/4219-Golborne-and-Lowton-West that is the Local ward for the whole area, Golborne is a Village within that area. It does not have any of the amenities a town requires, no town hall, no market and no mayor.

"[B]The village of Golborne[/B], is near the centre of the township" — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditingpagesGolborne (talk • contribs) 22:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

creation-evolution controversy

Could you change the title and URL of the "creation-evolution controversy" article to "creationism-evolution controversy"? I'm not authorized to make such a change; do you know anyone that is? Do you have any objections to the name change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scienceteacher3k (talk • contribs) 10:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You would need to gain consensus at the article talk page for such a change. Theroadislong (talk) 10:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you change the title and URL of the "creation-evolution controversy" article to "creationism-evolution controversy"? I'm not authorized to make such a change; do you know anyone that is? Do you have any objections to the name change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scienceteacher3k (talk • contribs) 10:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Playdale Playgrounds

Hello, thank you for checking the details of the page. Why was the section about CAD removed? How can I rectify the notability situation? I am pretty new to this so would appreciate some advice.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sianhunter (talk • contribs) 14:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed the CAD section as it was unreferenced and promotional in tone, which is why those with conflicts of interest are strongly advised not to edit articles. Please make suggestions on the article's talk page for others to consider. Theroadislong (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Okz I will keep it in mind...but I lost my temper as he deleted the article..I still believe that the article should have been on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suman420 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

About the page Advanced Rocket Research Center

Hello Theroadislong, Excuse me, I have edit the page Advanced Rocket Research Center and create some details. I will create more information about Advanced Rocket Research Center soon. It will show people that it is not a page to advertise something but some important things to know. If these modifications are still not enough to credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject, please tell me and I will revise it unceasingly. Thank you. Willy81234 (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Brunelle bio reverted

I am wondering why, after I took quite a bit of time to update this bio, it reverted to the old one? There is no spam, and this is official bio information from VocalEssence. I wasn't exactly sure on citing all the references, but did what I thought was required. --Vocalessence (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires content from reliable secondary sources, when you have a clear conflict of interest it's advisable to make suggestions on the article talk page and let others decide whether to include it. Theroadislong (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Olavo de Carvalho do not taught political philosophy at the Catholic University. Olavo de Carvalho is not a university professor, he is an astrologer and philosophy's teacher courses in the Internet. LeandroTelesRocha1983 (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The article doesn't say he is a professor. Theroadislong (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Genesis flood narrative

Hello,

I am trying to determine what you meant, by "nope" and dead link. Also the source is not showing my edit to Genesis flood narrative - it is something else. Can you explain what I may have done wrong?

Thanks, Terry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terryplatt (talk • contribs) 22:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't clear why you were adding the source and the link http://mikeadridge.com/ is a dead link Theroadislong (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you

Thank-you for the guidance Theroadislong. I ticked the minor edit button most times, but may have missed on occasion. Still learning, support appreciated. Ramblin' Ronnie (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi again

That is lack of understanding - I am learning - not intentionally disruptive! (The language you guys use is not always the most friendly or welcoming to newcomers!). I removed what I now understand as the maintenance template after I thought I'd addressed the issue raised to alert you to look at it again, forgive me if I got that wrong.

Ramblin' Ronnie (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Please also let me know if I've corrected the problem and if the external links added are useful or counter-productive.Sorry to be a pain, we'll get there! Many thanks 22:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramblin' Ronnie (talk • contribs)

You have not corrected the problem, the notability template is to indicate that his notability has NOT been established yet. The external links are not required as you have been told previously and you continue to mark your edits as minor when clearly they are not...all of which means you are being disruptive. Theroadislong (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

removal of link

Hi I received a message saying that you removed a link that i linked from Henry Trengrouse to Helston museum, i think it was a mistake because they are linked....helston museum holds Henry Trengrouse's original equipment that visitors can come and see....if someone is interested in Henry Trengrouse then they would be interested in Helston museum. Also just a side note but Helston museum is a charity and is free entry so we aren't trying to advertise, i just thought it was appropriate. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helstonmuseum (talk • contribs) 12:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

"See also" sections are for additional wikipedia article links, not external links, and regardless of whether you are commercial or not it is still considered spamming to add links to your own website. You should request a username change too, as names implying group or business use are forbidden. Theroadislong (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Datebook

Hey, thanks for your message. I left an explanation on the first edit, and did not use the sandbox. The subsequent 4 edits to follow I did not leave an explanation on, let me know if you need anything further. Google Datebook and you will see us first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DatebookDating (talk • contribs) 18:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but you can't replace an article with your own you will need to create a new one. Theroadislong (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hudson Houck

I am writing to correct you. The personal section on Hudson Houck has been correct for as long as he had wikipedia. He's been a football coach for 29 years in the NFL and he has a son Troy and is married to Elsie and she has two children Scott and Holly from a previous marriage. Hudson however does not ave a grandson named Andrew. The resource are from the teams he's coached for from their media guides. Please correct these. And keep track of someone adding the name ANDREW because he does not have a grandson. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuglaw1969 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not arguing that he DOES have a grandson named Andrew? Wikipedia only reports on what the reliable sources say. I removed your content because it was unsourced, you need to cite a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources All good wishes Theroadislong (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Indigo Project draft.

Thank you for helping delete the Indigo Project draft. I am confused how to get the other, The Indigo Project draft accepted for contribution?

Is there a way you can let me know if it is being reviewed? And how I can increase the chance of it being accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheriSmith (talk • contribs) 16:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Getting an article reviewed can take many weeks. As I have commented before though, your submission has two "linked in" references and a "press release", neither of which are suitable sources. You also have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia requires references with significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in reliable sources.The chances of the article being approved as it stands, are slim to nil. Theroadislong (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

sorry

i just really need to authenticate my account because i need to edit the title of a page of the place i work.....ddint know there was all these rules, i will sort it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosiecornwall (talk • contribs) 11:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

help

well how do change the name then? its not called Helston Folk Museum, its called Helston Museum....can you change it for me? here's the website that clearly shows its called just Helston museum http://www.helstonmuseum.co.uk/ i'm not trying to do anything dodgy just correct a mistake....i would really appreciate if you can help me, thanks, Rosie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosiecornwall (talk • contribs) 11:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC) I have already changed it? Theroadislong (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosiecornwall (talk • contribs) 11:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of content in 'Kurkure' Article

Hello,So I recently noticed that you had deleted the Quality standards section from the article. I think that is one of an important section, please kindly take a revision,Thank you Komchi (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree it has no place in the article, it was mostly unreferenced and intended to puff up the company, whilst adding nothing of importance. Theroadislong (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

External Link Removal

Thank you for your continued improvements on the ASU College of Public Service & Community Solutions article. You recently removed a few external links from the page, but in the process deleted a portion of important text and overlooked a bit of punctuation. To save everyone a few headaches, I ask that you please be careful about ensuring your edits leave the article looking even better than it did before. Have a good day! User 637 (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

poe cottage

why are you singling me out, the picture I haven taken is not of poor quality it clearly shows the rocking chair. And why did you delete the part where I mention the 3 furniture's items that still remain from Poe's time, how is that not relevant?

"Poe Park and Kingsbridge Road today" picture you can barely see the cottage, and is 3rd picture from the outside if any picture should be delete it should be that one and not mine! (Jackheart314 (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Three different editors have removed your photo and text please discuss on the article talk page not here. Theroadislong (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

NHSBSA

Hello again, I was wondering how I go about getting my amends approved? I've posted them on the talk page of the two pages I want updated but there have been no comments? I'm a little confused. Thanks. KaylaMcCormack (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia it reports on what reliable independent sources say about a subject, it's not for marketing your organisations. Theroadislong (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, I didn’t' think my changes were marketing related. Originally I was trying to correct information that was already there (though thank you for stripping it down as to what it is now.) Can you confirm that I am not able to suggest any amends or changes, due to my occupation? The changes I've suggested are purely factual regarding a government body. I'm not trying to promote a product or service. If I am not allowed to make or suggest any amends to this page now or in the future, for any reason, please confirm this. Many thanks.KaylaMcCormack (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course you can make suggestions but they need to be backed up with reliable third party references, not your own website. Theroadislong (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Question

Do you think there is a connection between this editor and the Alliance of Women Directors? What's the best way to proceed if there is a connection between the user account and the article it has edited? - Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Marchjuly, pardon me for butting in, but there is no evidence that Edailly has edited Alliance of Women Directors. You must be confused. WikiCVU (talk) 07:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment WikiCVU. I apologize for my lack of clarity and uber-vague request. I was asking "Theroadislong" if they thought there was any connection between "Edailly" and Eleonore Dailly, one of the one of the co-chairs of the AWD. "Edailly" has edited "Eleonore Dailly" and Swelter (film), which is a film produced by Eleonore Dailly, and created Jen McGowan, who is listed as an AWD notable member. So, I was wondering what if this was just coincidental and if not what, if anything, should be done. Do you think there is any connection or this is simply just a coincidence? - Marchjuly (talk) 08:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It's entirely likely but one should act with extreme caution, in order to not violate WP:OUTING. There seems to have been a concerted drive from outside Wikipedia to get these articles accepted .Theroadislong (talk) 12:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Theroadislong. WP:OUTING is the reason I think I always end being really vague (perhaps subconsciously) when it comes to discussing this type of thing. Anyway, I think the article is going to see quite a bit of newly created SPA activity before this AfD has run its course. - Marchjuly (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENTS - 10 OUT OF 10 FOR CLARITY IN YOUR WEB PAGE

Thank you for leaving constructive feedback at Lawdamages (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC). I love the clarity at your web page for leaving feedback "click here to leave a message" and the subject headline box you have in the message screen. It's so much more user friendly than other wiki Talk pages I have visited in order to respond to editor comments.

I appreciate that you didn't jump to any conclusions and accuse me of spamming. Having looked at the guidelines, I gather that I'm in a difficult position as an editor on the subject of damages and as the publisher of a legal textbook on the subject of damages in so far as including any links to my own web page is concerned. I do have the copyright and the expertise which allows me to pass that hurdle for providing content, however, there appears to be a potential self defeating policy (the conflict of interest policy) which could prevent me talking about my own work and/or COMBINING COPYRIGHTED CONTENT WITH INCLUSION OF AN EXTERNAL LINK TO ADDITIONAL OR OTHERWISE RELEVANT MATERIALS PUBLISHED AT MY WEB PAGE. I would like your advice as to whether I can make any meaningful contribution to Wikipedia COMBINED WITH ANY LINK TO MY WEB PAGE, alternatively whether I am entitled (based on the circumstances below) to SIMPLY INCLUDE ANY LINKS TO THE WEB PAGE without falling foul of either the Conflict of Interest or Anti-Spamming policy. Here are the circumstances: (1) I am the author of a book on the subject of damages which I self-published in 1999. The book received high praise from peers as you will see at my home page. I sold it on Amazon UK for a few years, however, it hasn't been offered for sale anywhere including my own web page since 2009. I am, I will confess, thinking of reintroducing the book for sale via Amazon. As of today's date, however, there's no question of any commercial gain whatsoever from the links. I have been in full time employment with a construction company since 2009 so no work would flow to me either. (2) In the period 1999 to 2007, I wrote additional materials on the subject of damages and self published all of the materials as free resources at the web page. These are entirely new materials, additional subject matter to what is included in the book. I had intended publishing a second edition, however, that never materialized because I went into full time employment (3) The links which I introduced on Sunday 3/22 as External Links in Wiki were to the entirely free content (with the exception of one link which is to this extract from the book, which I offered free of charge even when the book was being sold. (4) The book and web page content is of a legal practitioner/highest recognized standard. I have 2 degrees, one in Construction and one in Law. I practiced construction law for 14 years and regular construction for an additional 22 years. Could we could assume, for the purposes of my question that the content would be of high interest to anyone say, reading Wiki pages on [[1]]? (5) Although all the links I had placed at Wiki were to different pages and different subject matter at my webpage, other editors have advised me that "adding the same link over and over again is spam" (presumably because the ownership of the web pages is the same). I would appreciate any feedback you could offer given your better understanding of Wiki objectives and policies. Many thanks, Lawdamages (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that the answer is rather simple books that are self published or from pay-to-print publishers are not acceptable as sources here and continuing to add them is considered spamming for which you are likely to be blocked.Theroadislong (talk) 10:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

your edit

Afternoon Theroadislong; as a newer user here, there is some unfamiliarity; you reverted an edit I made to HWA a rough hour ago, and I couldn't figure out why except it looks like links to an adobe page are unwanted. I'll look that up, haven't seen it. The rest was sourced and I'd know very well. If writing has intent, it's not a good idea to take it out of it's intent when relaying information, which I saw a lot of on HWA, when the writing wasn't being plagiarized from outside unrelated sources. If the divorce proceedings change was a problem, I took that right from the newspaper article, which is open to read. The writer was using a legal term; the "evidence" was verbal accusation. Order and emphasis aren't at the disposal only of some. I thought mine more comprehensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpriceecirpc (talk • contribs) 00:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Herbert W. Armstrong

Hello Theroadislong. I'm glad to see you're keeping an eye on this article. I used to edit this years ago, and I recall some of the disputes. A new editor has started making very large changes. Let me know if you think any admin actions are needed, and I'll see what I can do. Or, if I can't do anything myself I'll try to think of where to report it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I got a better idea

stfu and stop spreading lies and misinformation on wikipedia. you think you can handle that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.203.157.228 (talk) 04:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

About creating a page on Wikipedia

Hello

I want to know How I will create a page for brand? I have popular brand name as 'SoftwareSuggest' They provide free consultation services for businesses who are looking for software for their businesses.

How I can create page for brand like this.? Can you suggest me what I can do for that.?

Thanks, Sanjay Darji — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjaydarji01 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Articles for creation Theroadislong (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"See also"

Hi Road.

Sorry to insist, but did you read my argument? Or are you on the position "rules are rules" and that's that? WP has rules which are constantly subject to user & admin change, whereas logic stays a bit more constant. I am primarily a USER, and believe any medium only has a value if it's as USER-FRIENDLY as possible. WP probably more than any other online tool, for what it's meant to be: a free & USEFUL encyclopedia for EVERYONE. You may be an experienced editor & know all the tricks about how to squeeze all info from an article, BUT MOST USERS NEED THE MAIN INFO IN AN EASY-TO-FIND MANNER. "See also" is the equivalent of a good teacher's bibliography list he gives out at the end of every course unit. If you need to pick your entire course notes to find all single titles mentioned along the way, you end up a) giving up and b) cursing the teacher. With WP, the ones getting thanks or curses are the editors. The customer is always king, here: the WP user is king. As with laws issued in parliament which only are valid if they are in conformity with the Constitution, so WP rules only make sense if they are in accordance with the bigger WP mission.

I hope we can agree on that. The most important related pages should be at "See also", definitely in such a long article which few will fully go through. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Arminden

I agree to a certain extent but in this case historical Jesus is linked in the lead so you don't have to go through the whole article? Theroadislong (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Look, I see "See also" as a BIBLIOGRAPHY LIST for closely related WP pages. As a student, or when researching a subject for my work, I always much preferred having the bibl. all in one place and organised by categories. Fellow students used to borrow my notes. At work, I'm the one doing the archival work, "to do" lists etc. Based on that, I think I'm not being speculative or "weird", but talking from some experience. Besides, that's the advantage of online communication, you're not restricted in the same way as on paper. A longer "See also" list is an additional information which requires no extra paper, printing expenses etc., and I don't find it visually "un-elegant", which might be the last counter-argument. If you know how :) you can split it into two columns (I'm not too god at it). Whay I DON'T find useful are "See also" lists with items only remotely associated with the topic, or unstructured lists, which is easy to get if you don't create categories, and because the names of WP articles often aren't intuitive, so one doesn't necessarily know where to actively look for smth., it's more about reading the list and saying "Wow! There's a special page on that too, great!". That's all from my experience, not just speculating and being argumentative. That's it :) Have a great day, Arminden (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Arminden

If you wish to change the way the See also section works, then the place to discuss it would be here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. Theroadislong (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Ralphie Dee D'Agostino

You had added some warnings to a Wiki page that was created for me. the page was fine for a week but yesterday I tried to add some things and thats when I saw the warnings. I since removed anything I added and the article is back in its original form. I will contact the author to have him add any additional text and references. I was told in the chat to contact you since you left the warnings.

Here is the page I'm referring to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralphie_Dee_D'Agostino — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphiedee (talk • contribs) 14:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

When you have a conflict of interest or the article is about you, it's best to make suggestions on the talk page for others to consider. All the best. Theroadislong (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Addition to Wiki page

hello, you said I did not cite a source, but the source is me. I worked for the person I added to the wiki about Direct Mail advertising, and I now own his company. There is no authority above me on these facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.47.62.61 (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Wiki entry

Hello, why did you take it down again? I am the person who lived it, there is no source to add, because it's not on the internet anywhere. Not every person who lived before 1980 has a webpage.

(This needs to be added to the wiki about direct mail advertising. The prior citation is incorrect, Lunderman came after, and knew, Chuck Sexauer. I worked for him at the time.)

In the late 1950s, Charles Sexauer utilized consumer data to target Hollywood starlets and bring them to the "gym" (expanding gym membership)as part of an effort to educate the public about healthy eating and living while employed as the advertising agent for [LaLane]. The promotional materials were sent by postal mail, utilizing lifestyle data (residence) for targeting. This was an initial step toward broad, unsolicited, direct mail marketing. In the mid 1960s, he developed a "direct mail" advertising program utilizing the U.S. Postal service and automotive ownership, combined with consumer residence records for targeted advertising purposes. These mailing lists were used to mail promotional newsletters on behalf of automobile owners in the Los Angeles area, and later, over the country. Sexauer mailed the first 10,000+ advertising pieces targeted to the general public, based on personal criteria. R.L. Polk managed all consumer vehicle ownership records at that time, and Sexauer utilized that information to develop mailing lists based on vehicle ownership, promoting his MiniMag to auto dealerships around the country. The MiniMag was later adopted by R.L. Polk, and was adapted to include direct mail flyers and postcards which became the staple for automotive advertising, and the catalyst to targeted direct mail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.47.62.61 (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Wikipedia requires all content to be referenced to reliable sources. It doesn't have to be on the internet but it does need to have been published somewhere, in a newspaper or magazine or trade mag. otherwise it's original research. Theroadislong (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

?

Hi, There is no reason for deleting! Please check her full bio on her site! Then you see the truth of you're holly.--87.208.142.103 (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea which article you are talking about sorry. Theroadislong (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

OK I see now that you are referring to Niki Romijn I added the copy edit tag NOT the deletion tag, the article as it stands doesn't make any sense at all, I guess it has been translated? Theroadislong (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Duh it's translate from dutch wiki. But i don't know the translatr tamplet.--Maxie1hoi (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Lingotek

Hi There,

I just wanted to check in about my citations. Lingotek is my first wikipedia article, so there are a lot of things I'm not 100% on yet.

Are these citations OK?

re: FTP Bellevue, WA (PRWeb), | "adaQuest and Lingotek Continue Collaborative Partnership", PRWeb,16 September 2011

re: Crowdsourcing Kirsten Lytsen, Kevin Hoffman, Maureen O'Gara, Kulvir Singh Bhogal, Brad Bouldin, | "Best of Both Worlds: Lingotek Launches “Crowdsourcing” Translation Platform Enabling Human and Machine Translation", Utilizer, 20 October 2009

Thanks, Laura — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauraejpress (talk • contribs) 21:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The first one is just a press release so can't be used the second one looks fine. Theroadislong (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Creation myth?

Please explain to me how the phrase "creation myth" managed to make it through Wikipedia's verifiability screening. When was it ever verified that creation is a myth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisherofmen1967 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

A creation myth is a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it. While in popular usage the term myth often refers to false or fanciful stories, formally, it does not imply falsehood. Theroadislong (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar

Thank you! I was really impressed by the constructive and non-acrimonious tone and contributions from everyone involved in the recent AFD discussion on the Alliance of Women Directors article. What could have been—with the wrong editors involved—a very nasty debate, turned into a very positive discussion. Even editors who strongly felt that the article should be deleted worked hard to find sources and fix problems with it. This is the kind of positive collaboration people don't hear a lot about in Wikipedia-land and I'd like to recognize it. Carl Henderson (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

A.C. the klutz again

Dear Theroadislong (now there's a fab pen name I ought to have thought of earlier),

It's just that I'd really like the article, the whole thing, removed, so that if I actually one day become worthy of a mention in Wikipedia, it won't be a botched-up thing bearing a horrendous (where'd they find it???) photo.

I appreciate enormously your help.

Have a smashing weekend,

a. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.240.165 (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be rather sad to delete the article as you are clearly notable enough, it would be better to improve it and to that end I have added a little and perhaps with a few more references it can be improved even further. If you own the copyright for a better photograph you could always upload it to Wiki Commons and then we could change the image for you. All good wishes. Theroadislong (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello.

I can see you made lots of contributions to Wikipedia. I would like to nominate you for Rfa if you are interested. Please confirm your total edits and time of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dormantos (talk • contribs) 15:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That's very kind but I'm happy as a foot soldier thank you.Theroadislong (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Matthew Gordon-Banks

Hello there!

Thank you for taking notice of my comments. I was shocked to see that someone, and there is no information on who accessed MY Wikipedia entry and altered it, made remarks and used incorrect/inaccurate sources.

I am MGB and I used Strathisla1 to make alteration to draw attention. they were not made in the usual way, but I am not an editor. I realise you have improved the situation but I wish to make sure it is accurate and fair. At present it is not. Some of the sources claimed to be from the Daily Telegraph do not exist because I took action against the Telegraph. The changes were made in March 2015. I would have thought a footprint might have been left.

How can I get this sorted?

Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strathisla1 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Matthew Gordon-Banks

Thought this might help.

"There have been some questions as to Banks relationship with Eric and his involvement in the company program, especially regarding the history of Eric as a renowned fraudster". THIS IS COMPLETELY UNTRUE AND SHOULD BE DELETED. THIS SENTENCE IS JUST SPECULATION FROM SOMEONE NOT LEAVING A FOOT PRINT

Gordon Banks has managed to write off some of the debt, including a sum of £250,000.[12] BROADLY THIS IS TRUE

Gordon Banks was arrested in September 2011 on suspicion of posing as an advisor working on behalf of Minister Oliver Lewin. It was alleged Gordon Banks called the Home Office to raise concerns about Asians entering the UK.[13][14] Banks was found not to have committed a crime after a visit to the metropolitan police

and was subsequently acquitted of the crime". [15] THIS SHOULD BE DELETED. I HAVE NEVER BEEN CHARGED WITH ANYTHING SO CANNOT BE ACQUITTED.

Whilst getting citations to confirm what i state here, i would be obliged if this could be altered. Frankly I have been through enough without re-living it.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strathisla1 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

You need to post all this on the article talk page though not here. I havemade a number of changes to the article. Theroadislong (talk) 07:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Why did you undo it

HI Brother/sister,

Whatever changes i made, are they incorrect ?

Please answer in yes or Know, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.143.240.5 (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Give me an email ID or any place where i can talk to you, why are you continiously removing my content from dayalbagh page??

if you have problem, then talk to me, and tel me that this is where I AM WRONG, i am not posting anything wrong, please correct me if i am wrong anywhere. i posted a correct thing with LINKS to the right organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.143.240.5 (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edits are vandalism, please stop. Theroadislong (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

OK FIne, but when you are talking about an organisation, you have to tell people about the Earning and expansion plans, i posted a link from the organisational page only, and if you think it's offensive to put organisation ethics on it's wiki, please ask organisation to change their ethics, i have a long list of discussions, can you give me an email address where we can talk ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.143.240.5 (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Once your block for edit warring has expired, I suggest you discuss your content on the article talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Matthew Gordon-Banks

Thank you very much, again, for trying to accurately reflect my history.

The next think I seek to do via the Talk page is the following, if I can place the text in the right place. Perhaps as I am not now trying to substantially alter the article myself, understanding the rules a bit better, you might consider removing the two warnings you placed on the page.

1. I will try and convince editors shortly to remove at least two if not three citations allegedly from the Daily Telegraph. I am not paranoid but I believe someone working for the dark arts in a Gov Dept altered this page last month and managed not to leave a footprint.

2. The Daily Telegraph articles cited do not now exist as of several years ago due to action by me. Out of the three one is a genuine DT link which if clicked on does not mention my name at all (DT deleted comment) The other two are not from DT. One is amazingly a photocopy of an original article altered by the Telegraph online removing my name. There are not many people who would have such detail - it came i believe from my Security Service file to blacken my name for reasons known to me.

Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strathisla1 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

As long as you continue to edit the article rather than talk on the article's talk page the COI tag needs to stay in place. I have removed some of the unreferenced material. Theroadislong (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

sorry. I'll stop for real — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.162.3.73 (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Banks again

I appreciate you are trying to keep the article sane, I seemed to have barged in to keep the two sides User:Rhumidian and User:Strathisla1 from causing BLP and neutrality issues, sorry about that just tell me if I am causing more trouble than solving! MilborneOne (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

More than happy for you to help out, it's looking in much better shape now thanks very much. Theroadislong (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Virgin Experience Days page

HI, I am really just trying to make this page as neutral as possible. I have added links to trade articles, industry bodies etc and I also edited the introduction to give more of an insight into 'experience day gifts' rather than the Virgin Experience Days brand. I am keen to get this page right, please can you tell me what I need to do so that the references verify the page and the 'warnings' can be taken off? Thanks for your help and advice Stamf0rdHouse (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Because you clearly have a conflict of interest, you need to stop editing the article and make suggestions on the talk page instead.Theroadislong (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Virgin Experience Days

Hello, thanks for your help editing those pages - if it is 'ok' now, what do I have to do to get rid of the boxed notes about 'not meeting notability guidelines' and 'author may have a close connection'? Thanks, Jo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stamf0rdHouse (talk • contribs) 07:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Notability has not been established yet. Wikipedia articles require reliable secondary sources which cover the subject in depth, this article has a single primary source reference which is clearly not enough to establish any notability. The article has been plagued by conflict of interest editors so the tag probably needs to remain until it's clear that they have stopped editing.Theroadislong (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

tim wilson

you have removed my insertion of the name tim wilson in the david Coburn article. I do not understand why this would be considered defammatory. It is inappropriate to quote someone in an article as is now done, without attributing his name. The name is in the public domain. "but a parliamentary candidate in South Northamptonshire quit the party because of "what I can only describe as an Islamaphobic insult, and that's simply not acceptable"." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mi-coats (talk • contribs) 19:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edit did not include a reference, all content on Wikipedia must be sourced.Theroadislong (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Toradex Article Rewrite

Theroadislong, As a first time page creator, I want to Thank You for making some corrections to my page: Toradex. I have edited multiple articles on Wikipedia, But this was my first attempt to create new articles. As an author I have generated this content as per my understandings, But I would like to know after all these edits whether the article falls under Wikipedia Guidelines. Sunil (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)