User talk:Theroadislong/Archive 45

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40 ← Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 → Archive 50

Be Kind

Hello Theroadislong, I really appreciate the tips you've given me regarding editing the article entitled "University of Benin (Nigeria)" and for captivating my attention to the shortcomings created by other contributors.

Conversely, your criticism is NOT constructive, rather you're practically against the development of the aforementioned University.

It is a truism that I have cited a good number of sources where applicable in the article, and most of them are primary sources.

Having diligently reviewed the alleged promotional content, I looked out for FACTS from reliable sources, and then edited the content from a neutral view. Yet, you ignored my efforts and removed the edited content (with facts and reliable sources) without patiently verifying the contents. Please, stop jeopardizing my suitable efforts.

Consequently, there's no more promotional content, and reliable sources which most of them are primary have been cited where applicable.

Thank you for your understanding, and I will appreciate any further suggestions. Zizikuli (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Therein is the problem in that most of your sources are primary, Wikipedia only reports on what the independent sources say about a subject, adding a vast list of courses is promotional. I am trying to build an encyclopedia whilst you are concerned with promoting your university. Theroadislong (talk) 07:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Argyros in Idaho II

None of the references are to a press release, all 5 are to news reports, and I have no idea why four of them would be "451: Unavailable due to legal reasons." I have no problem accessing the links I have cited. I will follow you advice and resubmit. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebasmith88 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Novigo

Hi, This is regarding the Novigo Wiki page. I have removed the publication section and added a new citation of Novigo website regarding the locations. Novigo is a consulting company and hence I referenced the wiki page of A.T. Kearney and Boston Consulting Group to create the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bimal Subhakumar (talk • contribs) 23:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

DRAFT ARTICLE ON IoAAS - FOLLOW UP

Dear Theroadislong

Sorry to bother you again – about a month ago you very kindly looked at a draft of an article about the Institute of Advanced Architectural Studies, a former department of the University of York UK. Your main comment was I think that you felt it needed more references. Apart from that you didn't make any comment on the text, so I'm hoping that seemed OK. Current version, text largely unchanged but improved links and references:

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

I hope you find that the references are much more comprehensive. I take the point that Wikipedia wants independent sources and I have found quite a number. However, I think when writing about a University Department, it’s very difficult not to refer to a University’s own sources! (as I have seen on other articles). Also, as a top UK Russell Group University, I hope we can take the Uni of York’s word for it that it’s not making things up! This link in particular is very valuable:

https://borthcat.york.ac.uk/index.php/university-of-york-institute-of-advanced-architectural-studies

Also, the thing that the IoAAS was most well known for (and indeed I think notable) was the short course programme, but that strangely is also quite a difficult matter to produce published references to. Over 25 years, the Institute ran around 25 courses a year, say 625 course with around 30 attendees on each, giving training to nearly 20,000 architects. But not surprisingly, nobody writes articles or books about that - they go home and get on with it! The University of York Archives have copies of all the programmes, course notes, list of attendees etc, so it’s all a matter of record, but not online.

So, I'm hoping that you will accept that the IoAAS was a bona fide ‘notable’ institute. Indeed the surprise perhaps is that there has been no Wikipedia article recording it’s history before now.

Sorry message ended up longer than I meant ArchaicW (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Resubmit : Kwai Chai Hong

Dear Theroadislong,

ive resubmitted my article for your review. i do apologize for the multiple revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kschay (talk • contribs) 12:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Advice?

Hi there,

Thank you for reviewing my submission, The Fine Art Group.

I would really appreciate it if you could give me some further advice on how to get my page published - I thought I had enough third-party sources (Bloomberg, Antiques Trade Gazette, The Art Newspaper, Christie's), but apparently it still does not have enough notability. Getting this page up and running is proving to be a lot more difficult than I first thought, so any help that you could give would be amazing.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to read this, and for reviewing my article!

Sophie 15:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intern1FAG (talk • contribs)

Christies in this instance is not a secondary source, the rest seem to be press releases, and the whole draft reads in a promotional manner I would strongly suggest you tell your employer that it is not going to get an article published very easily, conflict of interest editing is very much discouraged. Theroadislong (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

A Star

The Teamwork Barnstar
Great work on the article. We cannot save them all, but we can do our best to research the topic and show notability. Lightburst (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Sadly this one didn't end well. Theroadislong (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

"Blatant Advertising"

How is this "blatant advertising," everything in here comes from a third party source and is stating FACTS so that the reader can get to know what Arbor Investments is. This is exactly what an encyclopedia article is supposed to look like. This is also written exactly in the same format as any other private equity firm or investment firm's page on Wikipedia. Visit any other PE firms page and you can see for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cprassas4 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Cprassas4 "Arbor has built successful, diversified portfolio companies" "Fund IV will continue the same successful investment strategy" "investments in reasonably valued, high quality middle market food and beverage companies" are all marketing trumpery and the portfolio section is a list of external links which we don't use in article space. Theroadislong (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank You

I appreciate it, this is my first Wikipedia article so I did not know that tone was frowned upon (I now completely understand why). Thank you for the help! I will be sure to fix that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cprassas4 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Resubmitted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cprassas4 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Theroadislong Can you take a look at my changes when you have time and let me know if the article's tone is better — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cprassas4 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Fails WP:BAND - 19:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Added album release information. Thank you for the review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tech23420 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The Sanfine Hospital /decline

Hi! Yes, I did not have time today to put the references and I need to read more on how to set up the references template. I want to do it the correct way. I will be adding them soon. I have them all in a word document, primary and secondary sources. I am aware that I should not rely too heavily on primary sources or else the page will have that warning. I will also clean up the page more. I wish that Wikipedia had a way to just upload the draft and then later submit, so that is why I pressed publish.

Thank you Edit2: Ive made many new edits and I am starting to get the hang of this! Thanks again for getting to my article creation so quickly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wnkwdy (talk • contribs) 13:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Publishing the Article

If the sources and information is suitable in wikipedia then please publish the article named - Aashish Kaushik asap thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subhsankalp (talk • contribs) 04:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Your draft Draft:Aashish Kaushik has no reliable sources so will not be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 06:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Anstalin Page Article Suggestion

Hi Mr. Theroadislong I Know The recent famous social worker and very good software Engineer Why u not accepted the article i dont know to Make the article you just search google and write about them . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlin Dizzy (talk • contribs) 12:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


Ex Articles :

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

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


So pls created the articles about Anstalin Pls support me i will collect all other details and i will share you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlin Dizzy (talk • contribs) 12:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Merlin Dizzy Your draft Draft:Anslin has no reliable in depth sources, Linked in, Facebook and Instagram are not suitable references. Theroadislong (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Raymond J. Chambers

Dear reviewer, Thank you for taking the time to review our submission. My co-authors and I have taken your comments on our initial submission to heart and we have revised the material accordingly. We have doubled the number of citations and provided more wiki links and resources as to Chambers' importance to our discipline of accounting. We note in particular that Chambers was inducted into the Accounting Hall of Fame, which is the highest honor that an academic accountant can achieve, and that he was also inducted into the Order of Australia, which represents the highest level of achievement for an Australian person.

Please do let us know if you would like us to make further edits and we'll do accordingly.

With very best wishes,

Dr. Martin E. Persson, MSc, PhD Assistant Professor, Department of Accountancy 396 Wohlers Hall, 1206 S. Sixth Street, Champaign, IL 61820 217.300.8547 | mpersson@illinois.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.E.Persson (talk • contribs) 20:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

IoAAS Draft Article

Excuse me bothering you again, Theroadislong. I wonder by chance if you might have overlooked my last request for you to have a look at some revisions to this draft? I posted this comment on your Talk Page on 9th July, and there wasn't a reponse, which is quite unusual, as you are super efficient! I guessed you were just away somewhere. You next commented on another post on 16th July, but I think hadn't picked up on mine? Anyway, it's about 10 posts back, if you have a chance to look at it. Many thanks. ArchaicW (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Your draft Draft:Institute of Advanced Architectural Studies has not been submitted for review, but it's looking good to me, you need to remove any in line external links and tidy up some of the bare url sources first. Theroadislong (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

IoAAS Draft

Thanks very much. I'll attend to the points you've mentioned, then put the Draft up for Review. I'll let you know when I have done that. Many thanks ArchaicW (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

on declining

Hello Theroadislong

I put up the link in the sandbox for review as it was removed as an external link from an article by considering as vandalism without an review. Since given a chance by teahouse I would like to know what would you considered in article as link vandalism by definition. Rbtcpn (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC) rbtcpn

WP:AFC is for drafting articles not for reviewing spam links, sorry. Theroadislong (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

re-adding

Hello Theroadislong

I have followed all the correct measurement needed to add/update and editing. I am also discussing through talk about potential overstepping any in-appropriation. my so called vandalism is just a mere unverified misunderstanding and have no bases of any classification match to be contradict of any guidelines. If no verification of in-appropriation would pointed out by remover I would certainly consider it to the subject matter.

Thank You. Rbtcpn (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC) rbtcpn.

Article about Anstalin

Hi Theroadislong are you search in google Anstalin Google verify and approve but you told there is no refernce Why you are telling link that Pls search in Draft the name i keep Anslin because unable to move live in same Sandbox name thats only I f u need details and refernce i will share u U create Article name about Anstalin . R u ready to do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlin Dizzy (talk • contribs) 05:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Rubim Reibhsa

Hi can u help me about this I cant creat the fan page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubim Rebisha (talk • contribs) 08:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Aid writing Wikipedia Article

Good Afternoon! I am an intern at CompactCath Inc, and I have been tasked with creating a wikipedia page, as the company lacks one. This is my first time writing and publishing a wikipedia page, so I am obviously not as skilled with applying all necessary guidelines into my post the first time around. I understand you (or another editor) commented that the post was too similar to a catalog (I am assuming this is due to the listing of products and "defining features") I am trying to figure out how to neutrally write about the company, as well as find sources that are strong and not as centered from the company's website and its distributors. However, the company website and distributors' information is the most accurate and credible representation of what I write in the article. I was wondering if you would be able to inform me on how to neutrally discuss my company, as well as how to include sources that qualify with submission standards despite additional reliable sources being limited.

I highly appreciate your time! Thank you! Jake.compactcath (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Jake.compactcath You have been given a thankless task and I do not envy you, creating an article is one of the most difficult things to do on Wikipedia, creating one when you have a conflict of interest is doubly difficult. Wikipedia has no interest in what the articles subject wants to say about itself, only what independent reliable sources have reported. The article should be limited to a summary of what such independent sources have said about the company. Theroadislong (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

4000 Years of civilization

Dear Wikipedian Theroadislong,

There is a long time that I am busy and I forgot a quite lot of Wikipedia regulations. I just read my old written family's documents relating to 4000 years of civilization and I edited it with sufficient supporting references in my sandbox trying to explain why people could called 4000 years with concrete figures of calculation. I would need to receive your simple and easy-understood guideline.

Thank you in advance and forgive me for any previous inconvience caused.

Đào Việt Cường--vietcuongdao (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Fails WP:BAND - Draft:Gasoline_Lollipops

Do the following not make the criteria?
National music service awarded: "Pandora Radio named the GasPops (as fans call the band) Colorado's Buzziest Band.[2]"
Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles #4 - "The band annually performs in San Pedro, Belize as a part of a local music festival.[3][4]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gasoline_Lollipops#Discography - four albums recorded via independent record label

"Colorado's Buzziest Band" isn't an award though is it? and performing in Belize confers no notability? Feel free to re-submit and let another reviewer take a look. Theroadislong (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

IoAAS Draft put up for Review

Dear Theroadislong

Have put the Draft IoAAS article up for Review, as per my last comment to yourself. Have edited the references you referred to and also External Links - hope these now seem better ordered and OK, or just need minor adjustment. Again, many thanks for your help - hope the article is accepted ArchaicW (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

dinnerladies

I thought it would be appropriate to have it in lower case as that is how it was produced. There is a discussion on the talk page about it. HappyTeaTIme (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

HappyTeaTIme Ah I see! feel free to revert. Theroadislong (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

RE: Deletion of Page

Hey there and good evening. I wanted to share with you with kindness and by being polite if prominent people can enable to have their own Wikipedia article public and live, then whats the problem of me not having my article public as it took my hours and hours to write up the article and I can confidently say that I've started to gain experience, but I want my article as of user: GS.Uppal350 immediately restored my friend and I want to request for an automatic unblock of my page or just restoring it.

I'm also aware that celebrities and other prominent people around the universe can get their article displayed in public, then what's stopping me from getting my article out in public? Also, I will reassure you that some of the video links that are part of the references are my own creation and I just cited it from my YouTube account.

Thanks

Kind Regards Gursh

I am not an admin so cannot restore your deleted page. In order to have a Wikipedia article you need to be notable Notability is judged by looking at the depth of coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage. Some degree of regional, statewide, national, or international media coverage is also required. YouTube is never a reliable source for anything let alone establishing your notability. Theroadislong (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

August 2019 at Women in Red

August 2019, Volume 5, Issue 7, Numbers 107, 108, 126, 129, 130, 131


Check out what's happening in August at Women in Red...

Virtual events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Rosiestep (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

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

I am phisically disabled and have learning disabilitys. Somone fixed tha citations for me and said that they felt it was a good first article, I just do not understand what is wrong and what you mean with "Not seeing enough in-depth coverage in the sources". The main sorce is a recognised published story from a reputable place, also Spicehads gets mentioned in the Sunday Times article. As for the others, Spiceheads sells, vidoes and pix to Deadline news, who then sell them to National newspapers and the videos used in the citations are interlectual property of Richard Williamd the founder of Spiceheads.

Please tell me what I have to do to put this right, Spiceheads page and website are very populour with thousands of visitors everyday. Just typing Spiceheads in to Google Serch, or bing, brings up the facebook page, twitter page and website, in the first three hit's, so this to mey thinking indecates that they are notable.

I'm sorry my spelling and grammer is so bad and appeal to you to help me to get this sorted and the article published, as Spiceheads is a page that has helped meany thousands of others to overcome addiction and educated millions through it's help and support.

Many thanks Howard.

Your sources are not sufficient to establish the notability of the Facebook page. Notability is judged by looking at the depth of coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources.
  • [1] doesn't mention Spiceheads Facebook page
  • [2] doesn't mention Spiceheads Facebook page
  • [3] doesn't mention Spiceheads Facebook page. Theroadislong (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


In Citation one is a story by Vice which is all about Facebook Spice Heads and it's sister page Spiceheads

In citation two, The Facebook page is mentioned in the next to last paragraph: "A Facebook page, spiceheads, started by a Blackpool resident, posts footage of users high on the drug."

In Citation 3 I accept that the others do not, but as ecxplained the videos were supplied to them, in any ecvent I will delete them and try again

Waston-Marlow Fluid Technology Group page

Hi - thank you for your message - the Spirax -Sarco page links to a book that documents the history of the company rather than just the companies website. Does this satisfy the remit? Kind regards

Spirax-Sarco releasing a book on their history would still be a primary source and doesn't help establish any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Karmaveer Chakra Award

Hi Theroadislong,

"Coveted", I mentioned badly. Corrected.

Many Thanks,

Lekkala R Reddy (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Lill Roughley

I added the content again (which you previously removed) but this time with a source. HappyTeaTIme (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

You added no source for her family details which is what I removed again. Theroadislong (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I have added the detail again, with a supplementary source. HappyTeaTIme (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

It is very difficult to find reliable sources for all of the detail. Most articles Wikipedia articles don't have reliable sources for every single detail, particularly those referring to living persons. Most of those details remain visible however, hence users tending to continue to add such material, in essence only doing exactly what has already been done from the outset. HappyTeaTIme (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. The fact that other poorly sourced articles exist is not an excuse, see other crap exists. Theroadislong (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Translation from Russian to English the article about The LitRes company

Hello! Can you please help me with the article translation from Russian to English? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_LitRes_company Will appreciate any help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashashko (talk • contribs) 10:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

IARA awards

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:IARA_Awards First time created article heart broken could you improve this article and publish it please.--Andoster (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

IARA awards uk

i have not copied or pasted any information from their website i have purely used reliable please check it for your notice--Andoster (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I have checked here [4] which finds that 65.5% of the content is copied. Theroadislong (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, My first article was rejected by you citing reason, as it failed in wikipedia notability terms. I understood that. But today you have added a 'paid' tag in the article. I don't understand what is that? Can you please explain and as next step (after adding reliable source) how can i re-submit my article?

Because you said here [5] that "the sources which i provided is purely independent and no where related to our company." Which implies that you are working for the company and hence a paid editor. Theroadislong (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the reply. So, because of the mention "our company' article was put under paid editior. What next i have to do to remove that tag? Also, how i can go ahead for re-submission. Is this tag anywhere block my further edition and submission. Please help

Sarah M. Broom

Thanks for your review. I have added a number of citations, from major national and international media, highlighting the significant and growing reputation of this writer, who has a book forthcoming with a major publisher and has written for prominent journals including the New Yorker and the New York Times Magazine. I hope you will agree that such a writer is noteworthy; if not, I would be grateful to know what would, in your opinion, qualify.

It's looking much better, though the commercial Amazon link could go, it is of no use for establishing notability. Theroadislong (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks so much for your feedback. I’ve worked hard on this and I appreciate your noting that it’s looking much better. But you also declined it again! Is there something I can fix? Thank you.

I have not declined it again, you haven't re-submitted it. Theroadislong (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, still learning over here, clearly. Thanks so much for your reply. Have just (actually) resubmitted!

Request on 20:00:22, 2 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by GaryHollfelder


Hello,

I would like to post our company FabSoft profile on your site. I tried to model after some of our partners like Xerox. Is there a format I should follow to get our company listed?

Thanks,

Gary Hollfelder

GaryHollfelder (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

GaryHollfelder Wikipedia doesn't host profiles, it has articles about notable topics that have been reported on in depth by multiple, independent reliable sources. Press releases and blogs are not reliable sources. Also as you have a conflict of interest you need to declare this on your user page. Theroadislong (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Explanation

Dear Theroadislong !

You wrote about sketch my article “Circle Launcher and Space keeper”:

This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

(talk) 12:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

This article is same the many articles in WIKI on this topic (Non-Rocket), for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_ring ,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_fountain ,

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

Why they are not contrary to purpose of Wikipedia, but my is contrary?

Please, give some detail example of contrary.

Thank you advance.

Averev (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Than you for being (most likely) the best Wiki-man!

Thank you so much! you've been the most helpful person EVER on this website! (except for Oshwah). You gave me a TON of help and you are one of the people who make Wikipedia what it is! Flintmcneal (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


Who are u

Who are u to correct me or remove the changes I made to kammara sambhavam.

he (or she) is a VERY experienced Editor and probably saw something wrong with your article. Flintmcneal (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Anglia Ruskin University notable alumni

Re: Anglia Ruskin University (edit) Revision as of 15:38, 2 August 2019 263 BYTES ADDED, 1 DAY AGO Reverted good faith edits by Melroross (talk): Seems notable has own article please discuss on talk page before removing again (TW)

See also: Category:Alumni of Anglia Ruskin University

————————————————

~~ Placing this terrorist’s name right at the top of this or any university defies all logic and looks biased. I have reverted this in good faith and sadly other users keep on reverting. If such a sinister reference must be kept on Wikipedia because it had a newspaper article, the least an Administrator should do is to reorder this whole list of ‘notables’ in some logical manner- date, alphabetically or by notability (not always quantifiable)? Thank you ~~ Melroross (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

He is notable in Wikipedia terms. Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. SeeWP:NOTCENSORED. The list is already alphabetical. Theroadislong (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Ganesh Gargote

are these links reliable https://www.rediff.com/movies/2008/jun/30slide4.htm http://www.muhurtnews.com/ganeshgargote https://mr.wikipedia.org/wiki/गोळाबेरीज_(चित्रपट) https://www.loksatta.com/manoranjan-news/padmavati-movie-controversy-censor-board-sanjay-leela-bhansali-1591166/ https://marathimovieworld.com/moviedetail/odh.php https://marathimovieworld.com/?s=Ganesh+Gargote https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/the-marathi-screen-beckons/story-op8GnO853HkrjC9mWjV6NK.html https://maharashtratimes.indiatimes.com/editorial/samwad/marathi-cinema-promotion/articleshow/49118713.cms

it was done by mistake

They mention Ganesh Gargote in passing but Wikipedia requires in-depth coverage to establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

as you have mentioned it doesnt show ganesh gargote name it was my mistake to put main url of the movie please let me know whether this link is reliable or not https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9430578/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm

No, IMDb is NEVER a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

This probably isn't actually necessary, since you were RC patrolling the article, but just to be on the safe side...

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Legal Threats at Hack Forums. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Jay Wexler Draft

Thank you for reviewing Draft:Jay Wexler. I removed the in-line external links. Is there anything else I need to do for this to be ready for the mainspace? Thanks! JRobble (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

CancerLinQ

Hello, your words 'Their own website, blogs and press releases are not suitable sources'. I believe you are mistaken here because first of all not all the press is from ascopubs and second those publications on ascopubs are written by doctors in the name of the American Asociation of Oncology they might not be fully independent from CancerLinQ but they are the most reliable source. Or do you believe the American Asociation of Oncology publications are lies? they have many years researching, collecting information and contributing with medicine for you to discard their work and call them unreliable. I also source Forbes and the national medical journal. I had been waiting weeks for a review...

CancerLinQ LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ASCO so their press releases are NOT independent sources. The Forbes article is not reliable either it is user contributed. You can get other opinions here Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Theroadislong (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
      • I resubmitted the article with new references, feel free to re-review it,Javieralexvr (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Page Verification

Hi Theroadislong,

I am curious if you could fill me in a little bit on the page verification process. Why does it take only a couple of days to decline a page submission, but it takes weeks to verify? Is there something wrong with my submission that could be causing a delay? I am new to Wikipedia and I hope you can help.

Articles are reviewed in no particular order. Your draft Draft:Arbor Investments still reads like an advert to me, with routine funding details. The Portfolio section is unsourced and promotional, but I'll leave it for another reviewer to take a look to be fair. Theroadislong (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Your attention

Hi. I am bringing your attention to the discussion at Draft talk:John R. Everett, regarding your decline. --2604:2000:E010:1100:C405:9FEB:9973:3205 (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I accepted the draft John R. Everett earlier today? Theroadislong (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the review and the feedback.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannibal13 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Bird Technologies

You removed content relative to this page. This content has been up for years. I updated (2) photos on this page one for a current image of a product and the other is the current company logo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJacksonBird (talk • contribs) 14:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

It's irrelevant how long the content has been there, it was totally unsourced and promotional. Theroadislong (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Bird Technologies

I understand what you are saying but I did not write the original content that was posted on that page. That content had been there for several years. As I stated I corrected (2) images. The rest of the content was relative and should have remained. If you feel that there was based advertisement content then you could have edited it instead of deleting those sections. Please replace the content and edit as you see fit to retain the integrity per Wikipedia's guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJacksonBird (talk • contribs) 14:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say you had written it and no, there is no obligation for me to add back unsourced promotional content, if you can find reliable independent sources that back up any of the content you are free to request it be added back on the article's talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced: Athel_Cornish-Bowden

Thank you for looking at my draft page on the enzyme kineticist Draft:Athel Cornish-Bowden. You left the message 'unsourced'. Could you expand on that a little so that I can improve the page? Thank you. Rhodydog (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Addendum: I think I know what you meant. I've updated the page by rewriting the research section which now has references to the various areas of research that the person did. I've also added citation numbers for some of his papers which shows that the person in question has notability. Rhodydog (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

In response to your comment: "All the sources are to her own books, Wikipedia requires in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources." I have added citation numbers to one of his books and all the influential publications I listed. His most popular book on enzyme kinetics has over 3000 citations. Most of these will not be self-citations but independent sources. As for being reliable, virtually all these citations will have come from peer-reviewed journals. Do you have any specific reliable sources in mind? For example, if I found citations to his books and papers from Nature, Science or PNAS? Rhodydog (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:NACADEMIC for details of what is required. Theroadislong (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

That's a useful link you provided. On that page, it indicates: "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.". I believe the following criterion have been satisfied:

1. "The person's research has made a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates."

To support this the author has, according to google scholar, 27613 citations and an h-index of 57. Both of these are substantial. His popular textbook alone has had over 3000 citations.

"Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case, it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question."

In this regard, I can refer you to his paper from 1974 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4854723) where he developed a new approach to estimating enzyme kinetic parameters. This paper has been cited 1716 times. This is just one of many examples of substantial contributions he has made over the course of his career.

4. "The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education."

The author's texts books are used in higher education. Fundamentals of enzyme kinetics has 3120 citations; and Principles of Enzyme kinetics 706 citations.

I would also like to point you to a review of his textbook in Biochem and Molecular Biology Education (vol 40(5), 345-346, 2012) where the book received a great review. The last paragraph of the review states: "This book is a gem. The writing is clear and concise. It is filled with historical information, hints, common errors of analysis, and enough theory to enable his readers to do what Cornish-Bowden really wants, which is to understand, perform, and interpret enzyme kinetic analyses correctly and in a way which unleashes the explanatory power derived from their sound use".

In addition, the book has been adopted for classwork in at many universities. After a few minutes searching I found the following courses that use his text book:

https://site.uit.no/biocat/phd-courses/list-of-current-courses/c4-biocat-enzyme-kinetics/ (Norwegian Graduate School)

https://www.inf.ed.ac.uk/teaching/courses/csb/CSB_lecture_enzyme_kinetics.pdf (University of Edinburgh)

https://registrar.princeton.edu/course-offerings/course-details?courseid=013487&term=1164 (Princeton)

https://owaprod-pub.wesleyan.edu/reg/!wesmaps_page.html?crse=003107&term=1099 (Wesleyan University)

http://www.chembio.uoguelph.ca/educmat/chm454/outline.pdf (University of Guelph)

I can list these on the page if you think it would be useful.

His textbooks were certainly the main books we used in enzyme kinetics when I was an undergraduate. I therefore consider the author to satisfy criterion 4.

8. "The person is or has been head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area."

Athel Cornish-Bowden has been on the editorial board for a number of peer-reviewed journals but in particular, he was "Deputy Chairman of the Editorial Board of the Biochemical Journal, London, UK"

I therefore consider him to have satisfied criterion 8.

Feel free to re-submit but "as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" doesn't appear to have been met yet? Theroadislong (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe the author has "as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". He has, according to google scholar, 27,613 citations and a h-index of 57. His popular textbook alone has had over 3000 citations. The google scholar citations are peer-reviewed, I'm not sure how one can do better than this. I think I might need specific suggestions that would satisfy your requirements. One thing I could do for example to illustrate independent reliable sources is to cite on the page recognized notable researchers that have commented on his work. Would that be sufficient?

I came across some additional evidence for the significance of the author's impact which might be of help to you. According to "Citation Thresholds (Essential Science Indicators)". Science Watch. Thomson Reuters. May 1, 201, I quote "During the period January 1, 2000 – February 28, 2010, a physicist had to receive 2073 citations to be among the most cited 1% of physicists in the world." 1229 citations for molecular biology and genetics. Since the author in question has 27,613 citations, he is well within the top 1% of researchers.

I've updated the article by including sources in the section "Education and Career", and adding six examples of independent reliable sources from well-cited researchers (Note this is 6 out of 27,613 possible examples). I resubmitted it and awaiting your comments. 73.140.36.239 (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The sources you added to the Education and Career section do not support the content? You seem to be have a basic misunderstanding as to what constitutes an independent reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 07:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I saw your comments in the education and career section, and I think I know what you’re getting at. Essentially if I don’t have independent verification for statements I make they shouldn’t be presented until I have such evidence. Most of the his career information I used came from his online cv which of course isn’t an independent source. Eg when and where he was born, what nationality he has, whether he was an undergraduate or even a graduate at oxford (I assume his thesis is not an independent secondary source). I also don’t have actual evidence he was for example at U of Birmingham or more recently at the CNRS (although he has a CNRS url for his research page). I’ve removed all these statements.

I shall resubmit the page based on these changes. If I see anything else that is unsubstantiated for lack of evidence I’ll remove that too. I hope we can agree based on Wikipedia’s own riteria that he is a notable scientist (see previous comments). Rhodydog (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Decline of And That's Why We Drink page

Hi. You declined the page I worked on. I know I need better sources but they dont list their episodes on their website so the only place to know the episodes is spotify and other player sources. I double checked them by listening to the episode. How would I reference that? Do a MLA citation of each episode? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopson1996 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Hello. I am contacting you regarding your allegations against me and your revert of an edit I made. I am only noticing it now, as I have been busy IRL. I am very offended by your actions. It is antisemitic for Jewish people to not be able to read an article about a practice of our religion, Judaism, and I don’t see why you do not want Jewish people to not be able to read the article Nazirite. As I tried to explain to you, in Judaism we are not allowed to utter, think, read, write or type the four letters which are taught in the Torah to be the true name of Hashem, or G-d. No scholar of Judaism, no Rabbi, no sage, no figure in Jewish history have ever used the real name of G-d, and instead Adonai or Hashem is always substituted. I understand you are likely not Jewish and not aware of this practice. As the article concerns Jews, the correct term for the Jewish god should be used. To use the other name would prevent many Jewish people, especially those who are religiously observant, from reading the article and finding out about the interesting topic of Nazirites. I personally feel that it is antisemitic for the article to use the other name, as it is denying Jewish people the right to read an article about Judaism, and it culturally appropriates Jewish religion, culture and tradition and I find it very offensive, as many other people do. It is equivalent to having a depiction of Muhammed in every article regarding Islam. It is unacceptable and I hope that your actions were well-intentioned and not truly antisemitic in origin. I hope that you now understand the reason I made the edit, and I do not wish to engage with you any further and I will not be reading any possible replies on my page. Thank you. Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 10:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand why you made the edit, however you are going to have a very tough time if you plan to remove the many thousands of mentions of this name from Wikipedia! To imply that I am antisemitic is abhorrent. Good day. Theroadislong (talk) 11:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Your Reversion of My Recent 'Creation-Evolution Controversy' Page CorrectionCrissieLuckey (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Although I make no pretense of expert knowledge on the subject, I do take offense at your suggestion that my recent attempted correction on the above-referenced page was invalid. By quite direct opposite, I wrote a detailed explanation for why the claim that evolution is "established ... empirical scientific fact," is false. I went on to note that it in fact does remain a theory vs. scientific law today - more than 150 years after Darwin first popularized his evolutionary view. Furthermore, I mentioned yet another easily verifiable fact that many scientific authorities reject evolution on various grounds. Then closed by one prime example cited as Darwin's own "irreducibly complex" test.

I was very careful not to interject my personal view or any pro-creation or theological persuasion in my revision. Thus, your reversion seems difficult to justify and highly suspect as biased. Please clarify at your first opportunity.

The source [6] confirms that evolution by natural selection has been established as an empirical scientific fact. Theroadislong (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Articles for Creation barnstar
For tireless reviewing ~Kvng (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


Request on 18:57:59, 10 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by RCalixte


Hi,

I'm curious for clarification. I included two additional sources of significant coverage in published, reliable, secondary sources that are fully independent.

In particular, I'm curious for clarification in particular when compared to the already published pages here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Joy_(company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambronite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huel

Thank you!

RCalixte (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

RCalixte It reads like an advert and the sources appear to be mostly routine press releases. Please see other crap exists Jimmy Joy (company) has a tag saying "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations." Huel is a paid for puff piece and you appear to have an undeclared conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Florin-micronation

Hello i am the wrighter of Florin-micronations for my micronation i am new to wiki and whatever i did wrong please tell me and i will do my best to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavdog2020 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there isn't really anything you can, do the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia at this time. Theroadislong (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Lal Bagh Palace decline

i did not copy i just copy some codings of reference cz i am new here sir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nileshjaind (talk • contribs) 20:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

/Nileshjaind All of the the content of Draft:Lal Bagh Palace was copied from here.. http://touristplaces.org/lal-bagh-palace Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Theroadislong (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Reliable Citations

Dear Theroadislong and Wikipedia

I am very happy that you are keeping high standards for new article creation. This is much needed to maintain the quality and reliability of Wikipedia. I am all for it.

I am trying to create a page for a famous Kannada (a prominent south Indian language) film director who has made many dozens of feature films. Given, he is a regional figure and most of the sources are in Kannada, I have tried my best to cite important sources in English (including well known English newspapers like Times of India and the Hindu). Of course other cites I have cited are regional equivalents of IMDB, which you don't consider a reliable source. Please, do search around on the web to authenticate, rather than relaying only on the standard list of citations.

It will be unfortunate and a disservice if you delete this page. Thanks for your time.

KannadaRasika — Preceding unsigned comment added by KannadaRasika (talk • contribs) 23:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

No affiliation with any company or organization

Hello,

I noticed that you sent me a message. I am writing to confirm that I have no outside affiliation with any publication. I am an independent historian with much work. Please confirm you are able to maintain my revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anation1! (talk • contribs) 18:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

So you claim you are not August Bernardicou and are not connected with the website augustnation.com? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Marzocco Group

Hello, I've seen your review, I tried to rephrase some sentences, and asked for a new review. Please let me know if there are some specific points to reformulate, it would help a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by C0273x (talk • contribs) 18:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Leather Seat

Hello Mr./ Ms., 

  Can you please approved my publish of Products of Leather because this is my project in school. please, please approve my publish. Thanks and God Bless!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slicedpotato (talk • contribs) 06:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Your draft is a copyright violation of https://leatherpanel.org/publications-categories/leather-products?page=1 Wikipedia cannot publish your school project. Theroadislong (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Request on 13:44:58, 11 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Akiramuk


Thank you very much for spending time on reviewing the page. The person whose article was created, then submitted for review has been appointed by the Government of Odisha, India as Advisor to Odisha Adarsha Vidyalaya (the page cites Dr. Bijaya Sahoo's name). There are other references on the internet, published by major news sites, but since the reference cited in the other Wikipedia article was approved, I used the same.

Please help me understand which line was unverifiable. I will look for better references.

Thanks.

Akiramuk (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your draft User:Akiramuk/sandbox
  • Source number 1 is a primary source
  • source numer 2 is a passing mention
  • Source number 3 is another primary source
Wikipedia requires multiple in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I have fixed indentation in the above comment. (Note: lists can be indented, too!) --CiaPan (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

TX RX Systems and Daniel Kaegebein

I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to post Mr. Kaegebein's obituary as a source, please advise. Daniel Kaegebein — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJacksonBird (talk • contribs) 15:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Obituaries are perfectly good sources but is the content really needed? Theroadislong (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank You

Hi, thank you for the clear review I will sure make the improvement if any. I will make sure I keep in mind what you say in all my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanijoseph87 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Darren Baker

Hi, I'm not sure if it is inappropriate to message you on here so please delete if it is.

You reviewed an article I wrote over 2 months ago that is still waiting to be reviewed again. I changed in line with your comments and I'm not sure if I need to do anything else.

I wonder if you could be so kind as to help me because I am lost.

Thanks--David Thornberry (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid the draft Draft:Darren Baker is still stuffed with non neutral trumpery eg. " For a young contemporary artist to achieve this kind of status and recognition is extremely rare and can only be put down to Darren’s talent for naturalistic description" " enjoys a range of artistic appointments" "keen supporter of, and tireless fundraiser" "one of the leading painters of the classical realism genre" "portraiture which grace many public and private collections" Theroadislong (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Lyla Fitzsimmons

Hi Theroadislong

Hope you are well.

I am writing in regards to the page Lyla Fitzsimmons. Forgive me as i am trying my best to produce a page i believe me daughter deserves. It has been declined due to references. I do not know if this is the correct place to ask for advice, sorry if not. I'm struggling to figure which more references are needed. Is there any information you could give me on this?

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotsone (talk • contribs) 21:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

You have only one poor quality independent source [7] Commercial links to buy the book are of no use whatsoever. Wikipedia requires multiple in-depth coverage in independent reliable source. You will also need to declare your conflict of interest on your user page. Theroadislong (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Please remove your comment since I have done what you asked

Hello,

I just successfully moved my Draft article to the main namespace: Refugio I Rochin

I am new to Wikipedia, and this is my first article (and, most likely, my last).

Soon after you posted your comment, I did what you asked and removed all external links from the body of the article.

I had hoped your comment would be removed as part of the successful move, but I see it is still there, along with a new Warning box, which I'm not writing about here.

Would you kindly remove your comment, or tell me how to remove it, after your final review?

And if it is possible for me to remove the new Warning box, please tell me how.

Thank you, Mizpat (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for removing your comment; did you also add new comments in the Warning box?

Hello again,

Thanks for removing your comment, which I fulfilled soon after you posted it: Refugio I Rochin.

I don't know how this happened, but the Warning box now contains two more messages: Multiple Issues, and Major Contributor Has Close Connection...

Did you add those two new messages (or, perhaps Multiple Issues is automatic after adding the Close Connection issue?)?

Why, and why now? Why not mention the Close Connection issue way back, in your first comment? I've been up front from the beginning about my writing this article for a friend, and I've been extra careful with wording and citations to be as neutral as possible.

Are all items (tags?) in this box things I can remove myself, without making further changes to the article?

Thank you, Mizpat (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theroadislong/Archive_45&oldid=913771737"