User talk:Theroadislong/Archive 49

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45 ← Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 → Archive 55

Anna Kessel

Thank you very much for creating Anna Kessel - your hard work is much appreciated. There is enough material there now for DYK, so I have nominated it, citing you as creator. You can find the nomination template on the article's talk page. I hope that's OK, but if you don't agree for any reason, I'd be happy to withdraw the nom. Meanwhile, if you wish to continue to improve the article, please do so. Storye book (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Storye book Excellent thank you, I always find DYK father tricky to work out, well done on greatly improving my stub. Theroadislong (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
No worries, I'll see the DYK through. Meanwhile, Ms Kessel is turning out to be more of an achiever than one might have thought. Who knows what other good deeds she has done. Cheers. Storye book (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Hytale AfC

How come you said it didn't have significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject? It has 10 refs whose timeframes range between Dec'18 and Aug'19. If I created this in mainspace for a different game noone would look twice at it. Can I have a more exact reason the submission was declined?  Nixinova  T  C  18:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

You are free to create this in mainspace if you wish. Theroadislong (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
So you wouldn't oppose me just moving the page to mainspace?  Nixinova  T  C  02:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
@Theroadislong:?  Nixinova  T  C  21:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
No go ahead. Theroadislong (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Theroadislong,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 818 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools
  • It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
  • It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes
  • Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
  • Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Rejection of article "University of London Press"

Hello, thanks for reviewing my article. I have contributed with plenty of new articles before, but this is the first time I was asked to submit it for review and approval. Is this a new Wikipedia policy? At any rate, you declined my article and I would like to understand why. I provided correct citations and quoted any referenced texts. As far as I am aware, I do not see any copyright violations. Are you able to tell me which specific part of the (short) article you found objectionable? That way I would be able to correct it. Many thanks, E. Kingsley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emanuel Kingsley (talk • contribs) 19:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Emanuel Kingsley It was a copyright violation, ie. you had copied and pasted it from elsewhere, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Theroadislong (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand your claim, although I disagree with it. Are you able to provide specific evidence of what I copied and pasted? The only thing I copied was a list of notable authors, which I reworded. I have actually removed the list from the article and am now certain there is no text that is copied from elsewhere. I do not understand all the operative minutea of Wikipedia. If somebody could tell me if the page is okay now, that would be appreciated. Otherwise, I'm about to give up. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emanuel Kingsley (talk • contribs) 19:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry it was already blanked when I reviewed it, so I marked it for decline. Theroadislong (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
You will have to wait until an admin checks it for copyright and then re-submit. Theroadislong (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

OK thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emanuel Kingsley (talk • contribs) 20:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Ryan Trotti - Declined

Greetings! I was hoping for a little clarification on this part: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

Several of the 12 listed references are full articles, very few, if any, are just "passing mentions". In fact, one in particular is the entire front page of the 3rd party newspaper, electronic and hard copy print. There are also several major TV affiliate news channel on-air interviews referenced as well, including WCNC and WMBF, both NBC affiliates in NC and SC, respectively. Also included are major awards, and exclusive event inclusion (CCMF, CCMAs, CCMC) etc. Would these not sufficiently show 3rd party notability and validation? This was brought to the attention of the first Wiki admin that declined it, AngusWOOF, and this was their response: "2600:1700:C740:97B0:7961:5423:1E24:123D, you can resubmit this. Maybe another AFC reviewer can see the local news and television articles. The television segment is helpful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)"

Thanks again for your assistance, as I'm a fairly new blogger and contributor to the Wiki community.

Request on 10:33:00, 4 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Absimj


I'm still waiting for a response to my request for a clearer, more specific explanation for the rejection of the new entry that I had drafted in my Sandbox, particulalrly having seen that the editor's numerous entries seem to be about trivia. Absimj (talk) 10:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Absimj (talk) 10:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no evidence of what makes him notable for an article, the sources are not in-depth or independent, and snarky remarks about my entries being trivia will not help you. Theroadislong (talk) 10:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

"Biki (Q3639894)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Biki (Q3639894). Since you had some involvement with the Biki (Q3639894) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

this is a history on digital marketing course

hi sir/mam I want to put a digital marketing course page link in this history to give more information about the course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan.deeptalk (talk • contribs) 09:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a venue for promoting your course, it's an encyclopedia. Theroadislong (talk) 09:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

BLoC draft declined

Hello there,

So we are talking about a design pattern in computer programming, and you are mentioning that the blog is not a reliable source, but also YouTube is not (I tried including that, it is blacklisted)! It is a new Design Pattern, so you can find no books about it whatsoever.

If we compared to Aggregator Pattern to this, we can find the only reference is a book! But this is new and cutting edge. Compared to what we usually compare BLoC to: Redux you can see the main reference is a magazine article! But the official dev blog is far more reliable that a magazine article.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismaeel.AA (talk • contribs) 10:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

We only summarise what reliable, independent published sources have to say about a subject, if there are no such sources then we don't have an article. Theroadislong (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Leporeanto \ I would like to write a page of biography. what do I have to do?

I would like to write a page of biography. what do I have to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leporeanto (talk • contribs) 15:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

See WP:Articles for creation for help. But please be advised that creating an article is the most difficult task on Wikipedia, you would be better advised getting to know how Wikipedia works first. Theroadislong (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Stewart Henderson (footballer)

Hi Theroadislong, thanks for reviewing my submission. Is it possible to revert the title to Stewart Henderson (footballer, born 1982)? Note that the title contains additional detail to differentiate the name as there is an existing article for the same name, who is also a Scottish footballer by coincidence. Is it possible to retrieve the page for edit and submit with additional references? I want to be able to record the fact that i had played senior football. Stewart Henderson (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Stewart Henderson I have done that for you, you are welcome to continue editing the draft and re-submit, but it will need at least three strong reliable sources, creating autobiographies is strongly discouraged and rarely succeeds. Have you read Wikipedia:Notability (sports)? Theroadislong (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Theroadislong, thanks for the comments. I have provided three reliable sources of references. Is it possible for someone to review and submit on my behalf?

Stewart Henderson (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Stewart Henderson as I commented on your draft I cannot view any of the sources because they require a subscription so I am unable to assess their usefulness. Google shows nothing for you either [1] Theroadislong (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Theroadislong, is there a way for me to download and provide the references? They are published newspaper articles from 20 years ago. Stewart Henderson (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Have you checked to see if you are presumed notable yet?

Association football (soccer) figures are presumed notable if they meet the following:

Players who have played in, and managers who have managed in any Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA,[6] in a competitive senior international match at confederation level regardless of whether or not the teams are members of FIFA, or the Olympic Games. The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria. Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable. See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football. Note: For the purposes of this guideline, played means having appeared in a match either in the starting line-up or coming on as a substitute. Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG. Do the sources cover you in-depth? Theroadislong (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Another artist article 06-NOV-2019

Hello! As you were so helpful in handling the Natalia Toreeva article, I was hoping you might be able to have a look at another artist article, Kent Tate. I believe that the artist may be trying to pack the article with irrelevant citations (via COI edit requests). It currently has 15 citations for only 9 sentences. Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Warm regards,  Spintendo  00:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Request on 13:03:49, 7 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by LKoval


Greetings, thank you Theroadislong for your comments. I had not yet updated the article based on previous editor comments. I do need to declare a conflict of interest because I work at the organization founded by Daniele Giovannucci. However, I have been doing this on my own time. In terms of notability many of the cited articles are from independent secondary sources. I would appreciate your help to understand what the challenge with them is, and any other guidance. Thank you, Louise Salinas LKoval (talk) 13:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


LKoval (talk) 13:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Your Evolutionary Automata "review".

Do you understand that our submission is not a research submission but is based on research publications listed in references. Your claim "Appears to be research submission" is a nonsense - in our copyright statement (end of our submission) is is explicitly written that is is NOT a research paper (all the results have been published before). If you are not familiar with evolutionary computation and computer science, you should refrain from reviews on that subject. Thanks, Eugene Eberbach — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.143.72.254 (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Please log in when editing and please be aware that user accounts are for single person use only and as I said on the drafts talk page if you re-submit "I am happy to leave this for another reviewer more conversant with 'evolutionary computation and computer science" to look at." Theroadislong (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Page declined

Hello there. My page has been reviewed and it has been judged as non neutral enough. I spent a lot of time on this page (my first one in English) and I would like to know if someone can help me better understand Wikipedia guidelines and why it doesn't fit in this case. I have made the French page and did the same process. My English isn't perfect so my words may didn't express what I wanted or maybe it was the sources because it was difficult to find articles in English... Anyway, if someone can just give me few explanations on Wikipedia process, it would be great! :)

Thank you again and have a nice day or night wherever you are! OumaimaMb (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Terms like "Its solutions focus on investment process" " Linedata offers back-to-front office services through six complementary areas" " Linedata empowered its credit finance position" "asset management division provides solutions for alternative, institutional and wealth managers" are all pure marketing speak and have no place in a neutral encyclopedia. Theroadislong (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Request on 17:54:06, 7 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Oak9500


Hello! You have recently reviewed my draft of the Edi Karni article and declined it because it needed more independent sources. First of all, thank you for the feedback. Second of all, what kind of sources do you think are needed in order to fulfill this? Thank you, Oak9500

Oak9500 (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Independent sources would be those which were written about him, rather than by him. Theroadislong (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Language

Good afternoon, I'm a new user in Wikipedia and I've just created my first page, which you said it's not acceptable because it's not written in English. How can I do it to change my settings so my page is accepted in Catalan Wikipedia? I'd appreciate any help, I'm quite lost Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miasanlle (talk • contribs) 16:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

You would have to join the Catalan Wikipedia site here [2]. Theroadislong (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I see that you have re-submitted it instead which is pointless. Theroadislong (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Nail

Thank you for your feedback on "Draft:Thomas Nail". The article has been rejected twice but no one has told me how to fix the issues. One comment suggests that academics need a "named chair" to be listed, which is clearly no the case for most entries. Another says I need reliable independent sources that are verifiable—but that was what I thought I just added with links to peer reviewed journals, etc. I am super confused. Other entries are way less supported than mine. Can you tell me specifically what I need to do here? Its all so mysterious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanHSanborn (talk • contribs) 02:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Also: I read the wiki instructions and its pretty clear that the article meets at least one of the academic criteria listed: "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. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account.
I have linked to google scholar and academia.edu to verify this. Thomas Nail has a book, The Figure of the Migrant, cited 285 times (which is a lot for philosophy books). He also fulfills the other named criteria of "unique" contribution that can be verified by reading the linked book review of Theory of the Border- where the reviewer clearly states the original and unique contribution of a whole new conceptual framework. Check it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanHSanborn (talk • contribs) 03:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Please read this: I am pasting here the explicit criteria on wikipedia for academic notability and precise how Thomas Nail satisfies this: WP:NACADEMICS: Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.
1. The person's research has had 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. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account.
To count towards satisfying Criterion 1, citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books. Publication and citation rates in humanities are generally lower than in sciences. Also, in sciences, most new original research is published in journals and conference proceedings whereas in humanities book publications tend to play a larger role (and are harder to count without access to offline libraries). The meaning of "substantial number of publications" and "high citation rates" is to be interpreted in line with the interpretations used by major research institutions in determining the qualifications for the awarding of tenure."
Here is how criteria number 1 is verified:
a) follow the link "highly cited" to google scholar and see that there are several "highly cited" books and many well cited peer- reviewed articles.
b) follow the academia.edu link at the bottom to see that Thomas Nail has over 4,000 followers with a quarter of a million downloads.
c) when determining "highly cited" consider 1. that philosophy has much lower citation rates than the sciences, 2. that books are much more important that articles, and 3. that Thomas Nail is a tenured faculty, meaning that he has published enough to be considered to have made an impact in his field.
d) view his CV on academia.edu to see the 10 books he has written and over 30 peer reviewed articles and major conferences and full range of interviews.
Let me know what you think — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanHSanborn (talk • contribs) 03:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Submission declined on 6 November 2019

Hi, 

Whats is a major problem in my content. please how to solve these issues. I submitted any wrong thing. 

Please explain and solve this ASAP.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChilakamarthiPrabhakar (talk • contribs) 11:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Marc Nicholls: Rejected Wiki II

I came here asking for help, and you responded, which I appreciate you taking the time to do, but you did not answer my question. It seems like your reply was made with the intention to scold me rather than help me. I have copied and pasted the interaction below. I would still appreciate it if I could have some elaboration on what I can do to improve my sources. Thanks.

Hello!!! I was curious about the rejection of my Wikipedia article. You said it was due to the lack of "notability" in the sources. I am confused as to what the difference between the sources I used and the sources used for Chris Little's Wikipedia page (they work together, and we used a lot of similar sources). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Little How can mine be better?

Thanks for reading and for taking the time to review the Wiki article :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callynicholls (talk • contribs) 00:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Who is "we"? user accounts are for single person use only. Theroadislong (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

When I say "we" I just meant me and whomever wrote Chris Little's article. I do not know who wrote it; I was just making an observation about how the articles we used in citations are incredibly similar. I would still appreciate some elaboration and an explanation as to how that article could be published and mine could not, despite us using similar sources. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callynicholls (talk • contribs) 23:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callynicholls (talk • contribs)

Ashley Liz Cooper

Hi, Thank you for reviewing the article. I used the reference for all independent news magazined including Maxim to prepare this document. Could you please share how can i make it better for review?

Thank you for helping.

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsalan-akhtar-ON (talk • contribs) 21:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

How does sandbox work?

We had this school project to make a wikipedia page. How to start? Setsura (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Creating a new article is the most difficult task on Wikipedia, so with only one days experience I would suggest you try something a little easier first! The sandbox is a place to test out your edits. More help here Help:My sandbox. Theroadislong (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Command: modern operations

Hey theroadislong, thanks for reviewing my article. There are not many external references to the game yet so I'll wait until it is published and then see if I can find some. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bathtubwiki (talk • contribs) 12:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Ranu Mondal page

Sir i think this page needs a attention, this person had enough coverage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ranu_Mondal# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocky 734 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Dr. Roger A Ramsammy

What makes a college president noteworthy or not? I patterned this article somewhat on our local university president - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havidan_Rodriguez. Would more information about his scholarship and doctoral research be helpful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zippylips (talk • contribs) 14:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

He would need to have been the subject of multiple in-depth articles in newspapers, magazines, with notable awards etc. Theroadislong (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Would the article not qualify based on the Notability (academics) criteria #6? - The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.? Zippylips (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Zippylips Is Hudson Valley Community College a major academic institution or major academic society? Theroadislong (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's subjective of course. Hudson Valley Community College is one of the largest community colleges in the State University of New York system and has the largest population of undergraduates in New York's Capital Region. I'm sure it's larger than Cape Cod Community College, whose president https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Kraus is listed.And our enrollment is on par with Fort Hays State University in Kansas, whose two most recent presidents are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirta_Martin and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tisa_Mason Zippylips (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome!

Appreciated! DarknessHorses1989 (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Proper editing protocol

I'm sorry for the trouble, when I'm adding notations and citations relating to the MGD page, I thought just internally linking the page itself was enough.

Are you saying I need to both link to MGD, and then use the original citations from that page again on the other wiki pages I'm linking to and explaining MGD's basic tenets, so that those basic tenets are properly re-cited again on each different page?

Thank you and sorry again Harvard2TheBigHouse (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Harvard2TheBigHouse Yes that would be excellent, I was just about to have a look at MGD page to see if there were suitable sources there, but I am sure you understand it better so will leave it to you. All good wishes. Theroadislong (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah okay no worries, I'll go back and add the appropriate secondary source links wherever I've linked to MGD, hopefully the other mods can give me a few minutes to add those in. Please feel free to ping me if you still think anything is inappropriate, and sorry again for the trouble! Harvard2TheBigHouse (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

my edit on hazing

hazing does have these instances and i request you undo your unfounded changes as this is an accurate representation of hazing in Greek-Life — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.109.73.223 (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

All content requires independent sourcing, rather than personal knowledge, sorry. Theroadislong (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

help with the MGD page

If you happen to have a moment, I'd be very open to any Wiki help pages or other guidance you could provide to help better that page I've been working on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_genetic_diversity

Thanks again!! Harvard2TheBigHouse (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

You might find help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Science. Theroadislong (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Rejection "Flooring"

Hello,

I am new. I just want to make sure I understand. I didn't think that I put any links on that page.

Please advise. Thanks, Patrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosfco (talk • contribs) 19:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

You added a reference that looked like a commercial link to me? Namely https://www.southcypress.com/Page-Not-Found.htm Theroadislong (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Theroadislong: Are you sure it was the Page-Not-Found.htm page??? --CiaPan (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
That's where it redirects to, for me. Theroadislong (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for taking the time to review the submitted article and leaving notes. Much appreciated. Jabez317 (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Deleting an article.

Theroadislong I wanted to ask if you have any objection with deleting the Kent Tate article? I worked on some updates and improvements but have been informed that the page does not meet notability according to Cullen328. I thought that issued had been overcome by going through the AfC process. Apparently I am mistaken about that so it makes me wonder what the point of the process is... I have gotten weary with trying to defend the article and make improvements. I am not really experienced with the level that is like needed and my efforts just seem to make others double down. My edit requests have been meet with much resistance. My most recent request resulted in more information being hollowed out of the article by Spindindo much to my dismay. Not that I am seeking any sympathy from you because I am not. At this point, the article really doesn't provide coherent information about the subject. I can't edit the article and it has been suggested by Cullen328 and David not MD that I leave it alone. I would like to delete it and if you could help me with that great. If not then I would like to know if you would likely contest it. I do appreciate that you've invested time into approving it and other things related to it but it really has so little content it seems pointless to even have the article plus the talk page is a humiliation for me. Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The article appears to be in good shape and would in my opinion survive an afd. Theroadislong (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Reason for decline

Dear Theroadislong,

Greetings Of The Day!

This is to enquire the real reason for deleting Poonam Dubey Designs request page as all relevant data was published. The designer had to use Poonam Dubey Designs instead of her real name viz Poonam Dubey because the said name was already taken by some regional movie actress. So request you to kindly reconsider the application submitted.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poonam Dubey Designs (talk • contribs) 08:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Your draft has no reliable sources which is why it was declined. Theroadislong (talk) 08:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Re : Revisions declined

Hi,

Would like to bring to your kind attention, that ALL the references are from SOURCES that Wikipedia has WHITELISTED, with a few references from Government Websites. The language in the revised content does not suggest any kind of promotion or marketing, but has been drafted factually, in a neutral, fully reliable and completely verifiable manner, citing extensively from sources that WIKIPEDIA has listed out as PERMITTED. I request you to kindly review the revisions in the light of this submission.

Chenjo9 (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I disagree, The draft reads just like an advert, Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source (you have used it twice) and general listings are not suitable sources, we require multiple in-depth coverage. Theroadislong (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Chenjo9 for what little it may be worth, I have also reviewed the article and came to the same conclusion as Theroadislong. I also removed some internal references to Wikipedia articles as this is not permitted. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   12:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I know now

ah i see that was my sandbox and i was supposed to make a seprate article for that. i really wanted to but...every time i search for it, im redirected to cheetah mobile's wiki page ---OTFTYT (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

"Youtube is not a reliable source"

I agree. Each individual channel within YouTube should be evaluated as reliable or unreliable, noteworthy or not-noteworthy - just like other user-generated content. Wikipedia has precedent for allowing references to YouTube videos when they have been determined as relevant and noteworthy: these are two examples, out of several hundred Wikipedia pages that have cited YouTube videos, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Black, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Night_with_Seth_Meyers.

I recommend, in the future, you don't dismiss videos from YouTube simply for being from YouTube, and instead give a reason why the specific video is reliable or not reliable. In the case of Pashon Murray, whose page you rejected, the video in question was a Ford Super Bowl commercial which featured Murray. I believe this was notable. If you do not, you should say why not, instead of simply referencing YouTube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinnertdesign (talk • contribs) 20:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

It might be better used as an external link in an external link section, a Ford Super Bowl commercial is a primary source, we would need independent sources that discussed Murray's involvement in the commercial. Theroadislong (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Rodgil Flores

I was apparently reviewing this draft at the same time you were. I found good evidence of notability in the sources. Additionally there are now 7 incoming links to the article, also a good informal indication of its viability. ~Kvng (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

William Oliver (artist, born 1823)

Hi Theroadislong. You moved this to the mainspace which is fine, but I'm wondering if you'd mind taking a look at WP:AN#Draft:William Oliver (artist, born 1823). There's something kind of unusual about the page history of the article, it that the creator seems to have been using that particular draft page like a sandbox. They would work on a draft for one subject, blank it when finished, move the page, and that start working on a draft for another subject. It seems the repeated this same process multiple times which means that the page history is sort of split among different subject matters. Maybe this is no big deal, but I'm never come across such a thing before so I'm not sure if it's an issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes that is very confusing, I've left a note on his page, not sure what can be done about it now though. Theroadislong (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Reuven Wimmer

Hello,

I just wanted to reach out re my submission which was rejected. Reuven Wimmer is a notable Hebrew writer - when you google his name tens of thousands results come up. He already has a Hebrew Wikipedia page. He is now starting to write and publish his work in English so he would like an English wikipedia page. What can we do to make this happen?

Thank you.

Your draft Draft:Reuven Wimmer has no independent sources so no chance whatsoever of being accepted. Wikipedia has no interest in what the articles subject wants to say about himself, only what reliable sources have reported.You will need to declare your conflict of interest too. Theroadislong (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing new (draft) article

hello Theroadislong,

Could I please ask you to review and comment on this draft article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hanoch_Senderowitz

Many thanks, Uw0v5033 (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: The source of the line Hanoch Senderowitz is married to Vicky, they live in Tel Aviv and have 3 children. was taken from a Hebrew document. Since I can not find it online (and in English), I omitted it in the meantime. Thanks, Uw0v5033 (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Sources do not need to be in English or online but they do need to be published. Theroadislong (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
@Theroadislong: Thanks for letting me know. Is this article ready to be submitted? Uw0v5033 (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Rejection of Capricorn (ensemble) draft

Thanks for reviewing this draft. I would be grateful if you could let me know why the references do not qualify. To my understanding, the Capricorn ensemble is not just a passing mention in The Guardian and Financial Times articles, in particular references 5, 7, 9 and 10. These are full articles reviewing concerts given by the ensemble in the 1980s and 1990s. The newspapers and the authors are not affiliated with the ensemble. Cvuo (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't clear to me how they passed WP:Notability (music). Theroadislong (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Don't the references above fulfill the first criteria 'Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works...'? Moreover the albums mentioned in the article are released on indie labels (Hyperion and Bridge Records) with a history of more than a few years with a roster of independently notable performers. Cvuo (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
You could be right, I can't tell if the sources are in-depth because I am not subscribed to the website. Feel free to re-submit and I'll let another reviewer take a look. Theroadislong (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I have re-submitted the article. Thanks for your advice. Is there a better way of citing old newspaper articles when the physical copy is free to access in some public libraries but online access requires subscription? Cvuo (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Second opinion for AfC draft

Hey Theroadislong, I was hoping you could look over this draft article at Draft:Diego Tryno. Ignoring any POV in the article as of now, do you think the subject meets WP:SINGER criteria 1? I've been discussing the references with the original author on my talk page, and I believe that there is a good reason to view some of the Zimbabwean magazines provided as reliable, even if they appear to glorify the subject. I originally interpreted these as gossip magazines, and therefore couldn't be reliable. Apparently, this is not an uncommon practice for news sources from Zimbabwe. Because of this, I feel like it would be fine to accept the article based on these premises; I will just need to take out the POV in the Wikipedia article and try to write from an objective stance. The big thing for me is that the subject apparently does not have any awards, and his music has not appeared on any Zimbabwean music charts, so it would have to be passed through criteria 1 of WP:SINGER only. Regardless, it would be really helpful if you could look at the article and related discussion and provide your feedback; I want to make sure this is the right decision. Thanks, Utopes (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Theroadislong:. One final alert in case this passed under your radar. Could you take a look by chance? Thank you, Utopes (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Nail

Can you please respond to my previous notes? RyanHSanborn (talk) 02:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Soviet Nonconformist Art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mikhail Artamonov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

December events with WIR

December 2019, Volume 5, Issue 12, Numbers 107, 108, 144, 145, 146, 147


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

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Quick draft question

On this draft you commented in June "I would be happy to accept it now", however it's still in draft space. Is it just a matter of moving it to Annona hayesii? I'd do it myself, but I know there's a helper script draft reviewers use and I don't want to muck anything up for you.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm never sure how to accept drafts that are not submitted, I have moved it into mainspace, but feel there might have been a better way to do it, I will have to research.Thank you for the heads up. Theroadislong (talk) 08:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Please review your comment on a declined submission

You have recently declined a submission of User:Ravewyk/sandbox in the version Special:Permalink/927605445. There was quite a lot of text there, but it was misplaced in the {{User sandbox}} template and you might have not noticed it — at least your comment suggests so.

The text was not ready yet to be published, so the submission should be declined anyway, but I'm asking you to review your comment so that it reflects the actual issues with the User:Ravewyk's submission. I have re-inserted the contents and formatted it a bit (Special:Permalink/928177323), so it is visible now at User:Ravewyk/sandbox.

CiaPan (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

help please: Claude Kipnis submission

Hi. The submission I made was a compilation of information from the NEW York Times and Newhouse Newspapers, (both sources cited) and from colleagues and friends of Mr. Kipnis. I am trying to be transparent. Please advise. Ravewyk (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Your draft User:Ravewyk/sandbox has no content? Theroadislong (talk) 08:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Ravewyk My apologies for not noticing your hidden text, please read WP:REFB for help with formatting sources and note that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source, you should aim for at least three reliable sources to establish notability. Please re-submit when done. Theroadislong (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Rejection of Silver Magazine

Hi- firstly thanks for looking at this so quickly. I'm sad it's been rejected though

I did declare my interest - we are publishers of this magazine. But I have seen thousands of other magazine listed on Wiki and would like to be clear about what it is that we've done that is deemed blatant advertising when the others aren't.

I'm totally happy to work within your guidelines of course! And I tried to be as passive and neutral as possible - although it's obviously hard when I'm excited about this! But this magazine really is different to its competitors like Saga. I think it deserves a place.

And our readers have vouched for this - they really feel patronised by other magazines and are excited to see a pioneering publisher create something new for them. I can offer some testimonials from objective readers if it helps?

What can I do?

Thanks for your help

Samhlowe (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia only reports on what published reliable sources have said about a subject. You will need to find multiple high quality in-depth, reliable, independent and secondary sources to establish notability. This is not a venue for telling the world about your new project. Theroadislong (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I have reliable source to change any article.

The person Sri Sambhulal Chakma personally called me.
I am helping him to add some details on Wiki.
So I have reliable source. If I will changed anythings.

All content requires a citation to a "published" source, personal knowledge even directly from them is NOT acceptable. Theroadislong (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the help

Hi,

Thanks for your help on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Isaac_Adeola_Odeyemi, followed your suggestions and removed the links to wiki.

C — Preceding unsigned comment added by CraigMc1979 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Nail

Hi Theroadislong,

Thanks for your suggestions to cite my sources. I have now added tons of citations on everything I could. What do you think?

Let me know. RyanHSanborn (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


THANK YOU!!!!!! RyanHSanborn (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

The Barnstar of Diligence
I seem to run into you a lot and whenever I do, I admire your hard work and the patient, precise way you deal with issues. Hugsyrup 08:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dating_Pro_Software

Hey, Theroadislong

I have a question about my article on Dating Pro software, if I may. Can you give me more explanation about why it was declined? I checked and these companies have pretty similar content and significance value: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkaDate_Dating_Software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhiteLabelDating

Rimma12 (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles require independent sources not the companies own website, the awards are not notable and please see other poor quality articles exist. Theroadislong (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Alon Kaplan

please sir put this important lawyer inside wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alon_Kaplan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.168.58.202 (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I try not to get involved with paid editors drafts, sorry. Theroadislong (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Abusive rant

I had already archived your emails since it is pointless to complain to you people about anything. Didn't you notice I had stopped writing. But you are going to continue. So let me point out something very basic. I am in argument with you because you will not accept my edit removing your entry under Der Stűrmer which praises the Nazi newspaper under Hitler as a "serious paper of record." I am not calling people Nazis out of the blue. I am asking why Wikipedia will not remove Nazi propaganda. I do not know why it is so difficult for most of you with the notable exception of Rotideypoc41352, whose responses have been thoughtful and informative, can understand why calling the Nazi newspaper a serious paper of record or even Der Stűrmer "sometimes outright libelous" is not very offensive. You think calling people Nazis is an insult but you don't think praising the official organ of the Nazi Party seems rather Nazi? How do I explain this to you? Does praising Hitler seem rather Nazi to you? If someone wrote an entry full of praise for Hitler and someone tried to correct it and their corrections were rejected, would the person doing the editing have reason to think that perhaps those who posted an article in praise of Hitler and those who refused to allow corrections were somehow pro Nazi? What is someone praised the final solution? What if they published and entry reading that the holocaust never happened and Jews made that up. Would someone have reason to believe that those who published such an article might lean Nazi. We are arguing about an entry on Nazi propaganda sheets that you are all insisting are serious papers of record. The argument is about Nazi propaganda. I am not using Nazi as an insult. I am referring to your entry about Nazis. Can you not see the difference? Lets say you had an entry about the KKK. And someone corrected an entry praising the KKK. And editors rejected all the corrections. Would someone have reason to wonder if the the writer and publisher were favorable to the KKK? Would that be an insult to ask why they insisted on keeping a reference to the KKK that erroneously praised them as a serious organization with serious papers of record? It is incredible to me that you cannot understand the difference between criticizing an entry that erroneously praises Nazis and treats their propaganda as "authoritative" and a serious reliable source. Ugh. I give up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cschnei (talk • contribs) 12:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Cschnei It is not remotely clear why you are directing this abusive rant at me? I have NEVER edited those articles, any discussion about their content should be directed to the article's relevant talk pages. Theroadislong (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Assuming, based on a Teashouse posting, that Cschnei is Cathy Schneider. The poor dear is quite confused. Something is going on. Checking her contributions she has not even edited Der Stürmer The above rant seems to be repeat of her Teahouse rant.. I certainly don't know how to deal with it, maybe some compassionate intervention. I'll be glad to try.Oldperson (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, it is most upsetting. Theroadislong (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theroadislong/Archive_49&oldid=931631694"