User talk:Theroadislong

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

Youssry Saleh & Partners

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Theroadislong (talk | contribs) at 22:47, 2 January 2016 (they were legal consultants for the Russian Egyptian Business Council actually but how this makes them notable I can't fathom?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

Dear this is the official website of the Egyptian business council and its credible source as its a governmental organization that we are their partners and official legal consultant

Sorry

Sorry. My intention was not to undo but to correct and use other references in some cases. I'm trying to rethink things as I go along. As some references included photos only and not name, I therefore aimed to find a better one. I'll try to identify your example. Thank you.

Sula Vineyards Wiki Page

Hi,

I see that you added the advert box on the sula vineyards wiki page. I am currently working on this page for a school project, and was wondering where exactly it did not sound neutral or too promotional?

It is possible for you to edit those parts out or show them to me so I could make the needed changes?

Thanks!

2016 SF Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon @ CCA

You are invited! - Saturday, March 5 - Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/ArtandFeminism 2016			Please join us at the California College of the Arts' Simpson Library on Saturday March 5, 2016, for an event aimed at collaboratively expanding Wikipedia articles covering Art and Feminism, and the biographies of women artists! --Circa73 (talk)

Heriot Watt honorary degree dumping

You reverted an edit on Vivienne Westwood by a guy who has been very busy doing the same edit on a bunch of other articles. I'm sure it is all in good faith but it is quite a lot of edits saying pretty much the same thing and if it is not notable for Westwood, then presumably it's just as non-notable for the others too...? Thoughts? Mabalu (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's notable for anyone, but he has made a large number of additions of the same content! Theroadislong (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Further improvements

Hello Theroadislong... I'd like to work with you to improve SOCO International's Wiki page, get the facts out there and legitimize the page/remove the tags. I will not directly edit the page again since I am a COI editor and do have a 'close connection' with the subject. Nevertheless, I would like to help present the facts about SOCO's activities while adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines. In order to remove the promotional content I suggest removing the following three sentences, but please let me know what needs to happen to further improve the page and I would be happy to assist: -- "In 2016 it was reported that SOCO had indicated that with low cost production, no debt and its disciplined approach to capital allocation, the company was in a good position to weather a prolonged industry downturn." --"Looking ahead, the company said it plans to produce 10,000 to 11,500 barrels of oil equivalent a day in 2016 This doesn't included potentially higher output scenarios from its TGT field in Vietnam." --"The start of production was achieved more than a month ahead of schedule, SOCO said, and the H5 wellhead platform development was completed with zero lost time accidents." I look forward to hearing from you, SOCOrep

I am not sure if I am doing this right...

You asked that I login and name the article..

It is Julia Flynn Siler, author

MelissBelle (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You should be able to now I think, before you hadn't made enough edits perhaps? Please ensure YOU hold the copyright though before uploading. Theroadislong (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how to respond directly to your reply..

Thank you!

How do I ensure I have the copyrights? What does that mean? 

MelissBelle (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Just read your info on the conflict of interest..

She is paying me for the article, but not per edit. I will be doing this for another person as well. So, am I understanding that I just note on my talk page who has hired me to write/post an article for them? What do I do about the suggestions people have given to me? Do I not edit at all once I have posted an article..this seems a little silly..

Sorry for all the questions! I want to abide by the guidelines, but I am not very clear on them..

MelissBelle (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Someone will reply to your question at The Teahouse page I have no doubt. We are all volunteers here, paid editing is extremely controversial and NOT encouraged at all, it goes against everything the encyclopedia stands for. I have no desire to help you further. Theroadislong (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, anyway

I am a bit confused by your comment, but thank you anyway, for all of your help and I will figure it out.

Best to you in all of your future endeavors.

MelissBelle (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi again..

I just noticed all of your edits...

Again, I am a new user and while you have been very helpful, I would have appreciated your informing me of my mistakes, before removing half of my article. 

I have been VERY honest and open in all of my communication, and perhaps I am wrong, but it seems as though you may be punishing me for doing something you don't agree with. 

I am not a company, I am a person- a full-time student and mom with no prior-relationship to the subject. I am doing the best that I can, and learning as I go. This is my FIRST article. If I were a dishonest person, do you think that I would have asked for help like I did?

You knew that I was a new user, and if you truly wanted to help maintain Wikipedia's standards, you could have taken the time you spent cutting my article, and educated me a little. We all start somewhere.  

Again, I have been working on fixing the problem and asking for help for over 4 hours, and I am not trying to insult or attack you, it seems you have a very deep convictions, and that is why I reached out to you to begin with. I just needed to let you know that I did not appreciate your methods, and hopefully, you will extend a bit more grace to another in the future. 

Best, 

MelissBelle (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @MelissBelle:. I have Theroadsislong's user talk on my watchlist so hopefully neither of you mind me commenting here. The first thing I suggest you do is to stop referring to the article as "my article". We as editors do not have any sort of ownership rights over the articles we create or edit; moreover, the subjects of articles do not own the articles written about them. Once a draft, etc. has been added to the mainspace, it's there for anyone to edit at anytime for better or worse.

There is also no policy which says that an editor is required to discuss their edits before making them; in fact, editors are encouraged to be bold and make changes/improvements to articles that they feel are needed per relevant policies and guidelines. Wikipedia articles are not intended to be perfect and the goal is to improve them steadily over time. Major changes to an article are sometimes best proposed first on the article's talk page per WP:CAUTIOUS, but once again this is not a requirement and not doing so it not really considered to be a faux pas of Wikipedia etiquette. Theroadislong is a very experienced editor who has created many articles, and the changes which were made are ones that would be seen as improvements by almost any other experienced editor. I know it can be hard to see an article that you worked hard to develop being edited by others, but that is the very nature of Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Interesting

This note you placed. I support discussing this with the editor--it seems to be pretty close to spamming, and that honorary degree strikes me as not exactly very notable. Perhaps they should all be reverted (while they can be rolled back). Drmies (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It's border line spamming in most cases, but with very notable people it clearly is of little importance compared to actual degrees, doctorates and knighthoods etc. Theroadislong (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

New Art Exchange

Edits to Nottingham page are not promotional for New Art Exchange. It is a member of Nottingham City's Strategic Cultural Partnership and historical data will be added to a new page about the organisation. Please do not remove factual information that is for public benefit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katelockhart (talk • contribs) 17:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I would strongly advise that you do not edit the article again but propose changes on the talk page as per conflict of interest guidelines, you also need to declare that you are a paid editor either on the article talk page or on your own user page. Theroadislong (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Re. Holy Face of Jesus

Re: Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Holy Face of Jesus, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not soapboxing, promoting or advertising. I have simply tried three times now to add links to the The Holy Face Devotion website launched in February this year, solely for the benefit of Wiki users interested in this topic. The website I have linked to is a 'not for profit' resource and information site, completely free from marketing material, adverts and pop-ups. Please don't make assumptions about new users. Also please refrain from suggesting that my activity is spam!

I am new to Wiki and not sure how to reply to users that jump to conclusions and remove the edits I am trying to make for the benefit of others. Please tell the other Wiki user that also wrongly inferred that my activity is spam, to leave my edits alone.

Thank you!

Holy Face Devotion (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

But your activity WAS spamming and you have been blocked for that reason. Theroadislong (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

about free port of Ventspils

Hello I had prepared a text for the free port of Ventspils which I noticed did not meet your standards. I have also noticed that the port of Rotterdam or the port of Hamburg consists of very similar information as I had prepared. I believe there was some lack of objectivity in my text, but the main points were the same. Could you consider the possibility of reverting the history and the terminals which is the general description of any port. Also does this mean I am not allowed to participate in editing this text?

Ventspils brīvostas pārvalde (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The standards are not "my standards" they are WIkipedia's standards. As for articles about other ports please read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. With your very clear conflict of interest you would be well advised to confine yourself to making suggestions on the article talk page for others to consider. Theroadislong (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion.

91.105.73.145 (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)