User talk:Theroadislong: Difference between revisions
→Draftifying articles: script installed thank you for the heads up |
→Regarding my Draft: Hans O. Lüders: new section |
||
Line 166: | Line 166: | ||
:Sorry about that I forgot there was a better way to do it, thanks. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong#top|talk]]) 19:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
:Sorry about that I forgot there was a better way to do it, thanks. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong#top|talk]]) 19:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
||
::{{U|Liz}} script installed thank you for the heads up. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong#top|talk]]) 19:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
::{{U|Liz}} script installed thank you for the heads up. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong#top|talk]]) 19:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
||
== Regarding my Draft: Hans O. Lüders == |
|||
Hello @[[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]], I revised my draft and added references where needed. Please let me know if there are any more changes needed. Thank-you, Caroline Rosenow [[User:Crosenow|Crosenow]] ([[User talk:Crosenow|talk]]) 11:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:01, 21 March 2024
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Welcome to my talk page. Click here to leave me a message ![]() |
Civic Caucus Page
HI, the reason it was resubmitted was due to the previous editor commenting that he agreed with the old comments left and when I pointed out that the comments have all been fixed and the comment below his even refers to a section that no longer exists he said he didnet have enough time to go through the page deeply let alone edit history.
May I resubmit so someone can leave feedback that I can incorporate into the draft? Could you go through and review it including edit history since each comment? Luka At The Civic Caucus (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- My review was based on what was there today, not on previous content, the draft is just marketing your organisation. Theroadislong (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Is there a part that gives that impression so I can fix it? It was rewritten several times to have a neutral point of view and the data is cited with those articles. Luka At The Civic Caucus (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something, Wikipedia summarises what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Please also note that blogs and press releases are not independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Okay thanks Luka At The Civic Caucus (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something, Wikipedia summarises what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Please also note that blogs and press releases are not independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Is there a part that gives that impression so I can fix it? It was rewritten several times to have a neutral point of view and the data is cited with those articles. Luka At The Civic Caucus (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Regarding Your Comment
Thank You for your comments. I have removed the links from guiness records Tanmoyjit (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Moriyama Teshima Architects page
Hello @Theroadislong, I very much appreciate your review of the Moriyama Teshima Architects page. I have been working to remove any promotional information, and will continue to do so. Thank you for your patience, and thank you for bearing with me. I am happy to make any revisions, add any citations, or remove any information, and will be doing so to ensure that it meets all the criteria. Thank you for your assistance! JLzero02 (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Clarification sought on references after comparison with another Wikipedia article
I am working again on my draft.
I need to remove references that are not "independent sources". So possibly I need to remove my references 22, 26, 27 and 29. These are references to journal articles about ski mountaineering climbs but written by Wyatt, the subject of the article. However, I notice that the Wikipedia entry for climber Chris Bonington includes references to two journal articles written by him.
14. Bonington, Chris (1988). "Menlungtse Attempt". American Alpine Journal. New York, NY USA: American Alpine Club. 30 (62): 275–278. ISBN 0-930410-33-5.
15. ^ Bonington, Chris (1989). "Menlungtse Western Summit". American Alpine Journal. New York, NY USA: American Alpine Club. 31 (63): 284–286. ISBN 0-930410-39-4.
This has confused me. Is it preferable to list as many of Wyatt's ski mountaineering journal articles as I know about, under the heading "Published works" ? But not reference them in the text?
Similarly I need to remove my references 11,21, 28 and 33 which refer to the books written by the subject of the article? These are not necessary as the books are listed under "Published works"? Thank you. IonaFyne (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- See other stuff exists adding references to his own work is not useful for establishing notability, also see WP:REFBOMBING and long lists of publications don't help either, we base articles on what independent sources say. Theroadislong (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- That's helpful, both those links (other stuff, refbombing). So perhaps, to follow the Bonington example, cite one or two articles provided that they are relevant i.e. relate to important achievements?
- I have also looked at Robert Macfarlane (see below) and there is a paragraph there of articles without sources cited, but my draft paragraph does require sources? What is the difference, please, between the Macfarlane paragraph and mine?
- I really appreciate your support and promptness.
- My draft:
- Articles and photographs[edit]
- This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
- He published a large number of articles, illustrated by his photographs, in English and in other languages, in magazines and journals in many countries. He also sold photographs to similar publications worldwide. For example, Country Life, Picture Post, Walkabout (Australia’s Geographic Magazine), Wild Birds magazine, Animal Pictorial, Countrygoer, Le Patriote Illustré, De Spiegel, Pottery Gazette, The Vauxhall Motorist, Overseas Dispatch, Pictorial Education, The Boys’ Magazine, Vogue, The Queen, Panorama, Riding, The Listener, The Sphere, Wool Knowledge, Pinguin, The Sphere, The Motor, Maclean’s Magazine, and Kosmos. (Check if I have to quote date for all of these or better to say "many including...and quote only a few).
- Robert Macfarlane (writer) - Wikipedia
- Background[edit]
- He has also published many reportage and travel essays in magazines, especially Granta and Archipelago, as well as numerous introductory essays to reissues of lost and neglected classics of landscape and nature writing from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, notably J. A. Baker (The Peregrine) and Nan Shepherd (The Living Mountain and In The Cairngorms). IonaFyne (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- I suggest you submit it for review and get other reviewers comments. The draft is VERY long and rambling with unneeded extensive lists, I can't see what makes them notable, he may have published mountains of content but unless independent sources have discussed it, it is of no interest. Theroadislong (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you.
- I am removing the long lists and planning to make it all shorter and tighter.
- Then, as you suggest, I will submit for review and see what comments other reviewers make. IonaFyne (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- I suggest you submit it for review and get other reviewers comments. The draft is VERY long and rambling with unneeded extensive lists, I can't see what makes them notable, he may have published mountains of content but unless independent sources have discussed it, it is of no interest. Theroadislong (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Why Goodreads isn't reliable source?
Goodreads is owned by Amazon, and it is popular for databases of books, annotations, quotes, and reviews. Goodreads is an old website for book databases. I don't know how it can't be credible? Iiftekhar (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- It is user edited so not reliable, but in any case I see you have used it to verify that books were published, that is not required, but publisher name and ISBN number would be helpful. Theroadislong (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- okay I will add ISBN tomorrow. Verify other things in article, if you find anything wrong tell me I will fix it. Iiftekhar (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
unreliable source
Hi. you've put a comment in the biography I wrote - and unreliable source - is created to a linkedin web site - in PL the linkedin pages are checked and verified - question is weather a website is more reliable as a source than a linkedin page? thanks.. Lemonidess (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Linkedin.com is absolutely not reliable or independent and should not be used. Theroadislong (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks.. how about a web site? I mean the website of the company?
- I mean just in relation to the history of a company? Or in this case a name change. Lemonidess (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Micronation
I don't know if I would say it's a hoax, since most of the people who create these do believe in them to some degree(like Republic of Molossia) and this person seems to. But I did delete it as promotional. 331dot (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Who made you an authority to censor my bona fide contributions to Wikipedia?
Who made you an authority to censor my bona fide contributions to Wikipedia? 109.255.86.247 (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Can you tell me which "bona fide contributions' I have censored please? Theroadislong (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Please approve my draft of my school. It is not just the only school of Indian Expatriate in Oman, many such schools have such Wikipedia. So please don't reject my work and after its approval, my friends and I would add all the other information. Please I beg you . Pleaseeeee.....
ASR.killadi.da (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Courtesy link Draft:Indian School Al Maabela I have added the submit template, you need to submit it for review. Theroadislong (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I added a lot of independent Sources -
but you declined my article with the same reasons than 2 month before? 37 independent Sources for the Foundation, what more? Don-miguel-de (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Your draft Draft:Indian School Al Maabela has not been submitted for review? Where have I declined it? Theroadislong (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- This draft please: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:CIVIS_Media_Foundation Don-miguel-de (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Many of the sources are their own website or press releases, which are not independent. Theroadislong (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Mr.Theroadislong please approve. I don't have any other choices for information on the internet. I beg you please please pleaseeeee. After it is approved, I swear that me and my friends will maintain the article to the best of our knowledge. ASR.killadi.da (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- You have not submitted Draft:Indian School Al Maabela for review so it cannot be accepted, if you do however, it will be declined because you have no independent sources covering the school. Theroadislong (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Mr.Theroadislong please approve. I don't have any other choices for information on the internet. I beg you please please pleaseeeee. After it is approved, I swear that me and my friends will maintain the article to the best of our knowledge. ASR.killadi.da (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Many of the sources are their own website or press releases, which are not independent. Theroadislong (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- This draft please: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:CIVIS_Media_Foundation Don-miguel-de (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Hyatt Regency Cairo West article decline
Hello sir,
hope you're doing well!
I was just wondering why did I receive a decline for my article on HYATT REGENCY CAIRO WEST? the article has no advertising tone at all, it's just stating facts!
I hope you assist me in such matter as the business is 100% legit and is part of Hyatt corporations and many other Hyatt Regency hotels seem to have wikipedia pages for them. Mohamedmarzz (talk) 08:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- I have removed my rejection you are free to re-submit and I will leave it for another reviewer to take a look. Theroadislong (talk) 08:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Sumiko Nakano draft
Regarding the Draft:Sumiko Nakano, I would like to address the concerns about the sources cited, specifically Tapology, Amazon, and Goodreads. It appears there might be a misunderstanding about the nature of these platforms and how they relate to the criteria for reliable, independent sources on Wikipedia.
Tapology is widely recognized within the mixed martial arts community for its comprehensive databases of fighters, bout histories, and rankings. While it might seem that Tapology's entries are user-generated, the information often originates from third-party resources, including fight promotions, verified media reports, and direct updates from the athletes and their representatives. This process ensures that the profiles, including Sumiko Nakano's, reflect accurate and up-to-date information about professional fighters. Given this, could Tapology be reconsidered as a reliable source in the context of documenting the career of a professional MMA fighter?
Regarding the references to Amazon and Goodreads for Nakano's authorial career, it's important to note that while authors can indeed create their own profiles, the listings of their published works and the associated reviews on these platforms are externally validated. Amazon's publication listings require verification, and Goodreads' author profiles and book listings are often supplemented with reviews from a broad user base, including critics and general readers. These factors contribute to the platforms' reliability as sources for verifying an author's published works and their reception. Could these considerations allow Amazon and Goodreads to be viewed as reliable, independent references for verifying the notability of an author's literary contributions?
I hope this clarifies the nature of the sources used and look forward to your guidance on how best to proceed to ensure the draft meets Wikipedia's standards for notability and source reliability. Kru666 (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Tapology might be usable but Amazon and Goodreads are absolutely not reliable independent sources and reviewers will ignore them. See WP:RSPAMAZON and WP:GOODREADS. Theroadislong (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your fast reply and the clarification. I understand the concerns regarding the use of Amazon and Goodreads as sources, in light of the mentioned guidelines. With this in mind, if I revise the entry to focus solely on Sumiko Nakano's MMA career, emphasizing details supported by Tapology as a source, would this approach align more closely with the criteria for acceptance? Your guidance is greatly appreciated as I aim to ensure the submission adheres to Wikipedia's standards. Kru666 (talk) 10:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
AfC comment
I literally couldn't hold myself when I saw this Special:Diff/1213355852, lol >.<, it was indeed worth asking. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- You have to laugh! Theroadislong (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Source issue
Not really sure why every time I use Spotify, YouTube, or anything that shows the publisher, label, and distributor for a song you always say it’s unreliable, when there are so many editors that put those under artists and have those as sources. If you’re going to remove mine, remove everyone’s. Thanks!:) Davidnorco86 (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Because they are primary sources they do not contribute to any notability, you need to find in-depth coverage in independent sources, you are merely verifying that he has released music, but Wikipedia requires more than that. Theroadislong (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- It’s not an argument or notability. It’s just proof of label and publisher. Are you experienced at all with the music industry or how it works? I’m not trying to be rude but some of the things you mention and the way you speak about music, makes me think I’m going to have to send you a list of documentaries to watch and indulge in. For example, you complain about some of the PianobyG articles being press released or paid for but literally that’s how the music industry is. Pick up a book or turn the news on, every artist states how the Grammys, billboard placements, etc. Are all paid for. So how can you discern what’s okay and understandable to pay for when you, yourself know nothing of music or the industry? I think it would be best if you removed yourself from the discussion due to lack of knowledge. Again, I’m not trying to be rude or be mean. I just don’t think you possess the skills or knowledge to contribute anything to musical artist discussions. Davidnorco86 (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Are you familiar with how Wikipedia functions? So what if someone pays for advertising outside of Wikipedia? We have our own policies and guidelines, and they must be followed. To use your own logic against you, if you don't have such knowledge of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, maybe you shouldn't contribute to such discussions. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- “so what if someone pays for advertising outside of Wikipedia” because on the notability guidelines it states “if an artist has won a major award i.e. Grammy, MTV, etc.” That’s why. I think I can contribute to musical discussions seeing as how I actually know about music. I don’t pretend to know just because I’m an admin like some people :) Davidnorco86 (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- That point makes no sense, advertising something and winning a Grammy are not connected.
- Additionally, neither I nor @Theroadislong are administrators, and we certainly don't pretend to know everything. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- All of the press releases and such that you guys keep using against my article is absurd. You have no idea if it was paid for or just written. I would like to be able to discuss this further with someone higher up honestly. Seems like a band of friends who sit on here all day nitpicking articles. I’ve read through all of the admins talk pages, there seems to be multiple complaints on this. It’s so opinionated and I never see you guys argue or disagree. It’s so obvious that you guys collaborate on opinions. Davidnorco86 (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- That isn't how Wikipedia works. This guidelines have been developed over years, and aren't something a couple people decide to abuse to delete articles. @Theroadislong has stated they don't want to discuss with you any more, so please continue this discussion at AfD. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- “so what if someone pays for advertising outside of Wikipedia” because on the notability guidelines it states “if an artist has won a major award i.e. Grammy, MTV, etc.” That’s why. I think I can contribute to musical discussions seeing as how I actually know about music. I don’t pretend to know just because I’m an admin like some people :) Davidnorco86 (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Are you familiar with how Wikipedia functions? So what if someone pays for advertising outside of Wikipedia? We have our own policies and guidelines, and they must be followed. To use your own logic against you, if you don't have such knowledge of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, maybe you shouldn't contribute to such discussions. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ha haaa how ironic. You are on Wikipedia and their guidelines are what we follow here. I will not help you further. Theroadislong (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- "It’s so obvious that you guys collaborate on opinions" that is because we are referring to Wikipedia guidelines, we have no personal views on the matter we are just implementing what Wikipedia requires for articles to be accepted. In my capacity as a WP:AFC reviewer and editor of 18 years experience, I have accepted many hundreds of articles on notable musicians and bands. Theroadislong (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- You chose to overide the WP:AFC process and move the draft to main space before it was ready, the result was that your article was taken to WP:AFD. Theroadislong (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- "It’s so obvious that you guys collaborate on opinions" that is because we are referring to Wikipedia guidelines, we have no personal views on the matter we are just implementing what Wikipedia requires for articles to be accepted. In my capacity as a WP:AFC reviewer and editor of 18 years experience, I have accepted many hundreds of articles on notable musicians and bands. Theroadislong (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- It’s not an argument or notability. It’s just proof of label and publisher. Are you experienced at all with the music industry or how it works? I’m not trying to be rude but some of the things you mention and the way you speak about music, makes me think I’m going to have to send you a list of documentaries to watch and indulge in. For example, you complain about some of the PianobyG articles being press released or paid for but literally that’s how the music industry is. Pick up a book or turn the news on, every artist states how the Grammys, billboard placements, etc. Are all paid for. So how can you discern what’s okay and understandable to pay for when you, yourself know nothing of music or the industry? I think it would be best if you removed yourself from the discussion due to lack of knowledge. Again, I’m not trying to be rude or be mean. I just don’t think you possess the skills or knowledge to contribute anything to musical artist discussions. Davidnorco86 (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
ABUBAKAR SANI
Hello @Theroadislong, Thank you for your comment on my draft on Abubakar Sani (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dr._Abubakar_Sani). I appreciate your feedback. I've made the corrections you suggested, and I'd like to ask if you could kindly take another look at the article to see if it's ready for main space. If you notice any further errors or have additional suggestions, please don't hesitate to let me know. Your input is valuable. Thank you. ~Ana (talk) 12:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Theroadislong:, I improved with more reliable sources the draft of actor Westcott Clarke and summited again some days ago, could you please review it again? Byejai (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- You have canvassed a large number of reviewers please stop, your draft will be reviewed again in due course, but not by me. Theroadislong (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, the truth is that I want to definitively retire from Wikipedia as soon as posible and move forward with other parts of my life, so I just want to ensure that my last work, which is the draft of actor Westcott Clarke to be published so I can finally say goodbye to Wikipedia forerver. Byejai (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Draftifying articles
Hello, Theroadislong,
You need to notify article creators when you move an article from main space to Draft space. Please use a script like User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft, like many editors do, rather than doing a manual page move. In the upper menu, under "More", there will be a link stating "Move to Draft" that will not only move the draft but post a notification on the talk page of the article creator telling them where they can find the article. Please do this in the future. If you don't want to use a script, then please take the time to write a talk page notice yourself. Many thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 19:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry about that I forgot there was a better way to do it, thanks. Theroadislong (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Liz script installed thank you for the heads up. Theroadislong (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Regarding my Draft: Hans O. Lüders
Hello @Theroadislong, I revised my draft and added references where needed. Please let me know if there are any more changes needed. Thank-you, Caroline Rosenow Crosenow (talk) 11:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)