Jump to content

User talk:Theroadislong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RolandBacon (talk | contribs) at 17:43, 11 February 2022 (→‎Roland Bacon page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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


Thank you Theroadislong for reviewing Michael P. Snyder's page so quickly!

I very much appreciate the feedback regarding links to Wikipedia/Amazon & I am going through the document now to remove these links, replace as many as possible with non-Wikipedia/Amazon links!

Cheers, McGuire Snyderlab|talk McGuire at Stanford Snyderlab (talk) Dec 17th 1:05PM Pacific Time

Request For

Advice

 Thank you for your advice on 5th January.

I thought I would mention that I have just submitted my first article for consideration.   It is entitled Tom McGrath, RTE.

I would mention that 86 on 29th March, I am a younger cousin of the late Tom McGrath who died in 1985.    I have endeavoured to only give facts in the article and to quote reliable sources of which there are many.

Thank you again,

Baile Atha Cliathach (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC) Baile Atha Cliathach[reply]

Draft: Eva Grant (Photographer)

I've added some more references and made some minor tweaks. I would like to point out these are not just passing mentions. Several are feature articles about Eva Grant, such as "All About Eva" in Amateur Photographer, "The Creative Camera of Eva Grant" in Glamor Photos and "In the Flesh" in the British Journal of Photography. Figure magazine dedicated a whole issue to her, in which she was called "the world's foremost female figure photographer". And the British photography press described her as "one of the most expert and experienced woman glamour photographers in the business." That should cover the requirement to show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) so it won't be declined. Feel free to make more suggestions on how to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aronnax1 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:58:17, 22 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by MediaExpert1979


Hi Theroadislong! Thank you for reviewing this for me. I was just in the tearoom asking for help for this page. Was your issue just that you personally didn't think my subject was notable? That may mean I didn't do a good enough job with the page and I need to work on writing entries then, as the person I selected is an important business person, owner of the only American soccer leagues, and commissioned the largest artwork in the Caribbean to date. Do you have any suggestions on what I can do next time when writing these entries? He also had 8 non-related national/international media sources. I have submitted two other entries and I am worried I made similar mistakes with these. I would love your advice! Thank you!MediaExpert1979 (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


MediaExpert1979 (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got a question

Hey you might remember me from yesterday, you took down my draft because it had copyright infringement from my own page, the thing is that I am an upcoming artists and I'm taking ym career seriously, and obicously I want to make a Wikipedia page because it gives great credibility to someone's story, the thing is if I write the article about me, how am I supposed to cite refrences if everyhting I'll be writing is getting brought from my head. Can I still have an accepted article withouth putting references? If not, could you help me on tips to make an article about me and getting it accepted? Thanks for your attention — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsfrizzy (talk • contribs) 19:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Itsfrizzy You have misunderstood how Wikipedia works I'm afraid. We are not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The term is "up-and-coming", not "upcoming." There's an entire essay here: WP:UPANDCOMINGNEXTBIGTHING. It's about the fact that we don't write articles about topics which might be big or ought to be noticed or are on the verge of fame. By definition, we write about topics that are already notable, which have already achieved fame or notoriety. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Wikipedia:The more reason you have to want an article on yourself the less reason we have to give you one. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the article on Le Musee francais ...

I have cited a book on the subject (by Weissert), a book where the subject is delt with extensively (Sgarbi), an article in the official journal of the print dept. of the national library of France and an article in a distinguished Art History jounral (both by McKee), as well as library cataloging that is extremely detailed and extensive, two Wkipedia.fr articles, and 2 bibliographic descriptions. What further information would be useful? The qualitative conclusions are from the period of the publication, not our own, because reproductive engraving has not been highly regarded since the nineteenth century. Does the article need further elaboration of the enthusiasm of its reception? This can be found in McKee's 1981 thesis. The objective of the article is to provide a base in Wikipedia for the presentation of a tabulation of all of the 504 engravings in the publication, which has never been done, previously, and which would be a genuine contribution to scholarship and to general information, if available on the Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George-Amherst (talk • contribs) 22:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

re Draft:Le Musée royal I suggest you address the four citation requests and then re-submit. Theroadislong (talk) 09:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SHOXRUX HAMDAMOV WHY STILL IT IS A DRAFT?

Hello there, i have added his you tube channel, what can i do now? please help me to publish my first article.? What i have to add? or write? please let me know... when i can get to know that my article has been accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GJAHANA (talk • contribs) 20:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have not submitted it for review? But please not that IMDb, YouTube and Instagram are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frieze Art Fair

Hello! Why is it unjustified promotion to add the dates, number of exhibitors and price charged for the last art fairs to this article? I am not promoting anything, just updating the page, and sourced the information from the art newspaper, which I believe to be a reliable source. Please reply on the article talk page if you prefer. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 22:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that I find your description of my sourced, factual update of the article as "Entirely inappropriate promotion" offensive as well as incomprehensible. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 23:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)Because that kind of information, especially prices for booths, is inappropriate and not encyclopedic content. Where is the content from art magazines, from critics? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Orangemike why are prices for booths inappropriate and not encyclopedic content? Price information has been in the article for years, and many encyclopedia entries mention prices. In any case he removed all the information I added.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 23:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(The art newspaper is an art magazine). Please add more information - it is the removal I object to. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 23:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the whole "facts" section should be removed not added to, it is list cruft, trivia and is entirely inappropriate with it's content "Space hire was £180 per meter." etc etc.
I would be most grateful if you would either apologise for describing my edit as "entirely inappropriate promotion", or explain why you did so, as you have now given different reasons. The reasons you have given are very vague, and seem to me to fall into the category "I don't like it". I would also be grateful if you would actually explain why you think it wrong for the article to list the fairs, and why you think the space hire cost, sourced to a reliable source, entirely inappropriate. Are you planning to improve the article yourself?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 12:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See the comments by another user on the article's talk page "it seems to need to be fundamentally rewritten to make it encyclopaedic." I agree feel free to discuss there. Theroadislong (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Theroadislong I don't want to ask for an apology there, and you don't seem to be engaging in the discussion. I know that the article is bad, I improved it, but you reverted my edit and have effectively blocked me from editing it. I repeat that I would like you to either provide a justification for calling my edit ""entirely inappropriate promotion" or apologise, rather than ignore me. You accused me of edit warring, but you are supposed to discuss your edits when requested.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 13:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Content you added included "Stands in the principal area cost £524 per sq. m, while Focus cost between £241-£338 per sq. m. There was also a Frieze Masters Art Fair for more slow moving historical art which had 132 galleries at a cost of £631 per sq M" this appeared to me to be rather promotional and un-required trivial detail. Theroadislong (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Theroadislong I do not understand how you could misunderstand adding the cost for last years show as promoting anything. I also do not understand why you consider the cost of the fair a trivial detail, something I would like you to explain - perhaps by explaining what information about the fairs you consider important. You also removed the entries I added for last years shows - would you agree that they can be added to the article?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 14:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do what ever you like, I will remove Frieze Art Fair from my watch list it is in dire need of hacking back but I am not willing to deal with your bludgeoning attitude.Theroadislong (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a shame.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 14:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what else is required to publish on behalf of our artist

Hi, we are not simply using this as a promotional tool. We are looking to use wikipedia as in information resource to provide further information on one of my clients, Gabriel Reyes-Whittaker, who is also mentioned elsewhere on wikipedia (for example, in the article for Kelela for his production work for her). This artist is signed to a large indie label (Stones Throw Records), who, of course, has a wikipedia page as well. What other criteria is required? I see pages for artists who do not meet either of those criteria with pages here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puserisrivate (talk • contribs) 19:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using Wikipedia as a promotional tool is exactly what you are doing! Firstly read WP:COI and also other poor quality articles exist and then your first article Theroadislong (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"We're looking to provide further information" is a line/paraphrase I've heard constantly when editors defend their promotional writing, and it is a distinction without a difference/argument by bizarre definition. It's not so much an argument as it is conceding that you're using Wikipedia for promotional purposes - after all, isn't providing further information about a (presumably) unknown entity a core part of the definition of promotion? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Calling me a "miserable arsehole" [1] for pointing out Wikipedia's guidelines on notability won't help at all! Theroadislong (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Surely it helped! I'm assuming it helped them get briskly escorted off Wikipedia.[2] Bishonen | tålk 23:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
True! Theroadislong (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It also tricked the spammer into admitting at the Help Desk that for all the talk of "one of my clients", this account actually belonged to the so-called client himself. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My wikipedia page is not advertising it is a requirement from twitter for me to have a wikipedia page so I can get my account verified

My wikipedia page is not advertising it is a requirement from twitter for me to have a wikipedia page so I can get my account verified So what do I do to get verified? It doesnt even come across as promotional all I did is outlined what the site does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tber617777 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we have no interest in your "requirement", outlining what your company does IS advertising. Wikipedia is NOT for merely providing information. A Wikipedia article about an organisation must summarise what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organisation. Wikipedia has no interest in what you want to say about it, only in what others unaffiliated with the business choose to say about it . Theroadislong (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We also detest that Twitter uses a website that explicitly disclaims the validity of its content as a means of verification. (It's more intended for people whose career largely predates the Internet, not for Johnny-Come-Latelys.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 10:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Jéské Couriano, you're assuming that the claim about "a requirement from twitter" is true. Can we make that assumption, really? I'd want evidence for it first. Bishonen | tålk 10:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
It is just one of the accepted ways to verify a Twitter account see here [3]. Theroadislong (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's as Theroadislong says. We get requests to approve junk articles in -en-help all the time because they want to be verified on Twitter or Facebook (which has a similar setup IIRC, but I can't find a page to confirm atm), and they tend to get mad at us when we both excoriate Twitter and blast their article as junk. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 10:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:K Sudarsanan

K Sudarsanan — Preceding unsigned comment added by KSudarsanantvm (talk • contribs) 15:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KSudarsanantv Do you have a question? Theroadislong (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

help to fix book page

Hello. thank you for quick feedback. Can you tell me how to fix the advertising problem? any guidance would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glassesgalore123 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnova draft

Hello, I would like to know now how my edits give an impression of paid editing when I am editing the page I created myself with the research I have done. I have spent months researching on this company and the work it does, how does it reflect paid editing? The company is worthy of being on Wikipedia, please let me know how can I improve the page and my account as there's no paid work being done here.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illsavetheworld (talk • contribs) 05:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have removed the undisclosed paid editing tag. All good wishes. Theroadislong (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illsavetheworld (talk • contribs) 17:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Center for American Ideas Page

Hello,

Can you please provide more information on why this was denied. I updated it as well to not include the "our". I have no affiliation to the org. Was justing doing research and came across the website and looked for more info on google and realized there was no wikipedia page so i decided to create one.

Please review it and accept or let me know explicitly what needs to be changed.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpencerJameson (talk • contribs) 17:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is NOT for merely providing information. A Wikipedia article about an organisation must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organisation. Theroadislong (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Also, it's a copyright violation, from [4]. Copypasting an organizations self-description and then merely removing the "our" is a pretty bad way to "create" an "article", though I admit it's labor-saving. I've deleted it as advertising + copyvio. Bishonen | tålk 20:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpencerJameson. Doug Weller talk 09:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Yun Tu Hai Pyar Bohut

Hello, Theroadislong. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Yun Tu Hai Pyar Bohut".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 19:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

poor mans poison page

Hey! About a hour ago you declined my poor mans poison page. I have added many citations, such as for them getting presented with a $100,000 prize by recording artist jewel. I could probably add a bit more, which i can easily do. But i was wondering how much would be a good amount to prove their notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintercake93 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the criteria at WP:NBAND yet? Theroadislong (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Eva Grant (Photographer)

Dear Theroadislong In relation to your comment "needs independent sources" – Can you please clarify? How are the following sources not independent? Or for that matter not reliable or secondary. Thanks

British Journal of Photography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Journal_of_Photography Amateur Photographer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_Photographer Fawcett Publications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawcett_Publications Whitestone Books Dr. Annebella Pollen - University of Brighton Reader in the History of Art and Design. Previously she has been Director of the Centre for Design History, Academic Programme Leader in History of Art and Design, AHRC Research Fellow, and the Director of Historical and Critical Studies. She holds a PhD from University of the Arts London.

They are primary sources in that her work appears in them, we need independent sources that discuss her work not proof that it exists. Theroadislong (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GOPAC

Hello, I am sorry for not commenting the first time i made an edit. I didn't know i needed to. I will moving forward use comments. Please try not to be so harsh when responding, as i am just trying to learn and rely on you for feedback and guidance along with wikipedia resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebeccafire (talk • contribs) 20:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CU blocked. Doug Weller talk 07:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected my article

Hello, you have flat out rejected my article, claiming lack of verifiable sources. When you search the keyphrase PHP frameworks in google, google itself uses the Wikipedia list of PHP frameworks as the definitive list of PHP frameworks. For this reason, if we can't record it's information in Wikipedia, no one will learn about it, everyone will continue to learn about outdated (and in most cases abandoned) PHP frameworks which have wikipedia pages, all of which were probably added in the good old days before people such as yourself got to act like gatekeepers about what gets on and off Wikipedia. I could point to a fair few amount of articles which I believe hold no historical relevance and are actually dangerous to humanity, but this is a PHP framework, it is related to computing languages, and is an open source free alternative which strives to open the doors of web development to the MASSES and not the CLASSES, all of the current PHP frameworks only claim to relevance on Wikipedia appears to be that they host paid conferences and charge people money to learn about them. This is exactly why Trongate was created, to give the world and poorer countries a credible alternative to this, so they can put "Trongate developer" on their CV, and take these skills into the workplace and earn a living. What you are doing by closing the doors to Trongate before it even get's a chance to knock on the door is saying to poor people in developing countries that their opinion doesn't matter, their ability to better themself and compete in an open market is denied, and it's only money that talks in this world.

Please immediately revoke this decision, and do the correct thing by approving this article and allowing people to learn of real free open source resources that can be a building block to a better world for those currently denied this option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsmith09871 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't reject your draft Draft:Trongate I declined it, because it doesn't have enough reliable sources yet, you are free to add more sources to verify the content and re-submit. Theroadislong (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does this article have that mine didn't? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yii — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsmith09871 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See other poor quality articles exist it is not an excuse to create more. I have tagged it for notability Theroadislong (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

press release

I didn't realize I posted a press release. I have removed it. Thanks, Liza Zimmerman (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enjetic page

Hi, I just wanted to see what would be needed to fix the article. Enjetic is definitely deserving of a wikipedia page and is a notable artist and performer with significant media coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peaceonearth2022 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to show how Draft:Danny "Enjetic" Rivera passes the criteria at WP:NSINGER.

Ron Weighell article

Hi,

Many thanks for creating the article. It's a very good piece of news for me, particularly as I've had a positive Covid test today.

Regards,

Nick Goodall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Goodall (talk • contribs) 17:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agghhh no! Hope you only get mild symptoms. You created the article by the way, I just accepted it. All good wishes. Theroadislong (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page Submission for Approval: Oxmose

Dear Theroadislong,

Thank you for your guidance with the review of the page:

Submission declined on 31 January 2022 by Theroadislong (talk). "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 (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

Additional comment: "discogs is not a reliable independent source."

We used Discogs or MusicBrainz for some references as it seems it is used by many record labels on Wikipedia. Should we replace this reference by: - National Library (BNF), France - Worldcat - MusicBrainz

Do you have any other suggestion(s) to finally get the page approved?

Many thanks Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei.pulvamart (talk • contribs) 15:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really need any evidence of recordings, we need sources that discuss them. Theroadislong (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help Theroadislong, will add some sources that discuss the recordings and re-submit for approval. Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei.pulvamart (talk • contribs) 15:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Theroadislong, I hope you are doing well and safe. Just to let you know that I have worked on the edits you suggested so we can approve the draft. I have removed the "discogs" not being a reliable source and replaced them as suggested by various sources that discuss about the recordings. Including press articles in several (online and paper) in several languages. The subject (independent record label) is now fitting the standards for this type of page, "independent record labels" present on Wikipedia. Thank you for your review and guidelines. Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei.pulvamart (talk • contribs) 17:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February with Women in Red

Women in Red Feb 2022, Vol 8, Issue 2, Nos 214, 217, 220, 221, 222


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Draft of 3Bubble & J. Gray

Re Draft:3Bubble_&_J._Gray: Allmusic is considered a reliable source. Please check WP:ALBUM/SOURCE. I am making some improvements to the above draft and will resubmit for another consideration. Mariaarriega (talk) 04:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about Le Musee francais

Thanks for authorizing and set up this article; I don't understand the modification of the opening sentence: "Le Musée français of Pierre Laurent or Le Musée français, Le Musée Napoléon and Le Musée royal are three successive titles for a publication of six volumes, collectively containing 504 large-format, reproductive engravings with commentary texts and prefatory discourses in letterpress" but hesitate to modify it, supposing that there may be some reason for the repetition of the title of article here that I don't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George-Amherst (talk • contribs) 23:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should it just read "Le Musée français of Pierre Laurent a publication of six volumes, collectively etc" what do you suggest? The article title has to be mentioned in the first line. Theroadislong (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, let me give it a try. Btw, where would I have found notification of your reply to my question? I posted a new question on this subject below.George-Amherst (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for Reviewing Kedar Parulekar's page

Kedar is a Versatile Personality. He has performed shows all over India and as well internationally in countries like Dubai, etc. Could you please tell me what more should I do to make it better? Pradnyeshparulekar (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might begin by disclosing any conflict of interest you have, I notice you have uploaded dozens of photographs of him. Theroadislong (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for guiding me I have no commercial interest in this. I will also reduce the photographs and Resubmit it. 

Pradnyeshparulekar (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have made all the changes you said, can you please review it again and guide me ?

Musee francais

Thank you for your attention to my article on this subject. A question: what does this mean, "This article needs additional or more specific categories. Please help out by adding categories to it so that it can be listed with similar articles." What are categories? I intend to add more sections with headings. George-Amherst (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added three for you Category:Engravings, Category:19th-century publications and Category:19th-century engravings can you suggest any more? Theroadislong (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the title you've made is not adequate. Le Musee francais alone does not imply what was published under the successive titles as clearly as Le Musee of Pierre Laurent. Also, it is a generic, institutionalized phrase that will confuse the reader. Le Musee francais of Pierre Laurent correctly designates a publication which he conceived and undertook. Perhaps the best title for the article would be all three of the titles of his publication, together, but this has already been ruled out by another editor. Please consider changing the title back to the earlier version, Le Musee Francais of Pierre Laurent. Thanks George-Amherst (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George-Amherst I did not change this, check the article history. Theroadislong (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the place to discuss your proposals is here Talk:Le Musée français. Theroadislong (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inquiring on how to write about my business without it being an ad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmpenni (talk • contribs) 22:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

[5][6]. This is not the first time, this person blatantly reverts edits without any explanation on several articles. Just go through edits, likely paid editing too, all edits on either a company or selected channel, mostly under Zee.--2409:4073:2195:FCC6:BC1F:69D1:BF2:F480 (talk) 08:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing?

Care to argument rather than just undo all my edits? King Gillum (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:01:16, 4 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Hobobob


Hi Not entirely sure how this works but I notice you have refused entry to Wikipedia for Dave Lewis (Welsh writer). I understand the reputable sources etc. but he is pretty much off grid as far as the establishment are concerned. He doesn't engage with them, and as Wales is corrupt to its core as far as the literary scene is concerned then I doubt he will ever have any 'news' stories as 'evidence' of his suitability, although there are some in the page I created. He has created and runs the Welsh Poetry Competition (the biggest contest in Wales), Poetry Book Awards, soon to be similarly successful. He also setup and runs the A to Z Writers of Wales database. This guy deserves an MBE or something for all the hard work he does yet he doesn't even have a wikipedia page? Crazy. Anyway, I shall try to find some more BBC / Wales Online links to Dave's work, if that will make it easier for you.

Hwyl Rob :)Hobobob (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In order for an article’s subject to be considered notable by the Wikipedia community, we require that it receive significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject this is what you base an article on. I hope you can find more sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you have added many more sources since it was declined almost two years ago, you should re-submit, but be sure to address any possible conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Electreon Wireless draft page

Hi, this draft article has undergone numerous third party reviews to ensure neutrality of language. I am not sure which text in the article is "too promotional." Can you please provide specific examples for improvement because the current make up has been confirmed through numerous editors to confirm to neutrality of language. Furthermore, it's important that articles are reviewed against the same standard. I've added to competitor companies whose pages have been published with far more promotional text (see article WiTricity). The draft text for Electreon Wireless has undergone several third party reviews to remove non neutral language already. Please provide examples as to how the current make up of the draft text is promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobariel91 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See other poor quality articles exist I have removed primary sourced puffery from WiTricity. Here [7] you say "We ask that you reconsider the rejection and re-review the text" which suggests you are sharing your user account, user accounts are strictly single person use. You have re-submitted the draft twice with no changes I will leave it for another reviewer to take a look. Theroadislong (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not much more to say other that what was stated above as well as the reply on my talk page. Can you specify the "numerous editors" who have "confirmed" per your comment?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, a lot to unpack here. Hopefully I can provide some clarification to your claims:

The competitor page is promotional, yes - I used it as an example of what *not* to write. It was the baseline of text to understand as being not appropriate to Wikipedia. I am not sure why it was published or still live - I hope you can apply the same editing standards across all articles. It is important for Wikipedia's accuracy and verifiability.

I have already told you I have no relation with the company - you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. I do not have a COI, I have never worked with or been in contact with someone at the company. Again, you can believe whatever you want, but the facts are the facts.

I am an EV enthusiast who wants to make more information available to end users about EVSE charging and it is therefore my desire to get articles about charging station technology companies published - especially those on the forefront of new charging standards. By external third party reviewers, I asked friends who work for local newspapers who have written academic and editorial entry articles in their career. There was no pay, it was done pro-bono, because they too believe in the future of EV charging and want to make information about the matter more available to the public.

"We" is myself and my third party reviewers (friends who helped in removing promotional text and modifying the article text to be more neutral). The fact that you want to assume that "we" is a marketing group hired by Electreon - again, you are entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts. You are free to believe what you want, but I have told you the facts. There is no COI/contact/relation with the submitters/reviewers of this page and the company Electreon Wireless.

Again, you have failed to point out which sections of the text are promotional, and you have accused of me of inaccurate, baseless claims with false assumptions, as well as have written a false report about my account to Wikipedia's Administration. I will need to raise this unfortunately to Wikipedia's Administrations to reconsider your account's privileges and access. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobariel91 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Report has been made about your accounts here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobariel91 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Robb Page

Dear Theroadislong, can you kindly please let me know where you read that I was "working with Carole Robb"? I am merely trying to use my own original research online and in the library to create a page for this artist. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meister122 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I see on looking closer that another user tried to edit my draft and this is what concerned you. I can assure you that I have no idea who Arthistorygirl202 is/was. They don't seem to be active anymore. I hope that my addition of citations will help remove any concerns about this entry. Many thanks! --Meister122 (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)meister122[reply]

About Kedar Parulekar's Page

4 days ago you had reviewed my page Kedar Parulekar. It was declined. I have made all the changes you said, can you please review it again and guide me ? Or till when will it be reviewed by anyone ? Pradnyeshparulekar (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ElectReon Wireless Draft Page

Hi, a lot to unpack here. Hopefully I can provide some clarification to your claims:

The competitor page is promotional, yes - I used it as an example of what *not* to write. It was the baseline of text to understand as being not appropriate to Wikipedia. I am not sure why it was published or still live - I hope you can apply the same editing standards across all articles. It is important for Wikipedia's accuracy and verifiability.

I have already told you I have no relation with the company - you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. I do not have a COI, I have never worked with or been in contact with someone at the company. Again, you can believe whatever you want, but the facts are the facts.

I am an EV enthusiast who wants to make more information available to end users about EVSE charging and it is therefore my desire to get articles about charging station technology companies published - especially those on the forefront of new charging standards. By external third party reviewers, I asked friends who work for local newspapers who have written academic and editorial entry articles in their career. There was no pay, it was done pro-bono, because they too believe in the future of EV charging and want to make information about the matter more available to the public.

"We" is myself and my third party reviewers (friends who helped in removing promotional text and modifying the article text to be more neutral). The fact that you want to assume that "we" is a marketing group hired by Electreon - again, you are entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts. You are free to believe what you want, but I have told you the facts. There is no COI/contact/relation with the submitters/reviewers of this page and the company Electreon Wireless.

Again, you have failed to point out which sections of the text are promotional, and you have accused of me of inaccurate, baseless claims with false assumptions, as well as have written a false report about my account to Wikipedia's Administration. I will need to raise this unfortunately to Wikipedia's Administrations to reconsider your account's privileges and access. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobariel91 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC) (Jacobariel91 (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]

You are a single purpose account, your only edits are to Draft:ElectReon Wireless you say bizarrely that you based your draft article on WiTricity “used it as an example of what *not* to write” .You say “"We" is myself and my third party reviewers (friends who helped in removing promotional text “ who are they? Please read Wikipedia:MEATPUPPET. It’s hard to assume good faith, so I will be leaving this to other reviewers. I certainly have NOT "written a false report about my account to Wikipedia's Administration." I assume you have just copied and pasted this rant from elsewhere? Theroadislong (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have contributed to the text of other pages like WiTricity by reviewing drafts written by the submitters of that page. The third party reviewers are journalists for the Marietta Daily Journal, Atlanta Journal Constitution, and have written explanatory articles for EVSE websites such as Green Car Reports and EVInsider. They have no relation to the company Electreon Wireless. I don't think they want me to share their personal details. I have told you numerous times my purpose of writing the article, the fact that there is no COI, but you have constantly falsely accused me otherwise. Report has been made about your account here (Jacobariel91 (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Batuhan Büke

Batuhan Büke's wikipedia page passes the criteria, please confirm, thank you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Batuhan_Büke 85.100.64.17 (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure how and Spotify and Applemusic are not reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft about chess player

Hello. I saw that my article was declined. The chess player has an article on Wikipedia in the Serbian language. I wanted to do an English translation, so for that reason I made an article about him on the English Wikipedia. And yes, I found another reference. --Ferencserb (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Blogspot is considered to be a reliable source I'm afraid. Theroadislong (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Agnar Kofoed-Hansen

Information icon Hello, Theroadislong. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Agnar Kofoed-Hansen, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are interview based sources dependent?

  • Are sources which are based on an interview dependent?

Resmise (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No sorry they are not. Theroadislong (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi,

I just wanted to thank you for the feedback on my Monochrome Astrophotography draft article. It is still a work in progress. I'll make sure to add sources and citations over time. Starlights99 (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback

Dear Theroadislong, Thank you for your feedback on Scott M. Gibson draft; I appreciate your help. Sincerely, Dgregory4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgregory4 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About Revaz Lordkipanidze

Dear colleague, please note that the topics of the article are extremely relevant and it has record publications and reviews. Wikipedia has a lot of articles about people with much less experience and qualifications. Please be more friendly. If you have suggestions, please make changes. So we can say bad things about any article. We wish You sincerely all the best. Antimonopolist Antimonopolist (talk) 06:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. to respected Theroadislong

Please read the new essential work with many sources: What can lead of misunderstanding about perfect competition for American and all Word markets in terms of the number of competitors. - Theses on Law, Economic Policy and Money: Professionalism and Law-obedience in Everything and for Strong INTERPOL on Foundations of American Lessons to the Best Life (Issue N79): 2022: 51: https://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.34762.85443 Antimonopolist (talk) 07:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry, but much like your draft Draft:Revaz Lordkipanidze, your comment above is unintelligible, are you translating from another language? Theroadislong (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:StruSoft

Hi, and thanks for the feedback.

Being a novice I have difficulties to understand what I'm doing wrong. I compare with the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tekla and cannot see my lack of skills writing. They do also use their own URLs as sources and I don't find that a reliable source - do you?

Please help me so I can find a solution.

Best regards, Anders

Being an academic writer in more than 40 years I really don't understand your "not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed" since noting is created by me. I use links to several other companies, to three reviewed articles and Wiki Pages. You must provide me with better arguments to reject, so I really can understand my lack of skill.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AndPet StruSoft (talk • contribs) 14:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the draft as it was deleted as blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopaedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and refer to reliable independent sources. Writing for Wikipedia is VERY different to academic writing, see WP:YFA for help. And "not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed" refers to sources connected to the subject NOT you. I see the deleting admin commented "Unambiguous advertising or promotion: just another "this is what we sell", no refs, nothing else about the company". Theroadislong (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smith & Dove Co.

Thanks so much for your fast feedback. Maybe this is two pages - one about Smith & Dove Co. and another about John Smith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millworks (talk • contribs) 16:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that could work. Theroadislong (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your feedback and help. Millworks (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Bacon page

You add the following comment: "Comment: Actually autobiographies ARE allowed on Wikipedia, but they are "strongly discouraged".

That's fine with me, but there are many autobiography in wikipedia and I think it is useful when it is linked with existing pages already in wikipedia. In this case "The MUSE project" Multi_Unit_Spectroscopic_Explorer or the scientific awards, eg Jackson-Gwilt_Medal. Of course I could ask one of my colleague to do that for me, but it is more factual if it is done by the interested party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RolandBacon (talk • contribs) 17:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC) RolandBacon (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theroadislong&oldid=1071261461"