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 Przybylop (talk | contribs) at 16:56, 4 September 2022 (→‎Draft: Noah Zuhdi: new section). 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 .


Your draft article, Draft:Berlin Brands Group

H

U.S. Civil Rights Trail

Thank you for your comments and interest in this unpublished Wikipedia page. Agreed, it's a long list, although not "gigantic" in my opinion compared to many others of equal or lesser importance. The fight for civil rights in the United States must be considered one of the most important in human history, should it not? Granted, The Crusades (List of later historians of the Crusades - Wikipedia) are fascinating, but were they more important or notable than the fight for racial equality in the 20th century? The goal here is to flesh out the landmark sites with minimum detail and credible citations, which I'm working on diligently. It is no less encyclopedic than countless other related published entries, many of which I'm finding numerous (often comical) errors, and correcting, as I proceed. I would hope that a venue such as Wikipedia would enthusiastically rally around such a worthy entry, rather than criticize and, in one case, borderline harass during the creation process. Thanks again for your comments. Danceswithedits (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fight for civil rights in the United States is indeed a very important topic but your topic is the "trail". You are duplicating and copying content that is already available on Wikipedia. You are being paid to edit whilst most of us labour thousands of hours here voluntarily. I have seen no harassment either? Theroadislong (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is false. I am absolutely NOT "duplicating" content for Wikipedia or elsewhere. If you're going to make that accusation, please point to specific instances of duplication and I will quickly revise. My edits and original content in the current unpublished draft are a complete reversal of the original draft which I did not create or participate in creating. It does not read like a travel brochure at this point, as it presents brief statements of pure historical fact. Again, I ask that you point to specific instance to show otherwise. The "Trail" is a live representation of the Civil Rights movement, hence the page contains the landmarks that comprise the trail. It is dead-on on topic. I am under no obligation to "dispel" that I'm paid for my services, as I have fulfilled my disclosure obligation. Regarding harassment, if you will kindly re-read my comment which states quite clearly "borderline harass" which in my opinion is now coming from you. I firmly stand behind my efforts and will enthusiastically defend this project regardless of your opinions. I've labored countless hours voluntarily, so please spare me the entitled sanctimony. The fact that I'm open about being paid for this worthy and lengthy project does not in any way diminish my work or contribution to Wikipedia. Thanks again.Danceswithedits (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The draft is a list of locations on the United States Civil Rights Trail we already have articles for them, that is duplication of content. Theroadislong (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, which is it: "edits are doing nothing to dispel the impression that you are being paid to write a travel guide or tourist brochure for the trail" or "at least 120 of these sources do not mention the trail." You have contradicted yourself quite clearly here. Regarding the locations, the heading specifically states "U.S. Civil Rights Trail Historical Landmarks" followed by a list of each landmark with original content. I will stand by this draft upon re-submission and not give into this sort of criticism and virtual bullying. Thanks again. Danceswithedits (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have not contradicted myself at all, you are quite clearly being paid to promote the trail, and your draft will likely fail, because the vast majority of your sources do not mention the trail at all. Theroadislong (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Belligerent? YOU attacked me. It's in plain black and white above, with a clear personal attack based on the fact that I choose to be a paid professional. And it appears that you're stalking me on other drafts as well. If you continue to bully and/or harass me, I will not hesitate to report this activity. It seems fairly clear from other comments that I am not the only Wikipedia editor with similar concerns. I suggest you simply move on to others who will submit to your entitled bullying. Best wishes. Danceswithedits (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the entry does NOT promote the trail and you did in fact contradict yourself. Your bias is crystal clear. Danceswithedits (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to report me, paid editing is allowed but that doesn't mean it is welcome. Theroadislong (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Webster First Federal Credit Union

You left a comment that the awards listed on my draft aren't notable. I can see why you may think the public voted "Best of Central Mass" award is not, but do you not consider Forbes or the Better Business Bureau to be notable? That is surprising to me. Is it the type of award that's not notable or the organization that gave the award? Talbot2222 (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that they do not have Wikipedia articles about them. Theroadislong (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've declined my submission Draft:PASHA Travel. Why do you think it's still only advertising?

You say "Just advertising still, do you have a conflict of interest by any chance?" and also flagged paid editing.

I don't have a conflict of interest. I used this travel agency lately when travelling to Azerbaijan and not paid by this organization. I wanted to create this article purely because of my own interest in the country and to practice wiki editing.

I feel I use independent websites as sources and not sure why it is deemed as advertising. I also list key data about the company and the true list of services they offer. Which part isn't sufficient in your opinion and what do I need to remove to make it work on Wikipedia? Vorosvictor (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. The list of services is not really required. Sources need to cover the topic in-depth not just listings or directories. Theroadislong (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See Draft talk:PASHA Travel for more details. Theroadislong (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Submission

Please mention the possible edit that I can do to publish my article Knowledgeleaders (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB Credits

Hello,


I am a new contributor trying to get the hang of this! I am learning that media personalities seem to be the unwelcomed 'grey area' of Wikipedia. However, I still want to contribute as I've spent one year writing 16 articles about Millennial and Gen Z well-known Personalities.


You left a comment in my article draft about Ashley M Lands, I had used IMDB to verify her in the cast list alongside Gigi Hadid, Bella Hadid, and others. Your comment said:

"Could you use a source other than IMDb?" -- here are some other sources I have found:


VIMEO -- I found an actual video of the fashion show

Dozens of articles like this: -- But AGAIN, IMDb actual lists the entire cast, including my subject. Would this not put me right back where I started of breaking the rule of "the site has to have the person's name in it"?


Please advise -- I hate to think I have wasted my time on all of these entrees. But It does not seem Wikipedia has a way to verify a younger Generation media personalities at this time. That is probably why they are not seen widely on this platform. And when they are, they have links to YT & IMDb.


Any last advice you might have would be greatly appreciated.


Best,

Charles

MTVsleuth (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot find suitable reliable sources that is a strong indication that we can't have an article about the topic, not all "celebrities" are notable. Theroadislong (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

King Tony Tools

The draft you wrote is OK, why you didn't submitted it??? Fuk U571 (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

advice on URL and referencing

Hello,

I am having real trouble understanding how to reference correctly and to provide a specific URL. I have been supplying a general URL as I do not know how to a create a specific one. I really dislike getting things wrong and I can't seem to find the advice on this. I would really appreciate your assistance. FactEternal (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Nafeesah Allen

Thank you for the feedback! I removed links to purchase books and removed your comment from the page. Leahfreemanhaskin (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the super helpful article you commented! Appreciate learning from you!!!!!

MagneticMomentMuon (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback as I am relatively new here. What’s the best practice to take the LOC out from a page? An12674 (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An12674 You will have to explain what a LOC is? Theroadislong (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Nafeesah Allen

Hello! My page for Nafeesah Allen Ph.D. was deleted and moved to Draft: Nafeesah Allen. Is there a reason as to why the Ph.D. was removed from the page title? Can you also provide additional feedback on your note that the page is not ready from Mainspace? Thank you! Leahfreemanhaskin (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leahfreemanhaskin Wikipedia doesn't use titles like this in article names. It was tagged for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising or promotion, so clearly wasn't ready for main space and will need to be submitted for review. There still commercial links being used as sources, they need to be removed. Theroadislong (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. The Request for deletion was declined. I will look into the links. Leahfreemanhaskin (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Max Frintrop

Thanks for the useful feedback, I now added further sources. Roman Maler (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Magical Bones

Thanks for your comments on my draft page - have to say I am a big fan of Wikipedia not thinking the Daily Mail is reliable :) Am still learning the ropes here so really appreciate your help. Thanks again KHLtd (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: rHEALTH

Thanks for your comments, is it this citation that you are finding unreliable: Twitter; Email; Facebook (2014-11-11). "XPrize names medical sensor challenge winners". San Diego Union-Tribune? This one got tagged as a Twitter, Email, Facebook but its from a local newspaper, the San Diego Union Tribune, thus a reputable source. I don't know why it got tagged as social, but any ideas on how to fix it? Any others that you find unreliable so I can fix them? Mandoo1234 (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding your comments

Dear theroadislong, I don't understand how you can only make discouraging comments. None of your comments give encouraging direction. They simply discourage citing a one-sided point of view it seems. For instance, putting aside your previous comments, the most recent comment simply states "Wikipedia articles are not written in first person perspective and your own website is not an independent source." It is my understanding that autobiographies will be accepted if it’s written clinically, without promotions and it cites independently verifiable references. All of which was accomplished in the draft submission you read. Now, what is it? Are autobiographies acceptable or not? If not, then why is there guidance given to write one from a clinical POV and without promotions? Why do you not now refer to the independent references in your critique? I have enough of them in this draft to get an understanding if they are linked properly. Why do you not explain how many more I need? Why do you not suggest how to solicit volunteer writers on Wikipedia to write up an autobiography into a biographY? Please, be encouraging with progressive ideas that would lead to a qualified article. Bob Bobpurvey1 (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but this User:Bobpurvey1/Sandbox could never became an acceptable Wikipedia article and is a perfect example of why creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged, please ask for more help at The Wikipedia:Teahouse. Theroadislong (talk)

Draft: Animation Research Network Scotland

Thanks for your comment, I will keep the information you provided in mind concerning future submissions. Gwilsen (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP message

Hi Theroadislong,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Cristina Jacob

Hi! My draft about 'Cristina Jacob - film director' was declined based on the reason that the subject is not qualified for a Wikipedia article. I used many reliable sources that are independent of the subject. On the other hand, Cristina Jacob is a well-known film director, with several box office records of her films, so the subject qualifies for Wikipedia. I would like this dispute to be solved and the article to be published, as it respects Wikipedia guidelines. I would appreciate a third opinion or review on my article. Thank you! Followyoursoul (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like your draft has been declined again "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". Theroadislong (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Larze

If you see any page about Daniel Larze dont even bother to review it, just G5 it (and send the user who sumitted it to SPI as well if you feel like it), as it will have been made by this blocked user:

Daniel Larze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Plus, it will save you the frustration of having to endlessly re-add the AfC templates to their draft. Cheerio!

Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 08:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Stefania de Kenessey

Thank you for the useful comment on my draft! I appreciate it. First time writing on Wiki, so I am trying to conquer the learning curve...


-TM Teresa Motherway (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need your suggestion please

Hi!

I am new on Wikipedia and I need some guidance.

I have come across a profile where it states that the subject “leads street photography workshops”.

Example - Matt Stuart (photographer)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Stuart_(photographer)

Is that not promotional? Isn't that similar to selling a product on Wikipedia?

Does leading photography workshops comes under notability?

Can you shed some light on this please?

Thanks, David 

David curator (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is sourced to a very reliable source so probably acceptable if it was sourced to their own website it would be a different matter. Theroadislong (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted that both the sources are very reliable. Thank you so much. David curator (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red in September 2022

Women in Red September 2022, Vol 8, Issue 9, Nos 214, 217, 240, 241


Online events:


Request for help:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Draft rejected

Hello !

I wrote on the "ask for advice" and made some modifications after the response, but was told that as it was rejected nothing can be done anymore ? So the article won't ever exist ? Philippe Martin Art (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Namburi Paripurna draft

Hi, can you please take a look at the Wikipage for Namburi Paripurna which you relegated to a "Draft" earlier? I worked with others to gather some independent references to add to the article. I guess it meets the Wiki requirements now (although I still think there is a blatant bias here, as there are 100s of articles with no content or hardly any references except news of death reported in newspapers, just continuing without deletion.). Asooryampasya (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but their own books and interviews are not reliable independent sources, and please don't accuse me of bias, that is a personal attack, there are indeed many other poor quality articles, see other stuff exists. Theroadislong (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7 out of 12 references right now are news articles and encyclopedia articles about the author. Of course, there is always a scope for improvement and more references, but isn't that continuous improvement the whole purpose of a Wikipedia article? If the first version should contain each and every reference available, what is the point of claiming Wikipedia needs more representation of women writers and stuff? Bias comment is not about you. It is about Wikipedia's well known bias against women, which is documented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia - this is a Wikipedia article. I took your feedback, asked around, and asked others too to edit the draft and improve it. I have nothing to gain or lose in this. I am not the author nor am I related to her. I am just another reader who thinks her work deserves a Wikipedia page. So, the only take home message for me is that Wikipedia is primarily for non-colored, male people. It will take a while before I can attempt to change or create any edit on Wikipedia again about Telugu people - male or female. Asooryampasya (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have not reviewed the article again, I merely commented that they would need to pass the criteria at WP:NWRITER and that their own books and interviews are not independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at the below list I have given. These 5 independent sources talk about her works and life.- Ravichandra (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am listing the independent references cited in the article.
  • Article from Andhrabhoomi, a reliable Telugu news paper published an article on her.
  • A book mentioned her contributions towards Dalit literature. It is not a passing mention, almost 1.5 pages of information is given.
  • Andhra Jyoti another notable Telugu news paper published independent article about her life and works
  • BBC Telugu published article includes her work
  • Hans India, Another Indian news paper talked about her writings.
May I know why these sources are not considered for notability of the subject? Ravichandra (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have accepted the draft. Theroadislong (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. - Ravichandra (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Linda Adler-Kassner

Hello, thank you for your review comments. I have made another attempt at removing / editing out the inappropriate promotional language in the "professional work" section. Any additional guidance or comments are greatly appreciated. Bcernst (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why Did You Leave A Bad Comment On My Draft?

Now This Is Serious. Draft:Zone Of Oceania Excludes Samoan Countries And Adds 2 Untalked Sections. This Article Is About The Location Of Oceania Itself And Not The Continent, As Well As About The Part Of Indonesia In The Guinea Island. SpyridisioAnnis (talk) 07:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a bad comment? Your draft is completely unsourced and it's not clear why the content can't be included in Oceania. Theroadislong (talk) 07:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Marta Romashina

Hello, @Theroadislong

I have read your comment on my draft and have made changes accordingly, added few other realiable references and changed the layout. Please let me know if you can add any other suggestions for this page. Thank you. Cheekystore (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Forge Theological Seminary

Regarding your comment, "not remotely clear why this is a notable topic? Theroadislong (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC):" The institution is just as notable as other established entries (e.g., The North American Reformed Seminary; Whitefield Theological Seminary; Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary), fitting within the list of Reformed seminaries in the United States (see template) and the List of Calvinist educational institutions in North America. According to the Notability Policy regarding organizations and companies, "notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." There are at least two sources cited in the draft article. IRGRand (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See other stuff exists and you have zero independent reliable sources I'm afraid and the three articles you mention are all tagged for poor referencing and lack of notability.Theroadislong (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I cited both a book and article that are both independent. My comment was not "This article exists, therefore this one should too." Rather, my reference to the other articles was regarding their notability and to the subjects inclusion in longstanding wiki lists. IRGRand (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In order to demonstrate notability, you need to provide multiple references to in-depth articles with significant content written about the seminary in unrelated, independent journals, magazines, books or online. Theroadislong (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The palpable inconsistency is tiring. Your claim that the draft reads like an advertisement is unfounded. IRGRand (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk for other opinions, there is absolutely no inconsistency, that other poor quality articles exist is irrelevant, they need fixing, we don't need to add even more. Theroadislong (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Danville Mass Transit

I must disagree with your decision to decline the article. I don't see how it could possibly be understood as an advertisement, considering the language used and the fact that this is about a public transit agency, not just some random company. The fact that hundreds of thousands of people rely on the service, yet there is no article about it is a problem. Additionally, there are 9 sources cited, 2 of which are from the agency's website regarding the timetables/routes and transit center. Timetables/routes cannot be found anywhere else so the claim that the article relies too much on that agency's website is frankly absurd. Znns (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Bebras Competition

Dear Teroadislong,

I improved the Draft:Bebras Competition and resubmitted it. Is there anything that still needs improvement or should this be sufficient to be published as per the current version?

Thank you

Editor1278 (talk) 11:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Noah Zuhdi

Hello, I see that you made an edit on my draft about Noah Zuhdi, but I cannot tell where the edit was. It has been about seven weeks since my review submission and then your subsequent edit a day later. I didn't know if you were the one to review it or not. I am just afraid of the status of my draft, especially since the last review went sideways with feedback about an article needing to be mainly about my subject when all articles were mainly about the subject and had his name in the article title/headline. If you can provide any advice on my draft or are able to review it, I'd appreciate it. Thank you for your time and consideration. Przybylop (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theroadislong&oldid=1108481788"