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 Hamad olatunde (talk | contribs) at 12:04, 10 March 2017 (→Not sure of payment: 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 .


2016 SF Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon @ CCA

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

--Circa73 (talk)

Further improvements

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

Yo Ho Ho

Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

18:22:28, 25 December 2016 review of submission by Mathematician1


10:50:54, 6 February 2017 review of submission by 2405:204:D307:5A2D:F555:DF6E:68D:AE61


Decline reason - "content is already included in his article Mohanlal": Yes, it was meant to be removed after Mohanlal discography becomes a stand-alone list. Please consider a re-review.

Draft: Jad Bou Karam page

Please note the references were upated using more reliable sources. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.98.147.66 (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong please note the edits were performed as per your review. Would appreciate you reviewing it again 212.98.147.66 (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

criteria for speedy deletion in the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insomnia_(festival)

Thanks for reviewing the article. The article is regarding the Cultural festival of an educational Institution. Will request you to reconsider the article and remove that speedy deletion tag. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitsingh7878 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I updated the link to the source in question. It seems to be pointing to the correct location now. Also, is there any way for me to obtain a non-copyrighted photo of the person to add to my article? Thanks for the guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emm5909 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

If you go to the source document and click read full background, the last sentence says Dr. Milligan received his BA from Ohio Wesleyan University, his PhD in biochemistry from the University of Illinois. http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=2010644&privcapId=29002 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emm5909 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:51:32, 20 February 2017 review of submission by Starshine60


Hi, I am trying to understand why this didn't make it through - the sources were from reputable places - he is regularly on TV -- what can I do to improve?

He is the CEO of a non notable firm. You say that he regularly features on CNBC, Business News Network, and Bloomberg Radio but there are no sources for these claims. Being the nephew of Wendell Arthur Garrity Jr. has no bearing on his notability. Articles require significant indepth coverage of the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the topic" (see WP:42). Theroadislong (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Theroadislong,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 803 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources in a person's page

Hi. You attached that template to the "Shay Kutten" page. Looking at pages other living professors, the references used there are very similar (home pages, conferences home pages). Those are not marked with this template. Do you see a difference here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menegedme (talk • contribs) 16:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark M. Whelan FRSA

I request you consider reinstating this page. The aforementioned person is not only a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, endorsed by the British Ambassador, a fiver star author, followed by the Foreign Office and UKTI SF and NY and has a significant social media following (11.4 K on twitter), he is also listed as the significant contributor to the Conservatives Abroad group, therefore this person is a person of significant interest, not to mention the citations from the Guardian media group. Deleting this page, and yet championing pottery (a topic that interests you clearly), is not only clear decision bias, its a form of passive aggressive bullying. I request you reconsider please.

I am not an admin so cannot reinstate the page for you, it was deleted by User talk:RHaworth I suggest you use the WP:AFC process for article creation which is safer from deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the FRSA does not make someone notable, this should therefore be applied to everyone, as you assert that the FRSA is not a creditable institution, those that are awarded the fellowship , using your logic, the whole fellowship should be deleted from wikipedia along with mentions to the alumni Benjamin Franklin, Stephen Hawkings etc. If it applies to one person, it therefore should apply to everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vizulux (talk • contribs) 16:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented on your draft being a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts does not necessarily make him notable in Wikipedia terms on it's own, members can apply and a subscription is charged and when it's one of the only claims to notability it's bit thin. I didn't say it wasn't a creditable institution, I'm just not sure that being a member confers enough notability to warrant an article about somebody. Theroadislong (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

is this really unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company ???

is this really unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company ??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecysound_Systems This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... It contains only factual information and quotes of interest to researchers of the company, its history and productsLuminous Industries Australia (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. Kleuske (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Mexico page editing

I just found out the saddest thing. The lady who asked me to write that article has had an account since 2008. That is a travesty. We are seriously failing at communicating how to get help. She has even tried once to create an article. I'm just glad it was the government that foot the bill—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ADVFN additions

Hi there, Is there a way of mentioning this product that wouldn't be deemed as advertising? It's an advancement for retail investors enabling them to find out in real-time what's happening with their specific portfolio of stocks in a format previously unavailable.

Thanks in advance.

Fran Francescad (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Leopold Fowler

Hello Theroadislong

Can you please explain why the article Stanley Leopold Fowler is for deletion yet again. As I explained initially, most documents or links for this article date from 1970's and it is very difficult or impossible to have them on the internet purely due to the era. The remarkable Elizabethan Village stands as a testimony to Stanley Leopold Fowler, founder, builder and visionary, of the Elizabethan Village. There is a thread onwiki and there are photos of articles written in newspapers of the time, unfortunately they need permission which again is impossible to obtain as the writers are possibly deceased. There are tourist reviews that are referenced citing Leo Fowler as the founder of the Elizabethan Village. The picture of the plaque officially recognising the Elizabethan Village as a historic cite and cannot be included until the consent of the City of Armadale arrives. Is his notability in dispute? or photographs that belong to Sally-ANN Fowler who gave permission for them to be used?

Please enlighten with truth and honesty Thewayweis (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to establish notability by adding references that show there is widespread coverage of Stanley Leopold Fowler in reliable sources, if there are no sources then sadly we cannot have an article on Wikipedia. Yours sources such as they are seem to refer to rthe buldings and not him? Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which summarises what independent sources have published about subjects and has essentially no interest in what anybody or any organisation says or wants to say about themselves on Wikipedia we need reliable sources independent of the subject. Theroadislong (talk) 12:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Leopold Fowler

Could you please clarify what you meant by this....Fails WP:GNG a coatrack article for his replica property empire. Theroadislong (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

empire?

Thank you for the response in advance

Warm wishes

Thewayweis (talk) 12:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Theroadislong

I have just discovered that Fails WP:GNG is linked to Notability. Just to clarify the policy states: 

Any biography[edit source]

Shortcut: WP:ANYBIO The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.[8] The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication.

I hope the following information is useful to you for your discussion:

Stanley Leopold Fowler won the prestigious Sir David Brand Award for Tourism The Elizabethan Village was opened to the public in 1977 by Sir Charles Court It is recognized as a historic site in 2009 The original Blueprints are archived at the Shakepeare's Birthplace Trust in Stratford-upon-Avon The Shakespeare Function Center has been changed into Leo Fowler's Function Center to acknowledge and commemorate

As I have mentioned most of the articles are from the 70's as support and validation and they have been uploaded to wiki through a thread with Alessio Rutveno who is aware that most of the support has to have permission from the author's and unfortunately some might have deceased.

This article was proposed for deletion before and after communicating with other wiki contributors it was took off. It is sad that I have to go through this same process again possibly, as I understand it, of one individual.

If I am incorrect in this please accept my humble apologies but looking at it mathematically this seems to be the sum.

Sarah Warner gives a review citing the Elizabethan Village and Leo Fowler. Please enlighten.

Warm Wishes Thewayweis (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir David Brand award is not a notable award in Wikipedia terms, The Elizabethan Village may possibly be notable, I don't know, but the article is about Stanley Leopold Fowler not the village. The article was prodded before, but as there are no reliable sources I have taken it WP:afd where other editors will discuss whether it has a place in the encyclopedia or not. We need sources that show there is widespread coverage of him in reliable sources, newspaper or magazine articles would be fine, they don't have to be online but they do need to be verifiable. Theroadislong (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new page for Matteo Margaroli

Hi, I wonder if you could help me with the creation of the page "Matteo Margaroli" that has been declined.

thank you

marco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventique (talk • contribs) 14:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are not enough sources to confirm notabilty. You need to establish notability by adding references to independent sources that show there is widespread coverage of him in reliable sources. I can find no in-depth coverage of him anywhere.Theroadislong (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


thank you, I have found information on magazines but not much online. Shall I scan it and upload them? and if so, how many?

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventique (talk • contribs) 15:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to scan them just input the title of the magazine, publisher and date so that the info can be verified by others see WP:REFSTART for help with references. Theroadislong (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Leopold Fowler

I thank you for your response and the COI you have raised but there is no COI...I don't work for anyone linked to Stanley Leopold Fowler. I asked for permission from his daughter Sally-ann Fowler to write about this extraordinary man, her father, and his achievements that are remarkable and notable. I have seen the blueprints archived in Stratford-upon-Avon, yet there was nothing online to acknowledge his work that stands in Armadale, officially a historic site. What I am truly baffled with is that the article itself has been butchered without giving me time or guidance to rectify or defend the stance, leaving the article incomplete and incoherent, for example, leaving a heading "Anne Hathaway's Cottage" and removing the picture or anything about the cottage. Why bother doing that? It is like someone living in cornwall, writing about all things cornish ...is that a COI?

All the facts I mentioned are true and supported by newspaper articles from the 70's which was long before the internet! I have had this same situation from the onset and after discussion it was redeemed. Do I have to go through this every time someone decides to question Leo's notability or the sources or even disagrees with his existence ? Or is once enough? The strangest and disturbing thing is that the proposed for deletion note came on today 24.02.2017 stating it's for discussion, yet most of the article has been deleted even before discussion has taken place, unless the discussion and decision is only on for a couple of hours?

Through this process I have tried, and amended all the necessary suggestions from helpful people in wikipedia, although I am new to this. The life of Stanley Leopold Fowler was an inspiration for me to join wikipedia and hopefully, as a platform, bring this remarkable man to the world. Seeing all the research I have done deleted, butchered and left incoherent and incomplete is devastating! I relish and welcome positive and constructive guidance from wikipedia contributors , who have been editing for possibly years, but when your work is simply deleted without time to correct and learn, frankly isn't in line with community spirit especially when only a couple of hours have lapsed from the note appearing and article mainly deleted.

Thewayweis (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't require permission from people to write articles here, articles are only written using what the independent sources have published about subjects. My assumption of a conflict of interest was because you had uploaded photographs belonging to his daughter. If the facts are supported by newspapers then all we need are the titles, dates, page numbers and publisher details so that they can be verified. Theroadislong (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(eavesdropping) I think it needs to be underscored that a lot of the content that was removed was of the family scrapbook variety; not only unsourced, but inappropriate for this venue and grandiloquent in tone. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Leopold Fowler

Thank you again for your input but I have stated previously and will again that the sources are from articles written in 1970's therefore, again, long before the internet. There is a thread on wikipedia regarding this supported by images of the afore said articles. Obviously, no one after the era of the beginning of the internet has written about Leo Fowler. His daughter has provided a lot of evidence supported by images and documented footage. The fact that there is no weblink or published sources shouldn't diminish the fact that there is a true and accurate account of this man. Thewayweis (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know it may seem strange but Wikipedia is not concerned with facts, only with what reliable sources have reported about a subject. If there are no reliable sources then Wikipedia cannot have an article about him I'm afraid. You mentioned newspapers before though...these would be excellent references and all we need are the names, dates and publisher details to create a reference. Theroadislong (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I chuckled

I said, 'It wasn't him'- and you said, 'It was him'! Classic :) O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 15:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Adams Company article - Please help me to get this accepted - The Adams Company has been in business for over 100 years so there are lots of antique items that people are interested in plus we are an American manufacturer that supply many industries

Please help me to get my article to standard so it can be published. Thank you. TACDBQ (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a clear case for this as an independent article, but there is scope for a section at Adams-Farwell. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the thank you and I really have no clue how to send a smile soo hear it goes :))))) Thewayweis (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is criticism considered to be vandalism?

Many Wikipedia topics have a criticism section. Why is the topic of biological homology not allowed to have a criticism section?

You have stated that the article in the criticism section has information that is incorrect. Identify the incorrect information and state how and why you believe it is incorrect.

Completely deleting the criticism section of any topic is a violation of free speech and shows the fragility of the topic being criticized.

Thank you for keeping Wikipedia a platform where all voices can be heard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJamesHerath (talk • contribs) 20:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are using Wikipedia too promote your book which is questioning the scientific validity of evolution. Please stop. Theroadislong (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Rebel Draft Edits

I have been editing the Ricky Rebel draft and just received your feedback on the article. Thank you for pointing out what needs to be changed.

I saw your comment about sources that are not credible. Are there other sources in addition to youtube and IMDB that you would not consider credible? Any other feedback is greatly appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickLockwood9887 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other unreliable sources include Allmusic, Wikipedia, Discogs, press releases and blogs. Theroadislong (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:47:10, 27 February 2017 review of submission by Avh1234


Hi, would like to know what is wrong with my entry and what else I can do to get this accepted. Thanks much

It reads rather like a short CV at the moment, Wikipedia requires significant widespread coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Also if you are the subject you should read WP:COI Theroadislong (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Query on Draft James Acraman

Hi Theroadislong,

Many thanks for your comment- I just wanted to check my understanding of what you wrote. If I were to remove all the external links, won't that diminish the authority/verifiability of the article as each point raised has got a link to establish the proof of what has been written ? If I had the same article with nothing to back up the facts I would expect a moderator to write back saying "please provide external prove to your claims".

Secondly, your alternative suggestion was to change them to references (this is where my ignorance will show so advance apologies!) but as they appear under "References" I don't understand how you want this different ?

Many thanks RogerAcr (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You already have many correctly formatted references but you also have 4 external links in the body of the article for example here "In 2013 James qualified again as a member for Team GB traveling to Florida, USA for the World Championships where he won another Championship medal" The external link needs to be converted to a reference. You should also read WP:COI. Theroadislong (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for reviewing my article on Computer Services, Inc. I'm going to try the live chat for additional help. I love editing Wikipedia articles, but this is the first one I've tried to publish on my own, so I'm a bit new.

Thanks again for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldstein63 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent message re. Tewkesbury Museum

Hi,

My name Craig Fletcher (webtewkesburymuseum).

I'm a Trustee of the Tewkesbury Museum and its webmaster.

Regards,

Craig

Webtewkesburymuseum (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to put this on your user page to declare your conflict of interest you can request edits to the article on the article talk page, but you are not advised to edit the article yourself. Theroadislong (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Linda Lloyd Jones

I was not aware there was any copy righted content in my article on Linda Lloyd Jones, Head of Exhibitions and Loans at the Victoria and Albert Musuem. The content was written by me.

There is one quote, which was cited:

Art Fund director and chair of the judges, said: "The V&A experience is an unforgettable one. Its recent exhibitions, from Alexander McQueen to The Fabric of India, and the opening of its new Europe 1600–1815 galleries, were all exceptional accomplishments—at once entertaining and challenging, rooted in contemporary scholarship, and designed to reach and affect the lives of a large and diverse national audience. It was already one of the best-loved museums in the country: this year it has indisputably become one of the best museums in the world.

2015 saw a remarkable transformation for the V&A. It attracted nearly 3.9 million visitors to its sites, 14.5 million visitors online and 90,000 V&A members, the highest in the museum’s 164-year history. December 2015 saw the Europe 1600–1815 galleries opening to great acclaim. 2015 also heralded one of their most popular exhibition programs. Alexander McQueen: Savage Beauty became the V&A’s most visited exhibition, attracting a record breaking 493,043 visitors from 87 countries, while the India Festival of exhibitions engaged visitors in the rich and varied culture of South Asia."[2]

Why did you remove the second paragraph that contained the citation? It is critical to substantiate the value of the V&A Museum Exhibitions, which has been led by Linda Lloyd Jones for over 30 years.

Perhaps would it have been clearer if I stated it as follows:

Art Fund director and chair of the judges, said: "The V&A experience is an unforgettable one. Its recent exhibitions, from Alexander McQueen to The Fabric of India, and the opening of its new Europe 1600–1815 galleries, were all exceptional accomplishments—at once entertaining and challenging, rooted in contemporary scholarship, and designed to reach and affect the lives of a large and diverse national audience. It was already one of the best-loved museums in the country: this year it has indisputably become one of the best museums in the world. 2015 saw a remarkable transformation for the V&A. It attracted nearly 3.9 million visitors to its sites, 14.5 million visitors online and 90,000 V&A members, the highest in the museum’s 164-year history. December 2015 saw the Europe 1600–1815 galleries opening to great acclaim. 2015 also heralded one of their most popular exhibition programs. Alexander McQueen: Savage Beauty became the V&A’s most visited exhibition, attracting a record breaking 493,043 visitors from 87 countries, while the India Festival of exhibitions engaged visitors in the rich and varied culture of South Asia."[2]


Wednesday 0008 (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The content I removed was here [1] You added FAR more than a quote! Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Theroadislong (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia uses quotes VERY sparingly we don't copy huge chunks of text and then cite the source, we write the content in our own words. Theroadislong (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly do not understand. Citation 1 is simply a link to the Art Funds website section Meet the Director. Since Deutscher does not have a Wikipedia page, I thought it would be a good way to introduce him. The second paragraph of citation 2, his quote on the value of Exhibitions at the V& A seem to be what was deleted.

Wednesday 0008 (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The content that begins "2015 saw a remarkable transformation for the V&A." was copied and pasted from here [2] Theroadislong (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, and that is where my original citation 2 directed the reader. Wednesday 0008 (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the quote begins in the previous paragraph: "The V&A experience is an unforgettable one. Its recent exhibitions, from Alexander McQueen to The Fabric of India, and the opening of its new Europe 1600–1815 galleries, were all exceptional accomplishments—at once entertaining and challenging, rooted in contemporary scholarship, and designed to reach and affect the lives of a large and diverse national audience. It was already one of the best-loved museums in the country: this year it has indisputably become one of the best museums in the world.

2015 saw a remarkable transformation for the V&A. It attracted nearly 3.9 million visitors to its sites, 14.5 million visitors online and 90,000 V&A members, the highest in the museum’s 164-year history. December 2015 saw the Europe 1600–1815 galleries opening to great acclaim. 2015 also heralded one of their most popular exhibition programs. Alexander McQueen: Savage Beauty became the V&A’s most visited exhibition, attracting a record breaking 493,043 visitors from 87 countries, while the India Festival of exhibitions engaged visitors in the rich and varied culture of South Asia."[2]Wednesday 0008 (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you confirm that it it is all copied and pasted which is a copyright violation! Theroadislong (talk) 06:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling me that one can not provide a direct quote with a proper citation to its source in Wikipedia?Wednesday 0008 (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC) Not of that enormous length NO. It was not a direct quote of what a person said it was just a copy and paste of a part of an article. Have you read the copyright advice on your talk page? Theroadislong (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that the statement below is a direct quote?

Stephen Deuchar, Art Fund director and chair of the judges, said: ‘The V&A experience is an unforgettable one. Its recent exhibitions, from Alexander McQueen to The Fabric of India, and the opening of its new Europe 1600–1815 galleries, were all exceptional accomplishments – at once entertaining and challenging, rooted in contemporary scholarship, and designed to reach and affect the lives of a large and diverse national audience. It was already one of the best-loved museums in the country: this year it has indisputably become one of the best museums in the world.'

Wednesday 0008 (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC) I agree this is a direct quote, yes. Wikipedia doesn't work like that though, we summarise what the the reliable sources say in our own words. The draft article is also about Linda Lloyd Jones not the V&A. Theroadislong (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re proposed article on Tony Triggs by Pacific 231 (recently reviewed by you)

Dear Sir or Madam

I have amended my article on Tony D Triggs in the light of your advice.

Those items in the references that were authored by him I have taken out and a new independent item inserted.

Where Triggs's own publications are referred-to in the body of the article to illuminate his thought I have expanded the in-line referencing so that readers can check them if they wish.

Was this broadly the right response to your concerns?

231Pacific (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

from Ducati-2007

Thanks :)

Mario — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ducati-2007 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for my first Barnstar!

Thank you for awarding me my first Barnstar for the Jess Thom page! Very flattered and hope there's many more pages and barnstars to come!JTdisabilityartsonline (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford University

I just noticed that your last comment on the Stanford Talk page misspelled Stanford ("m" instead of "n"), and thought you might want to fix it. Contributor321 (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Paul Joseph Watson

I believe your assessment of Draft:Paul Joseph Watson was in error. There is plenty of coverage sourced from reliable sources, as well as in-depth coverage in many of those sources. Both of your points were completely invalid.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, please try not to bite new users at AfC. While I myself am not a new user, if I was I would be quite baffled and discouraged by your review. Simply being a stub is no reason to refuse an article during review and AfC is not a place where well-sourced stubs go to die. In the future, I suggest actually checking the sources before saying that the article is "poorly sourced, no in depth coverage." If you had actually read the article and looked through the sources, and especially at the changes that were made since previous reviews, you would not have arrived at this conclusion. So please, a little more diligence in the future.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  10:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the edits to draft: jad bou karam

Dear. Edits were made as per your comments. please review the draft. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.98.147.66 (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Offical wikipedia account

Hi I'm working at İstanbul Sabahattin Zaim University international office I would like to Update our wikipedia page but my previous account and my work has been deleted because of Copyrights. I wanted to know how we can make our university a wikipedia account and how to prove the photos that we publish is ours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.183.200.251 (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IPs at that AfD

One of them removed maintenance templates from two promotional articles. Doug Weller talk 20:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content

Hello Theroadislong, The article about Marek Napiorkowski relies on official information about artist and includes verified and public references. The bio doesn't contain promoting or inappropriate content, each indention has evidenced sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marta Sołtys (talk • contribs) 20:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has very little interest in what "official" sources say about a subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent, reliable sources say about a topic. You should not be editing the article as you have a clear conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:25:21, 7 March 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Lynn McGee



Lynn McGee (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for reviewing my submission on the contemporary American poet Gerry LaFemina. It has been rejected now three times. I am trying to understand why Mr. LaFemina doesn't meet the notability criteria. His sources are not connected to him, and he does not self-publish. His awards and honors are national in scope. His books of poetry and literary criticism have been published by respected university presses and well known literary presses. I also thought I had converted the external links to citations. Did I not? I apologize for my error and will review the definition of "citation." Also, I have reviewed the existing Wiki pages for a number of contemporary poets and time and again find that they are less published, that their awards and honors are much smaller, and so on. I know that the editors are extremely busy, but I am hoping for some guidance on this entry or perhaps a re-consideration of its rejection. Sincerely, Lynn McGee Lynn McGee (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you have provided confirm that he has indeed written things, but Wikipedia requires significant in depth coverage about him in reliable sources none of the sources as far as I can see discuss him at all, you need reviews or articles about him. Are the awards he has received notable? Do the awards have Wikipedia articles? You have a vast number of external links in the body of the article which need to be removed or converted to citations please see Wikipedia:Citing sources for help. Theroadislong (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Leitman Bailey

Thanks for your help there. If you've got any opinion on the underlying issue - that is, the propriety of including details of allegations from a lawsuit filed less than a week ago - I'd appreciate your adding it to the Talk page discussion. I think I'm right that these details should be left out (certainly, until the thing takes clearer form, and maybe receives more coverage) but I could be wrong, and I think the discussion would benefit from the views of another experienced, and non-SPA editor. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote your scientific "evidence"

I see you didn't agree with me changing "evidence" to "theory". I'm curious to hear about this so-called "evidence"...

Don't they call it the "Theory of Evolution"? That's what we're talking about here - evolution. It has never been considered "fact" no matter how hard you want it to be. So, please spare me your "evidence" objection!


64.85.176.216 (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The age of the earth is not a theory? It is a scientific fact deduced from the available evidence. Theroadislong (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COI removal logic

The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKFast page has remained unedited for months now - I can only assume that this is a reflection of the fact that there is no content on this page which should be removed.

I want to avoid an editing war and plainly conclude with you that ...

A. If the content is fair then we agree to remove the COI message or B. You remove the content which you consider still justifies the COI message

Logically I can't see an option C, can you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Hardaker (talk • contribs) 09:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Theroadislong (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bird Conservancy of the Rockies

Hello.

I am a little confused about the reason for rejecting the article about Bird Conservancy of the Rockies.

I have provided multiple external sources in the form of historical newspaper articles which document various aspects of our organization's work and history. We do not have relationships with those publications outside of the usual engagement one might expect between journalists/news media and news subjects.

The Conflict of Interest statement suggests that someone else -- not affiliated with our organization? -- needs to be creating the article and editing the content listed? How does that work?

Meanwhile, our organization changed names in 2015 and continues to be listed incorrectly as Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory in Wikipedia. My main goal in creating the new article was to provide a more accurate status of the organization, which is not currently reflected.

Thank you for you help!

Best,

William Bevil Communications Manager Bird Conservancy of the Rockies Phone: (970)482-1707 www.birdconservancy.org

Connect with us on Facebook and Twitter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcrcomms (talk • contribs) 21:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I rejected it there were no independent sources. You are creating an article about a subject that we already have an article on here Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory. If the organisation has indeed changed it's name them the article title can be changed. Theroadislong (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the article to Bird Conservancy of the Rockies. Theroadislong (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure of payment

Hello,if you are going to give me salary payment,tell me when to pay it.Thanks.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theroadislong&oldid=769579766"