User talk:Theroadislong/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Tristan Stephenson

Hi theroadislong! I have been following that article and it's AfD for a while. I looked on to the sources you've added in the article but nowhere in the sources I could find the date of birth of the subject, however, in the article you have mentioned the date. Out of curiosity, where did you find that date? Could you please provide me here the source from where you found the date. Furthermore, I saw that the subject himself adding a keep !vote, strange isn't it? Cheers, Jim Carter 04:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC) Jim Carter 04:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The date came from his Facebook page, which isn't a good source I realise but it's not a controversial fact. Theroadislong (talk) 07:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Backwaters Press

Thanks for reminding me. Maybe I was a bit too strong here, but a blog from a major literary publication is not just any "blog," I would think. Literary pubs use blogs as extensions of their core publication. It doesn't seem like the same thing as if you or I published a "blog." But your point is well taken. Always glad to see your responses which are always instructive. Edward Dixon (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I am the person who changed some things in an article titled Thompson Brothers Boat Manufacturing Company. I have no clue what you are talking about when you say this article was moved or whatever. I am 70 years old and am a fairly good writer and have written for Wikipedia for a while on and off (and under various names as I forget my passwords and have to re-up) so I am NOT an idiot. I have contributed to several articles and initiated a few, although under this moniker probably only a couple (B.N. Morris Canoe Company is one example).Under a previous name (for which I lost my password) I did Thomas Parker Sanborn and ''The Harvard Monthly'' both of which turned out pretty good. I mention this so that you might know I am not 12 years old... but maybe a 12-year-old would understand what I have done wrong on the Thompson article. I don't text or tweet, if that helps you understand where I'm coming from. I don't tweet, but I wrote-- from scratch-- the Wikipedia article on ''The Harvard Monthly'' and imporved articles on several 19th century dead guys nobody cares about, much less a 12-year-old who can't read cursive.

Do I need to prove that the real name of the Thompson Brothers Boat Manufacturing Company is the Thompson Brothers Boat Manufacturing Company and not "Thompson Boat", because I changed the name of that article? Is that the problem? If so, is it enough proof to look at the catalog cover I uploaded onto that article, that says the name of the company is Thompson Brothers Boat Manufacturing Company? Where do I say that? I couldn't access "talk" for that page. My usual method, when trying to improve an article, is to say what my plans are in "talk", but it didn't work on that page. I couldn't get a cursor.

Let me know what citations you need and I will provide them. I wasn't adding anything new to that article-- other than images and in-line citations, and breaking up the profoundly boring block of writing that contained no paragraphs by putting in some headings. When I arrived at that page, it was one continuous huge paragraph without any breaks and no images. So I find it weird to be chastised for making it readable and perhaps more interesting. Squirrelwhisperer (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thought I Left a Message, but I don't see it...

Although I've only had the moniker I now use for a short while I AM NOT NEW TO WIKIPEDIA. Sorry to holler, but I am exhausted from having to re-explain myself after writing one long explanation after another. If I were not a 70 year old lady, I might be using bad language by now.

I made improvements to an article called Thompson Brothers Boat Manufacturing Company. MOST of my improvements involved (1) changing the title of the article to Thompson Brothers Boat Manufacturing Company BECAUSE THAT IS THE ACTUAL NAME OF THE COMPANY... it is and has never been "Thompson Boat" (as was the title prior to today). Is THIS what I need to provide citation for? Is is not enough to look at the catalog cover I placed on the article which says Thompson Brothers Boat Manufacturing Company and not "Thompson Boat"?

The other changes I made involved breaking up the article by adding some headings. The article was one long block of blah-blah with no paragraphs or images-- and it is my opinion that people shy away from horrific blocks of blah blah but might be invited in by attractive images and a page that, on the whole, is well-presented.

So WHAT do I need to cite?

Sorry if I appear crabby-- I'm not. Just tired. Don't know where the first version of this diatribe went. In the past when I've "improved" an existing article, I accessed "talk" and stated my plans there... but on this page, "talk" was disabled.

Examples of my past work (to perhaps prove I am not new to this and am not an idiot) include (but are not limited to) Thomas Parker Sanborn and The Harvard Monthly. I've also worked on or initiated the following: Lidian Jackson Emerson (a work in progress-- I will expand this eventually and hope others will fill in additional information on this very interesting lady, Secret Six, Victor Channing Sanborn, B.N. Morris Canoe Company, E.H. Gerrish Canoe Company, Chestnut Canoe Company, Horace Mann Jr., Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Wendell Phillips, William Ellery Channing (poet), John Hall Wheelock, George Rice Carpenter, David Lykken, Henry G. Lykken (I supplied the picture and will expand his story eventually), Courtland Hector Hoppin...

I will shut up now. Squirrelwhisperer (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Pertaining to my first edits

Ok so I'm new here and I see that you undid my first edits. You stated that the links weren't reliable but one of the links states this, (the second link) "U2’s influence crosses genre divides, with musicians ranging from Coldplay’s Chris Martin to hip-hop icon Kanye West citing the band’s grandiose musicality as inspiration for their own sound."

"Suffice it to say, U2 is unquestionably one of the most influential musical acts of all time. But one defining element that often eludes the public’s perception of the band is its deep sense of spirituality."

Sorry if it was a long read but those two quotes came from the article.

Hello.

I made changes in wikipedia on glintt page because the company has a new CEO and new numbers in revenue, employees and some other discriptions, why did you delete/ changed my changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mktglintt (talk • contribs) 13:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Joseph J. Bilotti

Dear Theroadislong,

I am writing in response to your "speedy deletion" in terms of the page for Joseph J. Biloti, the CEO of Rotelli Pizza and Pasta. We have as much sources needed for it to be on wikipedia, and we want to know the process of having it posted. Thanks again.

yarnel_rotellicorp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yarnel rotellicorp (talk • contribs) 23:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I am totally new to this so please forgive my confusion. My organization has undergone changes and I want the wikipedia page to reflect the new mission and identity. There is nothing incorrect in the citation, but it is different from earlier versions. Please advise.

Thank you

Communicationseditor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Communicationseditor (talk • contribs) 20:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Joseph smith

Whats the problem with the edit to Joseph smith?

Jjk (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You didn't provide a reference as I said in my edit summary. Theroadislong (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

None of the facts in the the opening paragraph have references. Are yyou going to delete them as well?

Jjk (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

But they are referenced in the body of the article, whereas your content doesn't appear in the body of the article...the lead only summarises what is in the article. Theroadislong (talk) 14: 18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll add sources/references. Jjk (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll also add the content to the body of the article. Jjk (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

material YeC narrative, should i add w/o the book links? please advise, TY, rmp

added was a material and new YeC narrative, should i add w/o the book links? please advise, TY, rmp  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmpcta (talk • contribs) 22:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not advisable to add your own books to articles, it is considered spamming, if they are notable someone else will add them. Theroadislong (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you for trying to help me develop the article Joshua Ferdinand I know it's not the best first go but thanks for explaining things to me. Pippathecat (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Updates to page

Hi, I have a copy of Spotlight (Spring 2014) with Joshua Ferdinand mentioned in, it's also available on amazon. I'm new to wikipedia and am hoping my first attempt at living bio's isn't going to die. Can you help me please? I was discussing this in the teahouse. Thanks. Pippathecat (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

He doesn't appear to meet the general notability guidelines. Theroadislong (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I've updated some of the credits and have been able to verify him here in Spotlight actors Publisher: Clearway Logistics Phase 2-3, ISBN-10: 1848413289, ISBN-13: 978-1848413283 (Available on Amazon), however I've had a real hard time finding info about him. His credits primarily now appear in film in oppose to paper. He also appears in articles in foreign languages. Would you kindly assist me in ensuring the article is okay most of the sources are secondary sources that I found after extensive research yesterday, if you look I originally had about 19 citations however some were inaccurate. It would be better to make it a low class stub until I can find out more. I believe you must login to view the alumni statuses becasuse it is showing here. I'll keep trying to make it better anyway, hope you can help Theroadislong. :) Pippathecat (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: Hi Theroadislong, I've seen him perform a couple of times & a movie I don't know if that's a conflict of interest, I'm part of the teahouse and it seemed like it would be ok. Anyway I've done the best I can with the page Joshua Ferdinand I don't seem to be able to find anymore info on him without going to the library. Thanks for your help, just hoping I don't loose a hard days research, All the best. Pippathecat (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi there,

This is Thewaysg.

I'm sorry. I really am new to this and this is the first time I've attempted to edit or add stuff onto Wikipedia. I made the mistake of assuming, if I were outta line or something, a moderator would fix stuff before going live with it. And yes, I hadn't read your first message when I did the second round of changes. Wasn't meant to be disruptive.

I shall read the manual or wherever the instructions and guidelines are.

Thewaysg (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry II: I need to fix the Napier Healthcare page because...

HI Theroadislong,

This is Thewaysg again.

Sorry, again.

And do you mind if I go in and edit the Napier Healthcare page again? I don't know who originally wrote all that. But a number of things have changed (including Key People, which now looks like it's been truncated..., and the fact that the company doesn't have a development center in Bangalore...).

I'll be extra careful with the wording this time and the hyperlinking.

Thewaysg (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Theroadislog

Notable old Framlinghamians

You have removed a number of Notable old Framlinghamians from the Framlingham College wiki page. Your reasons for doing so are that they have no wiki reference page of their own. Yet it is comonplace that many notable old pupils appearing on other school's pages do note have wiki pages. For instance Haileybury College where at least a half of their former notable former pupils do not have wiki pages. Can you explain this inconsistency please.

Perrytrev (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Please see other stuff exists and feel free to delete those with no article. Theroadislong (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I have trimmed that list also, it's fine to add red links if there is a reference to support it and you think they may be notable. Theroadislong (talk) 12: 47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Update

Thank you for your message. The contribution recently updated is factual. Please feel free to contact us for any reservations or concerns you may have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fusion For Energy (talk • contribs) 10:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Abbey Road on the River Page

Thank you for your reply, but I am in no way affiliated with Abbey Road on the River. I am in fact an unemployed housewife and mother of a child with a disability, just trying to keep my sanity by using my brain for something other than taking care of my house and kids. I started with the Abbey Road page because I have attended the festival and was talking about it to a friend. I went to grab the URL to send to my friend and noticed that the page is way out of date. I figured I would try my hand at editing the page, since I knew a little about it. Is that a conflict? PhoenixGregg (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Misuse of COI tag, i think

Hello, i see you have added a COI tag to the biography page about me. Frankly, i think you are misusing the COI tag. A conflict of Interest tag is not to be automatically applied simply because the subject of a biography edits a page of which he or she is the subject. A COI tag means that the subject of the page has actually displayed a conflict of interest or has committed a Conflict of Interest violation.

I should add, since you are not known to me and may be relatively new to Wikipedia, that i did not write this page. A comic boook fan started it and then some haters had their way with it and then some more fans got to it, and so forth and so on.

Now, if you would be so kind as to view the article's talk page, you will see that once in the past a COI tag was added to the page and it was removed when several impartial editors looked at what i had added and decided that i had not shown a conflict of interest or promoted myself, but had instead merely brought requested references to the page.

For the past several years I have let the page sit, but recently it has been bothering me as it was so amateurishly written. The chronology was incoherent, the peacock language was unbearable to me, and in some places it was inaccurate and displayed stumbling grammar and style.

So tonight i decided to fix it. I have been a Wikipedia editor for 9 1/2 years. I have been a professional book and magazine editor for 35 years. I think i am competent to edit the page without injecting anything untoward or self-promoting into it. I cut the length quite a bit, added all of the refs and citations that had been requested since 20011, annotated every move i made ... and now you are giving it a COI tag.

I think i will have to get a second opinion. I suppose you mean well, but you have just gummed the thing up with that COI tag. Why not collaborate instead of assuming bad faith? I am here, i am easily accessible, and i certainly have been working on behalf of Wikipedia for long enough that i should be considered an ally and not a meddler.

I note too that on your talk page (the message directly above this one) you accused a new editor of a COI abuse because she edited a page about a festival she had once attended. She objected and explained herself in the most humble terms, but you did not apologize. I felt sad for her, seeing how you had trashed her attempt to be of service. Please consider the feelings of those with whom you are working; there is no need for aggressive accusations.

Now, as i said, i doubt that i shall be able to collaborate with you, given your rush to judgement, but in the event that you are able to reframe your attitude to one of teamwork and cooperation, allow me to introduce myself in Wikipedian terms:

Information about me is available here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Catherineyronwode

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Catherineyronwode

I edit under my name only on semi-protected pages. I do this because i find it of interest to see how the average "non-notable" writer at Wikipedia is treated when editing.

I have taken part in creating and editing many pages, and i have worked on remedial forensic projects as well, particularly the Qworty project.

I have no sock puppets or meat puppets and i have always played fair and true by publically stating my IP addresses. I have lived in the same home and had the same personal and business phone number since 1987, but my IP address has been changed:

From 1998 to 2011 or so my IP was 64.142.90.33 (and i called myself "Ol' 64" at Wikipedia and elsewhere); you can search that log-in for a history of my contributions during that era.

When i got DSL, my IP was changed to 70.36.137.192; you can search that log-in for a history of my contributions via that connection.

When i got a dual-fusion broadband connection, my IP was changed to 75.101.104.17; you can search that log-in for a history of my most recent contributions.

If Wikipedia were to change its policy and henceforward admit identified users only (as i have advocated for ten years) i would gladly make all of my contributions under my own name. Until then, i sign my most of my edits and posts as ... cat yronwode (not logged in) 75.101.104.17 (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok happy to remove the tag. Theroadislong (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hope you consider my additions [1] to have been worthwhile. Theroadislong (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. You have done some great link-finding, both in terms of wiki-links and in locating external third party links. Excellent! I will also see about supplying further references for some of the other newly-cited data. I am going out of town today, so it may be a few days before i get back to this project(glacial slowness in wiki-tme); i will contact you when i do via the article's talk page rather than through our personal talk pages.

cat yronwode (not logged in 75.101.104.17 (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your help! I much appreciate it.

Regarding Weston College that is somewhere I attend as a student - I will find online evidence as soon as I can though :)

Officialjjones (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Zombie Bike Ride

I am new to the Wikipedia, but I am one of the organizers of Zombie Bike Ride (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_Bike_Ride). You commented on the links being changed. I wanted to address this. The second link for the photos is broken, so I changed the links to direct to the galleries that I house on my personal site. Is this something that need non watermarked images. Secondly the description text is wrong, and I tried to add and change what was wrong. If you can help me through this I would appreciate it.

Also you will be getting a message as well from Evan Haskell, one of the Founders of Zombie, as he wants to make sure that it is set up correctly as well, with true information. We were just informed this morning that there was a Wiki page. We had no idea, so we want to make sure that it is represented fairly and correct.

Could you please explain more on your message that you sent to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foto By Freas Photography (talk • contribs) 18:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding links to your own website is considered spamming here, and if you are one of the organisers than you have a conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Gwendolyn Galsworth page

Hello, Mr or Ms Road!

I was the original author of the Gwendolyn Galsworth page, and have just now (!) checked back on it. Way back in Oct 2013, you removed the list of articles I had put in the Biblio as not being noteworthy enough. Is there any room for discussion? The field of visuality is not yet on everyone's radar, so articles in well-received industry publications are a useful sign of acceptance and awareness.

What do you think?

In any event, thanks so much for your time and interest. Magyar62 (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Abbey Road page

I am really new at this and trying my best to learn. Couldn't you at least wait until I am finished before you start deleting stuff? You seem really angry with someone as evidenced by your use of "puffery", but I am not your enemy. Could you at least give me a chance? PhoenixGregg (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi I'm sorry I wasn't aware you were editing at the same time? ALL CONTENT including every single claim needs to be cited to reliable secondary sources. I certainly don't see anyone as an enemy! All good wishes Theroadislong (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Abbey Road page

I am only doing a little at a time. If I need to do it all at once, please let me know. I wont't be able to do anymore this afternoon or tomorrow, so at least Thursday before I make any more changes, additions, etc. I am sorry if I misjudged, but it felt almost "personal" and I could not figure out what I could possibly have done. I do appreciate any pointers and advice. I am getting my feet wet on this page so I can try others and I guess I just feel a little stoopid at the moment. PhoenixGregg (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

This might be of use Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources Theroadislong (talk) 20: 55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Abbey Road page

I was not in an editing war. I was actually adding the references to my writing and when I hit save, the entire content had been deleted by user Murry1976 and I could not save anything. I am trying so hard, but having someone delete my content while I am logged in and editing it is demoralizing. I am knocking off for the day. I could not figure out how to message Murry1976 because he does not have a talk page. Please let him know I am a novice and I am just doing my best here. :( PhoenixGregg (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted by User:Murry1975 (You can contact him here User talk:Murry1975) you then added it back again, you will need to discuss these changes on the talk page, but unless you can provide citations for the content then it is unlikely to be usable. Theroadislong (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Grace Gray

Hello Theroadislong. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Grace Gray, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: actor best known for a couple of roles is an assertion of importance - A7 doesn't apply, though BLPprod still does. Thank you. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Darius Kohan

I am wondering whether the contributing editor might need some encouragement. This was a prodigious work, though in a slightly incorrect direction. Would you join me in gentle encouragement and guidance? Fiddle Faddle 20:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I've made a small start, but LOTS to do!Theroadislong (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I see you have reverted my edits, I'll leave it for a while then. Theroadislong (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I just took the banners off. In general they are intended for the main namespace. I think consensus is that they add no value to a draft. I may be wrong, though. Fiddle Faddle 20:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I had actually converted a number of external links to references and copy edited it. I'll re-do it at some pointTheroadislong (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I am as certain as I can be that I never touched those? Did I have finger trouble? I would not have undone that consciously. Fiddle Faddle 23:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if the AFCH script has a weird and unpleasant edit overwrite wth your edits. That is all I can think of. The edit history doesn't really help me spot what took place. I'm sorry that it happened, whatever it was that happened. Can you rescue the work form the history somehow? Fiddle Faddle 23:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Once a Connected Contributor, Always a Connected Contributor?

Hello, Theroadislong. I am interested in your perspective on a question I have. I appreciate your edits on an article for which I wrote the majority, Rick Shutter. I see that on 2 November 2015 you added a "Connected Contributor" [unpaid] template, noting that I have not yet declared a connection. It is the use of the unpaid template and the statement that I have not yet declared a connection that I have questions about. After participating in various conversations about the development of this article on the COI Noticeboard (Archive 84), in the Teahouse (Archive 350), on my talk page, as well disclosing in edit summaries for the article itself, I feel I disclosed my previous paid connection accurately and completely per Wikipedia policies. (I can provide internal links to the policies that I followed, if you wish.) I have also disclosed that my professional connection with the subject ended as of 21 July 2015. (Please refer to my Talk Page as well as the article's edit summary dated 23 July 2015 for disclosures.) I believe that I have gone out of my way to be clear and transparent in my disclosure of this professional information. I have no personal connection with the subject of the article, other than the fact that he is an acquaintance whom I have never met. I have nothing to personally or professionally gain by making any further edits, other than improving the article and consequently improving Wikipedia. In your eyes, am I still a Connected Contributor? In your opinion, in the eyes of the Wikipedia community, am I still a Connected Contributor? To be labeled as a Connected Contributor for life doesn't make sense to me, particularly when the nature of the connection: was professional, was disclosed per Wikipedia's policies, has the characteristic of being severable, was severed, and was disclosed as having been severed. Thank you for your thoughts.Kekki1978 (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I have changed the template to say that you have declared your interest. It would be preferable to suggest any future changes to the article on the talk page rather than directly. Theroadislong (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Talkstalk says, that although there is no "expiration date" in the params, there is a free-form textfield which can contain detailed info like this. Suggest changing this:

{{Connected contributor|Kekki1978|Rick Shutter|here=yes|declared=yes|otherlinks=}}

To this:

{{Connected contributor|Kekki1978|Rick Shutter|here=yes|declared=yes|banned=no|otherlinks=Paid-editing relationship was disclosed mid-April 2015 in draftspace,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kekki1978/Draft:Rick_Shutter&diff=prev&oldid=656913924] then declared as ended mid-June 2015 following AfC-acceptance.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kekki1978&diff=673892315&oldid=672428135]}}

On the broader question, ping User:Kekki1978, of whether the connected-contrib template applies indefinitely... probably the answer is yes, at least for the first several years. After a decade? Almost certainly not. The reasoning here is not that Kekki is being paid anymore, but since they *were* once paid, and presumably intend to be paid for working on other articles, edits to the Rick Shutter article still have a business-related purpose, in terms of giving Kekki a reputation for maintaining articles she was once paid to draft. So yeah, probably suggestions on the talkpage are the preferable place, until 2020 or 2025 or something; there are diminishing returns, after all. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Locks Brasserie

I was quite surprised to see that you doubt the notability of Locks Brasserie. As far as I know, at least by common outcome, restaurants that once were awarded a Michelin star are supposed to be notable. Can you explain your view on that and the tag? The Banner talk 18:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that every one star restaurant was notable? The article is very poorly referenced to their own website and Twitter, perhaps better references would improve notability?Theroadislong (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The article was a bit undressed. Now working on improving the sources as the other guy has a harsh stand on it. {[smiley}} By the way: twitter is only used for the date of closure, not to prove notability. The Banner talk 18:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 12 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Draft:Darius Kohan, MD Draft page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

High quality medical image donation

Getting high quality medical images is VERY difficult. I would respectfully request that you WP:AGF slightly more. We are having a discussion regarding this issue here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Blausen Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I have done the same as you, I have removed the unnecessary external links? Theroadislong (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Great thanks. But here you have removed the image entirely [2]. You have thrown the baby out with the bath water. And I than have to go and restore the image. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Theroadislong (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries. We all make mistakes. Help with clean up appreciated :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Undone revisions

Hi, I'm making factual revisions to "Flood Geology" and my revisions are in no way "vandalism". I thought Wikipedia was open to factual revisions by ANYONE. I cant even make spelling corrections without being shut down! I then get accused of being in an edit war. So basically, I guess, revisions are allowed ONLY if they meet with senior editors approval...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.49.33.101 (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Your factual revision added the word "secular" to the scientific community this simply is't required. Theroadislong (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

GANT wikipedia

Hi,

Just got your e-mail that the edits I made earlier today have been removed. I just want to secure that the new logotype I uploaded will stay there? Because that is the most important thing since we no longer use the old one.

In general, how can we edit the text and facts on the site for GANT? Some of the information is incorrect at the moment but if I´ve understood it correctly, I cannot change it since I am an employee at GANT?

Best, Caroline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolinegant (talk • contribs) 12:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The best way is to make your suggestions on the article talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 12:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Abbey Road on the River page

I was wondering how many more references/citations you think might be needed in order to consider the page no longer in need of more for verification? Also, who should I contact to find that out? I have written to the Abbey Road on the River website to request permission to use some new photos and am waiting for that. Once I finish that, I'd like to wrap this one up and move on to another page. Any direction you might have for me in that regard would be very much appreciated. Thank you! PhoenixGregg (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the tag, it seems well referenced now to me. Theroadislong (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Middleton

From the way they were reverting you on a tag, I think this could get messy. Bgwhite (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent work on it, it would be good to see the blog refs trimmed too!

I don't know about "excellent". Yea, the blogs are the next step. Bgwhite (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for dropping me a message. How does the page stay up as the page is correct and the references are reputable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forwardmcr (talk • contribs) 18:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The article is written in a promotional tone and is not supported by reliable sources that discuss the subject in depth. Not all companies are notable enough to require articles. Theroadislong (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion instead of helping edit it to make it appropriate?

I'm not sure why you deleted my page instead of editing it to make it "fit wikipedia's guide lines" since apparently I was unable to. I sent you a message to edit it to where it was acceptable.

Reverted back to old langauge on Constant Contact

Hello,

Thanks for letting me know about your concerns with the second sentence in the Constant Contact page. I just reverted the language back to the original, approved language. Would it be possible to get the "contains content that is written like an advertisement" header removed?

Thanks.

Seventh Avenue Columbus Homes

Hi Theroadislong, I see my article was deleted. I had a feeling it was out of bounds. Can the help desk tell me what needs to be done if it can be shaped into compliance? Michael Earl Scott (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

You haven't written an article? You added unreferenced personal reminiscences to an existing article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Theroadislong (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

COI changes

Hello Theroadislong - and thank you very much for the welcome and the helpful information. I do have one quick question after reading the guidelines through as I can see my edits haven't yet been deleted; will both my edits and the COI banner remain until further notice (e.g. until engagement on the talk page following my COI declaration) or are the edits currently pending review? JamesCardiacRiskintheYoung (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Other editors might want to change or remove your content, paid editing is seriously discouraged here and your best option is to make suggestions on the articles talk page in future. Theroadislong (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

We spoke back in August regarding the "self promotion" tag we had for an article I wrote and a link to our website...our competitor keeps adding their self promoting website back into the "Staking (manufacturing)" topic?

We spoke back in August regarding the "self promotion" tag you determined I had for an article I wrote/published about heat staking design and a link to our website.

Our competitor keeps adding their website link to sell the same plastic assembly / heat staking equipment "self promoting" their website back into this topic.

Can we either add our link back or remove theirs, which was updated and added back again on Nov 4th 2015?

I did not want to undo the edit myself, but I would like to know if their is a policy on this type of behavior?

Regards,

LanceCraw (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Lance Crawford lancecraw@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanceCraw (talk • contribs) 23:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC) LanceCraw (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I have removed it. Theroadislong (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Grammy question

Hi, Theroadislong, Thanks for helping me with Steve Buckingham. As you may know, this is an entire re-write of an article full of copyvio. I have just now added a supporting reference for my statement that this person won four Grammys, but is a weak reference I'll admit. I am not sure how to verify whether someone actually won a Grammy, and in what category. Was it perhaps a nomination? Wiki has some templates "Category:Grammy Award templates" , but it is still shooting in the dark because there are so many categories. I did send an email to Grammy asking them to verify Steve Buckingham's awards. Your thoughts? Thanks Eagledj (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

As it's the only thing making him notable enough for an article it needs to be REALLY strongly referenced with a reliable source independent of the subject. Theroadislong (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

David M. Cote

Thanks for your edits to Cote's BLP. Do you have a minute to go over some proposed edits? I have paid COI and I think there's some other changes that could be made to improve the overall quality and neutrality.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry no, I edit for free and have no desire to help those who are being paid. Theroadislong (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate your candor.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to a research survey

Hello Theroadislong, I am Qi Wu, a computer science MS student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are working on a project studying the main article and sub article relationship in a purpose of better serving the Wikipedia article structure. It would be appreciated if you could take 4-5 minutes to finish the survey questions. Thanks in advance! We will not collect any of your personally information.

Thank you for your time to participate this survey. Your response is important for us!

https://umn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bvm2A1lvzYfJN9H

Here is the link to our Meta:Research page. Feel free to sign up if you want to know the results! https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Main/sub-article_relationship

Wuqi333444 (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Christopher Lee Powers autobiography

Hi Theroadislong

I am working on actor Christopher Lee Power s acting page . Christopher is a professional actor and author. he has been on BBC, TV in newspapers and magazines for years . I found links to his book everywhere. May I ask why the reference to his autobiography was removed. How do I reference his book then. Warm Thanks. Leepbreaking (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You need to find reliable third party sources NOT connected to him. The addition of his autobiography with links to buy it is just promotional spam. He doesn't appear to pass the WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Christopher Lee Powers autobiography Third party

Hi Theroadislong

Many thanks for helping and support. May I ask you to give me an example of third party source regarding Christophers autobiography so that I can get some references. Do you mean finding an article that mentions his book or a website etc. Do I add his book in under a heading as I found thats what a Katy Price page has done. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Price#Autobiographies Warm Thanks Theroadislong Leepbreaking (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You need to find a newspaper or magazine article that covers it in depth, simply writing an autobiography confers no notability at all unless it has been covered in depth by sources unconnected to him. Theroadislong (talk) 13:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Promotion re: Sandhills Publishing Company

Hi Theroadislong,

Thanks for your help. Regarding the websites added to the Sandhills Publishing Company article, can you explain the reasoning behind removal of what's considered promotional content? What is the correct way to add more information about a company? Thank you.

Joanna-clay (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Joanna

You need to find in depth coverage of the company in reliable sources entirely independent of them. Theroadislong (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Feargus Hetherington (Draft)

I am sorry for being so bothersome. It's the first time I've tackled something like this and I'm just drowning in all the guidelines and instructions. Perhaps I'm a bit dumb. Perhaps it's my age - mid seventies! Anyway, I am determined to get there. There are numerous excellent and well-known musicians in Scotland (Nicola Beneditti is not the only one but she's done extremely well on the world stage and contributes hugely in her native Scotland). But there are others. Being freelance doesn't help find the 'evidence' for notoriety but I'm delving.

I don't think I have clicked on 'view history' (sorry!) until now and therefore hadn't realised all the effort you were putting into this. I just wish to say 'thank you'.

I'll plod on but with Christmas approaching progress will be very slow. I first turned my attention to this two years ago and gave up. I don't wish to give up this time.

I've noticed many entries for musicians with very few citations. It must be possible to get there with someone who is considered to be one of Scotland's best free-lance classical violinists.

Thanks again Balquhidder2013 (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

You need to find some references from newspapers or magazines for example that discuss him in depth, currently the article is VERY poorly referenced, each statement you make needs to be verified by a supporting source. Theroadislong (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. I would be grateful if you would let me know how I'm doing. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thanks for editing :) Minacriss1 (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Removed reference.

Hi, thanks for editing the page, may I know what was wrong with that reference? You deleted it under "inappropriate" tag. Thanks! Merry Christmas!Minacriss1 (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikis are not considered reliable as sources since they can be edited by anyone. Theroadislong (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong?

Hi why don't you ask for another admin's opinion before reverting? I used Wikipedia's links (NEWS) For seeking refferences and it brought me to Google Search where that iPhone wiki page appeared.

The iPhone wiki is a profile website specialized in iOS development (iOS researchers post findings in there). It is not something that can be edited by anyone. They also work with notability criteria.

You keep saying that Wikis aren't refs. Of course they are! Wikis might include important research filtered through notability criteria before getting approved on that wiki.

Before you revert again, please consult another admin and let it do the reversion. I suspect you have something personal with this page.

Have a great day.Minacriss1 (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I have done that for you. All good wishes. Theroadislong (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

It appears that they are all WP:USERGENERATED items and are WP:NOT acceptable as references. You can ask for more input at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Theroadislong (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Removed links

Hi, I appreciate the effort to moderate and keep Wikipedia clean. We all benefit from it.

I'm also very sorry for the inconveniences caused. I may have had too much enthusiasm, and I wasn't familiar with the external links rules. But spamming was not my intention, far from it.

I ask you to reconsider restoring some of these links, though, for various reasons:

-The content (all the content) of the external website linked is highly relevant to the wikipedia articles about 'Causewayed Enclosures', 'Neolithic Circular Enclosures', 'Henge and 'Stonehenge'. I agree it is superfluous for the others. -It does not make unsupported or controversial statements (beyond what would be a normal scientific discussion). -It contains too much detail to integrate its content onto the Wikipedia articles. -The site is made by experts but with a tone and language aimed at the general public. -The source is reputable (Department of Archaeology at the University of Southampton), and the project is backed by a well-known institution in the European Commission. -It's non-profit, with no ads or donation buttons. -All its text and most of the images are licensed CC-BY, so many people can benefit from it, not only by visiting the website but by re-using this material.

Please reconsider adding the links to the 'Causewayed Enclosures', 'Neolithic Circular Enclosures', 'Henge' and 'Stonehenge' articles.

Sorry again, now that I know the rules I'll be much more careful with the inclusion of external links.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SLClemens (talk • contribs) 16:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Theroadislong,

I have been working on this Gollynomics page all today with the help of volunteers to make improvements to the layout etc. Please could you let me know if you still have concerns and what specifically and I am happy to add / amend. Gollynomics is in the process of launching their website hence why you are unable to see content there. But you will see the huge work they have been doing to support Tewbit and Lamkotet via their websites which has been supporting childrens education projects in West Africa since 2003.

Please can you help us rectify any concerns,

thank you Savana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bokassa Corrections (talk • contribs) 21:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT the place to promote your organisation and it does NOT appear to be notable enough to warrant an article please see WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Theroadlislong, Just a footnote, I hope I havent accidentally deleted a speedy tag? Not sure I know what that is, but please kindly advise how I can help to rescue this important page. Thanks. Im very happy to have a discussion with you, thanks Savana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bokassa Corrections (talk • contribs) 21:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss, the organisation is not notable enough to qualify for an article. Theroadislong (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Bokassa Corrections, the place to discuss the deletion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gollynomics, but as Theroadislong says (and I explained at the Teahouse), there appear to be no independent sources online about the subject, which means that there is nothing to base a Wikipedia article on. Someone else removed the speedy deletion template, by the way. That's why it's now at AfD. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Personal Analysis

Please stop editing the page I am trying to correct. What is personal analysis here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settlersgreen (talk • contribs) 17:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I removed non neutral words "major" and "large" from the article Settlers Green those words are your personal analysis. You should not be editing the article at all as you have a clear conflict of interest and will shortly be blocked for your use of username. Theroadislong (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Why did you revert my page?

Hi Theroadislong,

I appreciate that editors exist who keep the Wikipedia information monitored and reliable.

I don't know the reason you reverted my page to the edit done a week ago by another editor who had removed several citations, required by earlier editors, along with information on new completed music productions for major venues. These productions represent an enormous volume of completed work that are a part of my history.

Am I doing something incorrectly? I inserted reference information on each title for two reasons. One being validation of the work, second being access to the title for anyone who wishes to see it.

Thanks in advance for replying.

And, Happy New Year.

Jakuri (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

If you check the edit summaries in the articles history you will see I explained my edits there. Your edit added commercial links to buy the books these are NOT required and they are NOT references. Theroadislong (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

RFC notice

Flood Myth Clarifications - No, It's Not Nonsense: Not All Geologists Agree

Hello, You recently removed an edit to the page on flood myths that made a clear distinction that not ALL modern geologists, nor the field of modern geology as a whole are in agreement of the impossibility of the occurrence of a global flood. Instead, you reverted to an earlier edit that claimed "A world-wide deluge, such as described in Genesis, is incompatible with modern understanding of the natural history and especially geology and paleontology."

A simple google search will reveal many contemporary geologists, paleontologists, geophysicists, etc.. are not so unanimously decided, as is claimed in the section of text referenced above. Therefore, such a claim should be removed from a fact-based reference like Wikipedia.

In under one minute I was able to find multiple references to dissenting views on global deluge, one of which I've included here for your reference: https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Carbon-14-Evidence-for-a-Recent-Global-Flood-and-a-Young-Earth.pdf

While general opinion in a field may be a reliable indicator of popular opinion, it cannot in itself be used as proof positive. Furthermore, by finding even one dissenting opinion from an accredited or peer reviewed researcher in the field, the claim made in the quote above is quite simply invalidated. I respectfully have once again edited the page to reflect that geologists are not in complete agreement of such a possibility, and any such claim that geologists are in unanimous agreement can only be seen as a deliberate attempt at rejecting ideas which do not coincide with one's own paradigm, and may even reveal a clear intellectual stake in hiding alternative views.

Best, -RTLdan

Please take this discussion to the article talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 09:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion criteria

Hello. First of all, thank you for the work you do patrolling and maintaining the encyclopedia. However, I would like to respectfully point out that wp:A7 states that only articles with no credible claim of significance are eligible for speedy deletion under A7. Significance is not as strict as notability. It may seem like a waste of time, but policy does require an AfD or Prod if there is a claim of significance. This also can have benefits by letting new editors breathe, learn and occasionally come up with sources that demonstrate notability. Thanks! Happy Squirrel (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks I am aware of the distinction, I wasn’t sure that giving legal advise to the Russian Egyptian Business Council was significant enough a claim and as it was an article created by the company itself it seemed more expedient to use the speedy; I quickly remove the speedy tag and allowed the afd to take place. Theroadislong (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I just try to tread carefully there and only use A7 in really clear-cut cases. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Framlingham College

You have just removed text that I had written telling me that it appears to be copyrighted. Why would you think that? Also I spent the last hour referencing some aspects of the article on framlingham college that i had previously written. I did this because I understood this was important. Can you tell me why you have removed all of these please?

Happy new year

P

The content you added appears to have been copied and pasted from http://www.framcollege.co.uk/History-of-Houses-Buildings and please read Wikipedia:REFB Theroadislong (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse host competence

Hi. Did you see the replies here? I'm starting to wonder if this user is translating their comments using something like Google Translate. I don't want to hound them, but I don't think they have the ability to answer questions at the Teahouse. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It certainly looks that way! He is very young and enthusiastic, but really doesn't have the competency to be a host. I've been editing here years and don't feel up to it! Theroadislong (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

If you're not up to it, there's no hope for others! For info, I've flagged this up here. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Entry for Carl Raschke - Recent Edits and Libelous Statements

You sent me a message after an edit today about "Conflict of Interest." I did so because Wikipedia policy, as I have read, allows editors who are also the subject matter of the article to edit for indisputable facts, which is what I did today. That is not a conflict of interest. I merely corrected the subtitle and publication date for one of the listed publications. I also deleted the "external link" to portfolio.du.edu and substituted the professional website www.carlraschke.com because the former is out of date and no longer used or updated. Both the portfolio and professional website have been maintained by the subject, so there is no conflict of interest there.

Yesterday I did go in and remove certain material that can be considered libelous, which has, however, since been restored by the user bloodofox on the grounds it is not "libelous" because it uses "proper citation." It was my understanding that a user has the right to remove information that is deemed libelous automatically, or am I wrong? Please correct me if I am not. The entry talks of me as being "discredited" and after 1990 no longer "reputable" scholar. These attributions are libelous, even if they are quoted (perhaps out of context) from published sources. Until yesterday I was not aware of these published sources, and have not been able yet to access them to see if they are quoted out of context. I would note anyway that libel law does not exonerate a statement because it is quoted from somewhere else. These statements are libelous because 1) My work is not "discredited", a blanket term which in the context of the article offers no proof, other than stating opinion as fact 2) I am indeed a quite "reputable" scholar who since that time has published numerous books with many academic publishers, including distinguished university presses, and who has been invited by peers to serve as Chair of the Department (2001-07) as well as in many distinguished editorial and community positions.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Carlraschke (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)Carl Raschke

Wikipedia only reports on what the reliable sources say, if you consider them wrong I suggest you discuss this on the article talk page not here. Theroadislong (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The "discredited" part was actually a quote, it is not said in Wikipedia's voice but merely reporting what someone else has said. Theroadislong (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I opened a thread re: this yesterday at the BLP noticeboard: [3]. I believe the 'discredited' statement wasn't blanket, but referred to a specific area of controversy. For what it's worth. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I hope 2016 will go well for you.

	I hope 2016 will go well for you.
	A simple note of thanks. Please bear with me. I'll get there in the end. Yes, the road is surely long! Balquhidder2013 (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Problems

I'm sorry I'm causing you so much bother. I'll go through all the links to see if the subject is mentioned. To my knowledge I only inserted links which illustrated the connection so I'm not sure what the problem is. I'm aware of one instance awaiting a citation. Please bear with me.Balquhidder2013 (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Problem

I'm sorry. I don't understand. I'm doing my best to follow your instructions. I'm working through it bit by bit to rectify problems.Balquhidder2013 (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history you will see I formatted a reference for you as an example of what they should look like. You have repeatedly reverted my changes. Theroadislong (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

speedy deletion CONTEST

Hi dear, i receive one speedy deletion i want to contest this because my page is not a span and this is in (speedy deletion)

I wait for one reply

Best Regards,

Melanie Martins

You need to give your reason by clicking the blue link on your user page that reads “Contest this speedy deletion”” Theroadislong (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)