User talk:Theroadislong/Archive 56

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

→

Archive 60

Updated pages with comprehensive info

Can you review my updated wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Angelina_Danilova again? I've updated it with comprehensive info including her careerm awards, works, activities and a bunch of references. Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser1564657576 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

No... I will leave it for another reviewer. Theroadislong (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Citing sources

In regards to my edit of Mary Mary, I realize that the source may not have been within citation guidelines, however, it was in *good faith* and I did not have better citation to give it, because said citation is not available to the public. Not that the information of where I came in contact with that theory doesn't exist, just that I am not at liberty to give it. And if it is a "theory" does it have to be? I did however use as many appropriate links to the plants themselves and any other information I could to back up the *logic* of the information. I believe that an encyclopedia is only as good as the completeness of it's information, not how "approved" its author (or in this case authors) are. If the information was out there on a million web pages, why would it need to be here? I also don't believe that I made any personally biased comments, or first person usages. If I am in error, please let me know and I will reword appropriately.

The removal of my prior comments were because I don't believe in airing dirty laundry in public. I only edit where I feel I can make Wikipedia better and more informative. Therefore I make edits infrequently, so I was unaware the area was public (it said at the bottom of the page it was in a "hidden" area.) However, that doesn't change the fact that I still don't understand your logic behind criticizing me for a "biased" or badly cited source one day, yet have an issue when I find someone elses biased material (of which it is obvious they have no first hand knowledge of) and edit it. Especially when I left reasons both times, one of which you quoted back at me, so I know they were there.

I believe both of the issues at hand follow the "good faith" rules and neither constitute "obvious vandalism." I also wish you had discussed the issues you saw with me before reverting. It is very discouraging to volunteer here only to have someone say your trying to help isn't good enough. I hope this is more constructive than my last missive. Ladyisarma (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

All content added to Wikipedia requires a reliable source please click the link for more info. Wikipedia has no interest in what you or I know, it ONLY reports on what independent reliable sources have said about a subject. Theroadislong (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Chris van Boxtel

Hi,

Thank you!

What would you suggest to improve the article for it to pass all criteria?

Many thanks and kind regards, Liliya Eugenevna Ziganshina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Лилия Евгеньевна Зиганшина (talk • contribs) 14:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Why are you doing this?

Hello Theroadislong.

Why are you copying and pasting this to all of our talk pages?

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a social network. Wikipedia is not a place to socialize or write things that are not directly related to improving the encyclopedia. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time. We're sorry if this message has discouraged you from editing here, but the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia. Thank you.

It makes no sense, cause we all get it. We know that on our own. Thanks, but no thanks.

Shadowblade08 (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

You have made a total of 330 edits, only 3 of which were to main space articles Aaron Belz and Figure skating at the 1990 Goodwill Games which were both reverted. You do not appear to be here to build an encyclopaedia you appear to be here to socialise. Theroadislong (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It kinda seems like everyone want's me to be banned... your already mean enough, just finish me off, cause I don't care, i'm here to edit, and you blame be for this. (your weird) Why does everyone hate me?? Man, when my Dad finds out about this, he will be super mad.

User:Shadowblade08 (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Peter Li

This is about my proposed article on Peter Li, which was rejected for needing independent sources. What would this look like? The citation by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences seems like it alone should suffice.

Gumshoe2 (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

That is a primary source and does nothing to establish notability. Wikipedia requires multiple in -depth coverage of him in reliable sources unconnected with the subject. Theroadislong (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: မြို(မြုံ)

Hello Theroadislong. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of မြို(မြုံ), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The redirect meets WP:FORRED as the Mru people live in Burma. Thank you. Passengerpigeon (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Aldo Gentilini

Hello Sir, if you see on the Reliable References you find Archivio Luce that is the maximum authority for all video and photos of history of Italy, not only about this artist. It speaks about all politic, culture and economy of Italy, see the link please. https://www.archivioluce.com Let me know please why for you this is not enough.

Thank you very much, Marco

Wikipedia requires multiple in-depth coverage of the subject not mere listings. Theroadislong (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Harput Castle

How is Harput Castle not significant when it's an ancient structure and is an icon of the city of Harpoot? 176.33.53.10 (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Your draft has no sources. Theroadislong (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

It's got one in the bottom. I'll probably need to find and add more though. Thanks, 176.33.53.10 (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It has a source because I added one when I saw the above messages. The article is moving in the right direction at the moment with recent additions, thanks IP.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Request

Sir did you watch my youtube video in references and checked my proof well sir ? Georgeadelmoureed (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

No I didn't, YouTube is not a reliable source for anything on Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok help me sir, should I rewrite my proof in the same article of my conjecture ? Georgeadelmoureed (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid Wikipedia does not accept original research, so is not the correct venue for you. Theroadislong (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Wikipedia is not for stuff you made up one day. If you publish an article in an actual mathematics journal, and actual mathematicians comment on your conjecture, then and only then would there be a place for an article about it; and such an article, of course, would have to be written by somebody who is not you and does not have your obvious conflict of interest. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Title Change

• Fine-tuned universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi Theroadislong, The title of the section 'Religious Apologetics' is seemingly inconsistent with the rest of the article. Why in the previous sections were the stated theories such as 'Multiverse' and 'Alien design' not headlined with similar -implicitly- undermining titles like 'Alien Design Claim' or 'Multiverse illusion'? The title is unnecessarily provoking for people with faith. Therefore, I suggest changing the title to something like 'Religious View/Perspective' or reverting the changes.

Thank you JackNickol (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Jack

The place to discuss this, is the article talk page, but the title "Religious Apologetics" simply means the discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse, it does NOT provoke people of faith? Theroadislong (talk) 06:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Nagy

As a matter of interest, he's been over on the Welsh wikipedia adding his name to articles, with edit summaries (in English) that claim him to be "highly notable in my own right". Consequently he's already blocked over there.Deb (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Well! I didn't even know there was a Welsh Wikipedia, must take a look. Thanks. Theroadislong (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Request on 07:59:13, 6 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by MLMon

• MLMon (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Adam Billyard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello and thank you very much for reviewing my article on Adam Billyard. It is my first article and I am not entirely sure which of the sources I have used are not valid. For instance, I understand that links to company websites should be removed - and will do it promptly. However, is the Companies House website considered a primary source that I should remove? Thank you very much in advance for your help.

MLMon (talk) 07:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello!

I just want to say that I really like the photos that you take. Also, your articles are really professional and helpful. Thank you for making Wikipedia just a little bit better! Happy editing, Dani Hart (Talk) 18:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Athena concern

Hello, May be we don't understand well English. In your answer it seems you write that we have a financial interest in our website. This is completely wrong. We are not paid for the site. We pay nothing to Geneva University where it is hosted. We sell nothing. We track nobody. There is only free access literature and mineralogical data since more than 20 years. This website was created in the time of Mosaic browser, when there was no Google, no Wiki and when enthusiast colleagues from University and CERN began to build www. This website is a part of the web history (as Project Gutenberg in the USA). Please explain me what is wrong. Yours. Pierre — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-pjrp (talk • contribs) 09:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

But you do have a conflict of interest though, I will change the tag. Theroadislong (talk) 09:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Noam Yaron

Hi !

Thank you for reviewing my article!

I edited all the non-neutral places and deleted all the IMDB references, let me know if you see any I might have missed.

But I don't understand what do you mean by "delete all external links". Can you help me ?

Thank you again ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiconono (talk • contribs) 10:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

We don't use external links in the body of the article they belong in a separate section at the end, some might be suitable for conversion into references though. Theroadislong (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

SwissHoldings (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SwissHoldings

We were very surprised by the decline of the article on Karl Hofstetter (Legal Scholar) as the exact same article has been published already a while ago on the German Wikipedia page. What is the real issue: only the fact that it was submitted by the person in charge of PR at Swissholdings, one of the organizations chaired by Prof. Hofstetter? Or were there serious formal mistakes, e. g. references to sources in German? Thank you for more specific feedback on how to cure any perceived deficiencies.SwissHoldings (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Who is "we" ? User accounts are strictly for single person use. Paid editing will always be more carefully scrutinised. The draft requires more secondary sources and editing for neutral tone "a renowned expert" " internationally reputed legal scholar" are just PR trumpery and it's not clear what he is actually notable for? Does he pass the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Theroadislong (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I've blocked them per Wikipedia's username policy. Their username represents a group/company and the "we" just solidifies this. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

hi thank you for being nice to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logan Marie Elias (talk • contribs) 20:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

hi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logan Marie Elias (talk • contribs) 21:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Bella Emburg

Hello. Re. the two Edits you made of mine on the above Subject's Page. Does "Unsourced" include the release of that information and programme on a DVD ?, in this case , "The Lost Frankie Howards'". I bought it several months ago, and have watched this "Unsource"[d] episode. Also, you wrote that the "IMDB is not a reliable source". If Wikipaedia was a more reliable one, then surely Editors themselves shouldn't be necessary ? It should be a Rule that no information from the IMDB is allowed; otherwise, assuming the aforementioned that Wikipaedia isn't irreproachable, or at least as faliable as the IMDB, that means the truth, here, is to be discredited,penalised, merely because, unlike others, I've honestly stated the origin of what's at least the equivalent possibility. How do we know that the 'allowed' place of death, itself, didn't come from the IMDB ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heath St John (talk • contribs) 11:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

"Unsourced" means that you didn't provide a source for your content, ALL content on Wikipedia requires a reliable source. IMDb is deemed not to be a reliable source because is is user generated. The place of death is sourced to a newspaper not IMDb. Theroadislong (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Editing.

Hello. I have no objection to the receiving messages from you. You've my permission to do so. Aside from observing that we disagree that poorly "Source"[d[ material includes referring to articles that are now available on DVD, as proof ,(such as the Millicent Martin appearances on 'Tell me Another), what, please, I ask of you is to try and not be so threateningly-blunt in your tone. There's no need for it. I'm not above listening and learning. But you'll discover that voices which seek to give instruction to those if not at, but near, the back of the class, become more audible not by being raised, but by being mellowed. You need to reach the mind, not just the ear. I shall, please, leave it there. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heath St John (talk • contribs) 12:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The messages on your talk page are automatically generated, there are usually four levels of increasing severity. I'm sorry you don't agree about sourcing but that is how Wikipedia works. Re your comment here [[1]] about "Wikipedia's staff", Wikipedia does not have staff we are all volunteer editors here, just like you. Having material on a DVD is irrelevant unless you are supporting the content with an actual source that says it is on a DVD, click on the link for more details. We cannot rely on your word, there has to be a published source for all content. Theroadislong (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

/* Makoto Naruse */

So what am i supposed to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaredT041199 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Find significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to show notability. Theroadislong (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft Hamad Arbabi

Hi there, I saw your comment on the page I was creating for an athlete in my country. It is my first article, and I am unsure what the exact issue of the reference section. I added all the news articles that are available online (again they are in Arabic) that relate to the player and the tournaments mentioned in the article. As well as, the YouTube link is from both Qatar and Kuwait associations (respectively) covering the tournaments the player participated in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbabi4 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Richa Lakhera

Hi Theroadislong! A user came to the Wikipedia IRC channel asking about the {{Undisclosed paid}} tag you placed on Draft:Richa Lakhera. Per the instructions at Template:Undisclosed_paid#Usage, could you please place a message at User talk:Rachit.edunomics explaining why you added the tag? Also, I don't think that {{draft article}} belongs inside {{Multiple issues}}. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Fiona Skinner | A Royal Night Out

Sources:

https://pro.imdb.com/name/nm4787232/ https://pro.imdb.com/title/tt1837562/ https://www.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/51dddd64c53e7 https://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/fiona_skinner https://www.jamesfosterltd.co.uk/fiona-skinner-a-royal-night-out/ https://twitter.com/JamesFosterLTD/status/945674577195274241 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.32.123.177 (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

89.32.123.177 Not sure why you have posted these here? IMDb is never a reliable source, neither is Twitter. Theroadislong (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Watch the film then and see the credits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.32.123.177 (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but Wikipedia requires independent published sources, not my knowledge or yours. Theroadislong (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As provided above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.32.123.177 (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

To be mentioned in the "A Royal Night Out" article you will need to provide in depth coverage of her part, not just mere listings. Theroadislong (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Ankit Kumar Pandey

how can i prove my sources to be reliableAnkit Krs Pandey (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter and Instagram are rarely ever suitable reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Question

Ok, how do you submit for review once I am done adding more sources??? Thanks, Dani Hart (Talk) 19:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Click the large blue button that says "Submit". Theroadislong (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Jon Smith

Hi Theroadislong

Here's the source - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=R-C_AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT125&lpg=PT125&dq=one+night+in+turin+jon+smith&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q=one%20night%20in%20turin%20jon%20smith&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iregno8 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Moving drafts to the mainspace to seek deletion

Practices such as this move and subsequent deletion nomination are inadvisable per WP:UP/RFC2016 section B3, which is codified at WP:STALEDRAFT. Just a friendly heads-up. That RfC was held because it was being done quite a bit (and regarded the userspace), not seemingly just once in a semi-unique case like this. Warm regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 22:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, (a long read!) it was a one off, I was neutral as to whether it should be deleted, and the result was that the draft was kept and has been improved rather than languishing as a rejected draft. I will not take this road again. Cheers. Theroadislong (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments on Thomas Walker & Son

Thank you for your comments on my Thomas Walker article. Very helpful.

I am gradually improving it. Waiting to access a couple of sources which I hope will add useful independent verification.

I will then make further changes and re-submit.

Regards

Philip

--PJE Walker (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Evolutionism

Thanks for your comment, but I do stand by what I stated. When discussing a scientific theory it is essential to distinguish between facts and theories. If you argue that theories are facts, this implies a metaphysical commitment which you have to motivate. Since induction is always problematic, theories can be more or less corroborated (Popper) and the theory of evolution is highly so, but NO, it is not "a fact" neither can be taken "as a fact". Please revert my edit, which was correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.74.242 (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I will not restore your edit which is incorrect, we go by what reliable sources say about a subject. Please take to the talk page Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups if you want to discuss this with others, but beware the Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to pseudoscience and fringe science, including this article. Theroadislong (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hasan B Alam

Hello Theroadislong,

Thank you very much for reviewing my article titled 'Hasan B Alam'. I appreciate your comments, and since this is my first (of hopefully many) Wikipedia article, I have learned a lot about the requirements of Wikipedia. I agree that the phrases that you pointed out did not apply well to an encyclopedia, therefore I have removed them from the article. I have also made some other minor changes to make the article more relevant to Wikipedia. Please take a look at it again.

Here is the link to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hasan_B._Alam

Thank you very much.

umarfb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umarfb (talk • contribs) 01:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like my fellow reviewer User:Sulfurboy has beaten me to it and accepted your draft. Theroadislong (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Robin Feldman - Thank you and a question

Thank you for helping me direct my entry for Robin Feldman to the proper draft location. Can you advise me on how to get it live as an article? As you likely saw, it is heavily sourced by reputable third-party media outlets, and I think meets the standards for publication of a living person's living bio.

Petepetey (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Your draft currently has zero independent reliable sources so has little chance of being accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Your response of zero suggests you might be mistaken about which article we're discussing. There are extensive third party scholarly and independent, reputable news organization citations. Citations 3 through 21, for instance, are all from major publishers like Fortune magazine, Bloomberg News, Kaiser Health News, the US government, and Wired magazine. Compare the bio I submitted to the existing article for legal scholar Martha_Albertson_Fineman. Obviously, there's an intent here for creating a draft with some integrity. I look forward to working with you or other editors to get this right.

Thanks -

Petepetey (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Apologies I was viewing your other draft by mistake at Draft:Exploratory Product Development. Theroadislong (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Petepetey You need to submit Draft:Robin Feldman for review. Theroadislong (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Request on 08:32:10, 15 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by raisethesong1855

• Raisethesong1855 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Skull and Bones (Penn State) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please advise on how independent student newspaper coverage and yearbook entries are not considered an independent source for this topic. Dozens of collegiate societies have active pages with far fewer sources; other than the Ivy Leagues, the majority of collegiate secret society pages on Wikipedia rest solely on independent campus news citations. This topic has deep coverage spanning 100 years in the independent student newspaper, and the student yearbook is used to identify members (which is what the Yale page does, too).

I am sincerely interested in getting the pages' sources satisfactory for submission so I can work on pages for the other 2 organizations at the university. I am not an experienced editor so I ask these questions with earnestness. Thanks.

Raisethesong1855 (talk) 08:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Your sources (the student newspaper and student yearbook) are not independent they are primary sources, they not demonstrate that the subject meets our guidelines for notability. Normally, this is done by showing that the subject has received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Theroadislong (talk) 08:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Obada Adnan

The references that are associated in Draft:Obada Adnan , is not just IMDb , there are also References form Wikipedia Alex1981march (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Your draft Draft:Obada Adnan has only IMDb and Wikipedia as references, neither can be used to establish notability, we need independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:DLocal

Dear @Theroadislong! Thanks a lot for answering. I actually stated on the talk page [2], I am lost, as I dont know how to proceed now: I submitted my employer, I added requested sources - what is the next step? I understand I can not submit it like an article because its about my client/employer. How can I ask a neutral editor to include this article to the wikipedia encyclopaedia? Because this is the actual problem, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulanerPassau (talk • contribs) 01:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Your draft is just an advert "Merchants can send mass payouts around the world and receive funds from emerging markets in EUR, USD or local currency, without the need of local entety or bank account in the respective countries." this is NOT neutral content. Also see WP:SOLUTIONS. Theroadislong (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Moving drafts to main space

Hello Theroadislong. Since I just took care of a related case, can you tell me what the current practice is for moving drafts without getting a review. Is there a rule against doing so? I understand that it's not forbidden to directly create an article in main space. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

If I spot a poor quality draft moved to main space by the creator then I move it back to draft, but there are no rules about this as far as I know. Theroadislong (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Edits to John Henshall (Photographer)...

Can you please offer advice which I can understand? The facts deleted were all correct and true – this has been a harsh edit? I happen you may accept the veracity of the details as I have researched and interviewed for his personal testimony. As an academic University Senior Lecturer I was asked to give the Oration Speach when John was given his Honourary MA. Please could you advise so we can comply?19:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)19:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)19:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)19:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)White.BS (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Firstly who is "we" user accounts are strictly for single person use. The content I deleted had been unsourced for two years, Wikipedia only reports on what reliable independent published sources have said about a subject, Wikipedia has no interest in what you or I know, the fact that you have interviewed and researched him is irrelevant. You have a conflict of interest and should not be directly editing the article. Theroadislong (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Guild of Television Camera Professionals

Thanks for your note. It’s my first attempt at a page so always looking for feedback.

Not being an academic and being a bit word blind at the moment, would you have a simple explanation of what a secondary or tertiary source might look like?

Thanks in advance. HMCLSPLYL2020 (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks like your article Guild of British Camera Technicians (GBCT) has been deleted, a secondary source is a source that is not connected in any way to the subject. Theroadislong (talk) 07:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

John J. Sheehan (Artist Greenwich Village, New York 1913 - 1996)

Hi Theroadislong,

I have updated and re-written the article for my Grandfathers biography in a more approperiate tone. Apologies for the original submission - I was just submitting to ensure it was not to be deleted due to stagnation as I received an email from wikipedia and had not got around to editing.   - I have re-wrote the content and reformatted including several citations and link references to John Sheehan exhibitions on the MoMA website - alongside 2 publications which include John Sheehan. The article is still under construction / curation.

This was my first time curating a Wikipedia page since my fathers passing I have inherited the responsibility - I have learned the appropriate formatting (Was overwhelmed with the formatting originally but am learning ASAP) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJSEA (talk • contribs) 12:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_J._Sheehan_Artist_NYC_(1913_-_1996)#John_J._Sheehan_%28Artist_Greenwich_Village%2C_New_York_1913_-_1996%29

Could you kindly re-review and let me know of any areas that require further clarification, references or re-writing.

Thank you for your time and patience with this. Sincerely yours, Finn

Curator JJSEA Collection archive@johnjsheehan.com

Your draft was declined this morning by another reviewer, because it is not written in a formal, neutral encyclopedic tone, the sourcing is also not in-depth or independent. Theroadislong (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I will continue to update the article tone into an encyclopaedic tone and continue to provide further independent reference points.

Thank you for the clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJSEA (talk • contribs) 12:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

JJSEA You have made the mistake of creating an article using what you know, Wikipedia only records what reliable independent sources have reported about a subject, you need to forget everything you know and summarise the sources only. Theroadislong (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thomas Walker & Son

Hello again, I wanted to seek your advice on the 'close connection' question.

Yes, I am distantly related to Thomas Walker, but the company does not exist any longer, and I do not, and have never, received any benefit financially or otherwise from Thomas Walker and there is no possibility of me gaining any advantage from doing the research and publishing on Wikipedia. What more can I say?

Kind regards

Philip

--PJE Walker (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, is it ok to remove the 'close connection' template now?

Kind regards

Philip

--PJE Walker (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Rejection on Page Bibesh Nepal

I have done this editing using youtube videos. Do I have to mention reference too? or I should be a famous personality for creating my own page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nepalbibesh2075 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn’t encourage people writing autobiographies, if you are notable somebody unconnected with you will write one eventually, but most of us are not notable enough.

my draft

hello I tried to complete the draft, including authority control and notability of the subject I did my best kind regards LM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lianemora (talk • contribs) 13:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Your draft Draft:Jean Motell has zero independent sources so is unlikely to be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Troels Lund (director)

Hi. After multiple rounds of revisions, following the feedback of another Wikipedia editor, I was left with the impression that this article (Draft:Troels Lund (director)) was ready to be approved.

Then quite a while passed, and then it was suddenly declined by you.

Would you mind being specific in terms of exactly what is needed for the article to be approved? There are already a wide variety of references (including six national & independent media outlets) that clearly who this person is – and what his role has been in major international events. What exactly would be required to get this article approved? Thanks for your time. Terrencetown (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources need to be in-depth and independent.

• [3] doesn’t mention him
• [4] is a primary source
• [5] is a primary source
• [6] is a primary source
• [7] doesn’t mention him
• [8][ is a primary source
• [9] is a primary source
• [10] doesn’t mention him

Theroadislong (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response!

First of all: DR, ekstrabladet.dk and jyllands-posten.dk are not primary sources – they are independent media outlets.

Second of all: The Wikipedia guidelines specifically state that “primary" does not mean “bad”, and since the source in question is Eurovision.tv, that ought to be considered an “authoritative” and "high-quality” source, given that the source is an official website, and the reference is used solely to show that he did indeed work on the Eurovision Song Contest.

The 1st source is a reference to Nordisk Film being one of the oldest film studios in the world. Should I remove the entire paragraph about his apprenticeship?

The 5th source does indeed mention him – eight times, and features a photo of his face.

If you actually meant the 6th source (for CuePilot), this was merely to reference what CuePilot is. Should I remove this?

The 8th source is a reference to the fact that the event took place without an audience, i.e. an extraordinary circumstance. Should this be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrencetown (talk • contribs) 14:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources need to be in-depth about LUND, not merely proving that he did stuff, adding sources for content which has little to do with him, could be construed as ref bombing. You are being paid to edit whilst I am not, it is incumbent on you to learn how Wikipedia works. Theroadislong (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I truly believe that this falls within the scope of what is acceptable use of primary sources – allow me to quote the official guidelines, which I have indeed read up on: "The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities."

Also, three of the sources from the independent media outlets are indeed in-depth feature articles specifically about him. Maybe this isn't clear because the articles are in Danish? The three headlines (in English) are as follows: "Eurovision planner headhunts Danish Troels and Mads for giant finale show"; "Millions (i.e. tv viewers) are keeping an eye on Troels"; "He (meaning Troels) gets to decide what you will see on Saturday (i.e. when the tv show is being broadcast)". These seem like exactly type of independent media sources Wikipedia thrives on.

I am truly doing my best to accomodate both you and the Wikipedia rules here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrencetown (talk • contribs) 14:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Sevantri

I have requested that the draft be move-protected, because it keeps being moved into article space when it is not ready. For instance, it does not even say what state of India it is in. Sometimes I would prefer a deletion debate, but in this case we really do want an article when we have enough information. If it is move-protected, then when a reviewer decides that it is ready for mainspace, a reviewer can request that an admin move it. I made such a request with another move-war within the past few days also, and it was done. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It has been declined, but I see that it hasn't been edited in four days. Maybe the editor that kept moving it into article space is now editing the encyclopedia in their first language. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I have salted the Sevantri title, which should make it unnecessary to move-protect the draft. WP:DRAFTIFY suggests that the draft creator should be allowed to insist on an AfD, but DRAFTIFY isn't policy or guideline at the moment. I'm leaving a ping for User:Bharatpandiya0 who created the draft to see if they want to comment. There is also a Draft:Sewantri that seems to be about the same thing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Chiiild Guidance

Hey Theroadislong,

First off, thank you for reviewing my first Wikipedia submission. I genuinely appreciate the kind sentiments about having an article declined. Honestly, I would have been shocked if I got it right in my first attempt.

Which brings me to my message, it would be a huge help if you could please guide me towards getting my article "public ready". I saw that you noted "would need to pass the criteria at WP:BAND" as the reason for why my article was declined. I reviewed the link, and I actually believe my article passes on the following criteria:

6. Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians...

The band I submitted is led by two notable musicians. The first is Yonatan Ayal, who is a GRAMMY-award winning songwriter for his contribution on Jack Ü's debut album, Skrillex and Diplo Present Jack Ü. The second is Pierre-Luc Rioux, whose credits include Katy Perry, David Guetta, Celine Dion, Bruno Mars, Lady GaGa, and Britney Spears. However, because this information predates the band, I wasn't sure how much should be included in the Chiiild article. Again, any guidance on this would be greatly appreciated.

P.S. I have updated citations and got a live music photographer to grant permission through Template:OTRS pending.

That might be enough to scrape thorough if they both had their own Wikipedia articles as independently notable musicians, but only one of them does. Theroadislong (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the quick response! I actually believe Pierre-Luc Rioux qualifies for a Wikipedia article—it just hasn't been made. In addition to being mentioned in over 20 Wikipedia articles, due to his extensive list of high-profile credits, he was awarded a Popular Music Award at the 30th SOCAN Awards Gala, for his songwriting credit on Une année record by Loud. CNW Group also covered this here.

If possible, I would also appreciate if you could explain why the band doesn't qualify under the first criteria:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

My citations cover a range of credible independent mediums. These include notable digital publications (COMPLEX, The Line of Best Fit), a public radio show (WBEW), publishers (NPR, Live Nation Entertainment), and an official university-level independent paper (The University of British Columbia's The Ubyssey). They were also the focus of a KCRW podcast, called Today's Top Tune. I'm genuinely interested in improving my wiki-drafting skills, so any guidance would be amazing! Kind regards — VVARO.cc (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

OK re-submit and I will accept, it looks like it would survive an WP:AFD. Theroadislong (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Theroadislong! That's so exciting to hear! I just resubmitted it. Regards — VVARO.cc (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

sorry...

sorry.. I did not mean to do that. I thought it would help but I did not know that is would disrupt.Firestar9990 (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

my draft

thank you for your time. well, that's right, the first source is independent only. nevermind — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lianemora (talk • contribs) 14:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Getting article accepted

Hello, I appreciate your help with my page. Can you please tell me what other changes I should make to ensure it is written in a neutral tone? I see that you have published many artist articles. Thanks a million. Ashaw315 (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Pepperfry

Hi Theroadislong,

I see that you have added a paid editing tag to Draft:Pepperfry. Could you please provide some context on why you added that tag?-Vishalnagpal123 (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The tag says "may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments" your editing pattern follows that of many other paid users. If you are not being paid, then it can be removed.Theroadislong (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Theroadislong but i have not been paid to edit anything on Wikipedia, so could you please remove that tag?-Vishalnagpal123 (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the tag, i appreciate it. It would be a great help if you also review the article as i see you have been here for quite a long time and are very well versed in Wikipedia policies and guidelines.-Vishalnagpal123 (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: I would be so grateful to you if you take out the time to review this. I have worked on overall sourcing and removed promotional material. I believe it is okay now.-Vishalnagpal123 (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Jules Franck Mondoloni Submission declined on 18 May 2020 by Theroadislong

Hello, Writing a Wikipedia article for the first time at 77 years old is a daunting task. I had selected publish to review too early during my training in my sandbox. When I sought help on YouTube, the speaker had a save and review button at the bottom of the article he was teaching, as did others on their videos. I only had a publish button. I thought that I was not in the proper sandbox, so I pushed the review feature. Since then, I have continued to try to learn, as well as edit my article. I have subsequently adding many resources and citations. And I have more secondary sources yet to add. My question to you is the following: Did you review an updated draft of my article, or did it date from the day I put in in the publish for review category? Thank you in advance for your reply. David Linker PS I just noticed at the bottom of the page: Publish changes - Show preview - Show changes Again there is no Save feature, thus my confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reknil43 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I reviewed the the draft on the 18th May you can see this in the edit history here [11] The draft has a lot of unsourced content though he does seem notable, each statement of fact requires a suitable source. Wikipedia has no interest in what you know, only what the sources have reported about the artist. Theroadislong (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Martin Chatterton

Hi,

My page for author Martin Chatterton has been cited as being promotional, however I am in no way being compensated for the creation of this page. What can I do in order to make this page acceptable?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielsydney1995 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You may not be being compensated but you still need to declare your conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Frank W Chen (director)

Hey, Theroadislong. Thanks for reviewing my article so quickly. I have been trying to refine the language and remove any subjective (peacock) verbiage. I thought I had it down to a neutral encyclopedic entry. Please let me know the language with which you had issue and I will address it.

Thanks --Ubiquitouslarry (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Well for example "To him, Wang’s return to the Major Leagues was “not heroic, but [more like a] humble return. Wang simply set [himself] a goal and accomplished it." this does not sound like a dry neutral encyclopaedic tone, it would be more suited to a magazine article. Theroadislong (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Review about page Maharaja Chattrasal

Hi There ,

    I have received your review on my draft as No source? Can you please elaborate on it as i am a new user on wiki 

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPVCA (talk • contribs) 08:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are created by reporting on what reliable sources say about a subject, you can find help here WP:YFA. Creating an article from scratch is the most difficult task on Wikipedia, it would probably be advisable to spend some time with simpler tasks before you dive in, good luck. Theroadislong (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Why I Deleted the Line that Craig is a Top 50 philosopher.

I removed the content regarding William Lane Craig describing him as one of the top 50 most influential philosophers because it is simply a matter of opinion. Him being in the top 50, top 10, or top 100 is completely subjective. Some may view him as the greatest of all time, others may not see him as an influential figure. Instead, for example, one could describe how often his work is cited and by whom. That may be more informative. Please remove that sentence. If you continue to disagree, consider moving in lower within the page to minimize potential bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.200.123.167 (talk) 05:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

You are correct it is of no note at all that an obscure website says he is one of the 50 best in the world? I have removed it. Theroadislong (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Seeking For Assistance

Please I want to have real help on formatting my source to be in accordance with Wikipedia. Needing positive response sir Abbas Kwarbai (talk) 09:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Have you read WP:REFB? Theroadislong (talk) 10:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

I have made the changes you suggested and removed the unreliable sources at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Benedict_Macdonald. Please can you check that everything is okay. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenedictMacdonald (talk • contribs) 14:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Mike Oldfield edit

I added some information regarding the album Amarok to expand it with pretty common knowledge (at least among Oldfield fans), which was removed. There is a limit to how many online sources are available, but I'd recommend checking https://tubular.net/articles/1991_03/Mike-Oldfield-on-Amarok and http://www.mikeoldfield.org/amarok.

Quote from the second source: "Mike saw Amarok as parts of his goodbye to Virgin records. As such, he created in Amarok a completely uncommercial album. It’s almost impossible to take any section of Amarok on its own without it sounding rather out of place, meaning that it wasn’t possible to turn any part into a single, or play it on the radio. It may be co-incidental, but may well have deliberately done to annoy Virgin. Quiet parts of the album are sometimes disturbed by loud, raucous sounds. Mike said he imagined Virgin executive Simon Draper listening to the album in his car and turning it up loud, only to be suddenly frightened to death by a loud synth brass stab. Mike also hid a message in Amarok – at 48:05 some morse code can be heard (played on a bright synth sound). It actually spells out “F*** off RB” (with RB standing for Richard Branson). Mike was annoyed at Virgin’s lack of promotion for the album (although if he really had made it deliberately uncommercial, Mike would surely have expected them not to promote it…), and so took out his own advertising campaign. Part of the campaign was Mike offering a prize of £1000 to the first person to find the hidden message."

Although this doesn't rank as my top album personally (I have around a handful, I'd rank above it and several that I like about as much as Amarok), it is generally among the most popular for the fans on both a Mike Oldfield Facebook page and various polls in the Dark Star magazine. It was an album, which grew so complicated that few "outsiders" would be interested in it, but for those who appreciate the experimental and varied musical style of MO, it was a particularly delightful treat. How to document this, I do not know, but it's not much of a secret that this is the case. :-)

I hope you can use what I found to add at least some of the information, as the deterioration of the Oldfield-Virgin relationship meant this album was never really meant to become commercially successful. Hence, I felt it was appropriate to expand on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.70.29 (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: I have now logged in with my ID and made a second attempt at adding the information with a citation and it seemed to work. Let me know if more adjustment is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malta1978 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It would need secondary sources, that's what Wikipedia does, it only summarises what independent reliable sources have reported. Theroadislong (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

You should also not be editing whilst logged out. Theroadislong (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I would love to remain logged in and always choose the "remain logged in" option, yet it doesn't seem to work with this particular place... I would recommend that you check the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amarok_(Mike_Oldfield_album). This Wikipedia (!) article about the album itself provides information very similar to what I added. It has been allowed to remain, in spite of citing sources that seem no more independent and reliable than what I cited, including a use of tubular.net, which I mentioned above. Having " It was not a commercial success. " after describing the Amarok album in the Mike Oldfield article is a "No shit Sherlock!"-style statement and it seems clear that some sort of adjustment is needed if this statement is to remain in the Mike Oldfield article. I did my best to adjust it according to the guidelines so it could become meaningful. I hope we can agree on that and that you can assist in making sure a more complete picture is presented. Otherwise, I'd recommend removing " It was not a commercial success. " as this detracts from the credibility of the article.Malta1978 (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Request on 10:36:29, 25 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Hobobob

• Hobobob (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Dave Lewis (writer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi

Thanks for taking the time to look at my article on Welsh poet Dave Lewis. I understand that there aren't many 'msm' stories about Dave but there are some on 'BBC and Wales Online'. I have added 30+ references which mention Dave or his work so not sure what else I can do. I do know he is considered by many in Wales to be one of the best poets we have! He probably doesn't help himself though as he shuns the mainstream media and corrupt arts scene here in Wales, and just gets on with his work and helping others.

Anyway, any help appreciated as he is a major figure in Welsh poetry / literature and has been for many years.

Thanks Robbie J

Hobobob (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

June 2020 at Women in Red

Women in Red June 2020, Volume 6, Issue 6, Numbers 150, 151, 167, 168, 169 Online events: New: Pride / United Nations / Geofocus on reducing gender imbalance Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports! Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Request on 09:56:30, 26 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Sachi1307

• Sachi1307 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Sachi1307/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, submission's references are not shown subject, I don't know if it means the coverage must totally talk about the subject. Please provide a guide for me. Do I need to revise these references or add more references? Thanks.

Sachi1307 (talk) 09:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Request on 11:27:47, 26 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Gittahrszt

• Gittahrszt (talk · contribs)
  • User:Gittahrszt/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to make this page as an honour of my fiance's grandfather who was a well-known actor at his age. We have pictures and memories of him but I don't know how could I make it more professional or prove my sources. Can you help me with it, please?

Gittahrszt (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Gittahrszt Your draft does not show with significant coverage in multiple published independent reliable sources how this person meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please review the criteria. Theroadislong (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

My talk page

Hello, Can I ask why you have requested deletion of MY OWN TALK PAGE?? IamMattDavies (talk) 07:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The deletion notice explains, it is a page in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. It consists of links to your own websites etc. Theroadislong (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

And why can't I provide some links for snyone to contsct me outside of Wikipedia? Can K not give you an idea of work that I have produced? (The website for example is quite extensive...) IamMattDavies (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Theroadislong, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)