User talk:Theroadislong/Archive 47

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Theroadislong. 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.

Dear Theroadislong,

Thank you for the prompt review of my article, and the valuable feedback.

It has been a learning experience for me, and rather enjoyable.

Since the rejection, over a month ago, I have made the article much stronger with clear proof of notability and solid references.

Would you be so kind as to take another look, and if possible accept the entry?

Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harishassan (talk • contribs) 07:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

I greatly appreciate that you reviewed my article so quickly. I had been warned it may take months to receive feedback. I am perplexed by the reasons for your rejection.

Every single one of the 26 references I cited was an independent secondary source with no links to the company as employees or shareholders. Nine (9) of the sources were newspaper articles with the company or its products as the main subject of the article. Nine (9) references were to peer-reviewed scientific journals. One (1) source was a textbook published by a professional association of impeccable standing, AOTA. Four (4) were to Websites of non-profit organizations. One (1) was a government website that described a program whose requirements our product met for use in driver training in a remote indigenous community without a real road network. This might actually be a world first, but I have no third-party validation. The remaining two (2) citations were to industry website magazines.

I am not sure how to respond to your perception that the article reads like an advertisement. I only reported factual information in the most neutral tone I could and all that information is verifiable in secondary sources. Unfortunately, some newspaper and journal sources are behind paywalls, but one Wiki editor told me that is not a serious issue.

So, please reconsider your rejection or at least clarify why the secondary sources I list do not meet Wiki standards.

Thanks very much for your consideration.DriverSafety (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

You probably can't see it because you work for them but the whole tone of thedraft is just an advert from the very second sentence "The main market for the company’s simulator-based solutions for driver training". Theroadislong (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi again,

I am puzzled. If I find a way to change the tone, I still cannot delete direct mention of the verifiable material that supports the claim to notability.

I am primarily an academic writer. Words and variables need consistent coherent definitions and claims need evidence. Those rules determine what I write.

I respected those rules in writing the Wiki entry. Based on suggestions from David notMD, I have removed the model numbers and photo. Please give me an example of another change I could make that would transform the presentation of these verifiable statements into a less commercial sounding text.

Also, is it possible that you do not think the company has a claim to notability? It seems that this view, if you hold it, might influence how you read the text.

I appreciate all efforts to create a commercial-free space for information and I am being as diligent as I can be in this endeavour. Your feedback is appreciated. DriverSafety (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, solutions are mixtures and nothing else.Theroadislong (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Your content on Draft:Virage Simulation is verified by sources, but Wikipedia requires in-depth coverage in order to pass WP:CORP and yes you are correct I do not think that the company is notable, but once it is, then someone unconnected with the company would be best placed to write the article. Theroadislong (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for the feedback. I deleted the sentence containing the word "solutions". I fully agree with that objection. I also deleted the photo and the model numbers. (Earlier I remarked that other corporate pages like CAE list their products, but I was told this is not a valid argument, so I have no problem conceding this point.)

Concerning notability, we are a small commercial organization working to improve driver training with more scientific and effective tools (as in commercial pilot training on simulators, where the company founders were trained).

Reliable sources independent of this organization report the following achievements for the company, each one, I suggest, is having "a significant or demonstrable effect" on driver training, a subset of driver education, itself a neglected educational subject considering the prevalence of road traffic injury and the prominent role of driver error in these events. 1. First driving manufacturer in Canada 2. Fifteen hours of mandatory on-road driver training program delivered on a driving simulator with Quebec government approval to serve remote communities without road networks (Nunavik, QC) 3. Documented use of a concurrent engineering approach for training program development through collaborations with independent university researchers from several universities. This work led to three (3) peer-reviewed scientific articles (two published in journals and one in a conference proceeding). One of these articles demonstrated the effective transfer of training from the truck simulator to the real truck and was given an award at the Transportation Research Board in Washington DC. I did not mention this because I understood that awards were not appropriate topics on a corporation page.

Naturally, my involvement in this company creates a positive bias, but this bias does not alter or diminish the documented facts from independent sources that I have presented.

First, thank you for reading this message. I am sorry I am so wordy.

Second, if we were a musical group, winning a grammy might qualify us as notable. What would a driving simulator company need to do, in your opinion, to be considered notable? I am slightly worried that you may have created an impossible bar for us to reach. DriverSafety (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DriverSafety (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:CORP for what is required. Theroadislong (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello dude, I see you undid my edit removing the templates, I've been working for a while now on this draft and I've disclosed payment. So I thought that the COI template is just out of place, and I was told that even the former editor disclosed payment but I can't check this because he's blocked. About the may not be notable template, I don't know I added many new references and cleaned up the article tone to sound more neutral and that template gives me the impression that is for articles that are on the main wiki not in draft form. What is the right way to have them removed? I would discuss it on the talk page but nobody would answer because its a draft. JamesRodir (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Theroadislong:,

I saw that you marked the Bug-a-Salt for speedy deletion. The content on the article tab of the page is old and I'm trying to work to update the information. I've been trying to go about this the correct way by following all Wikipedia editing guidelines and policies and create a neutral article. I've stated my Conflict of Interest on the talk page and requested an edit to the article. I would love your assistance with improving this article and updating the page correctly without raising any red flags.

I am not the creator of this page. It was already here when I went to edit. Your help and cooperation is much appreciated!

--Tayloreyelash (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a blatant advert and can't see how it passes WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I removed the tag mainly because the presence of the WSJ article sets this apart from most articles tagged for deletion. I do agree that it is not neutral in tone and that it is a borderline case. You could try listing it at AfD if you like but I believe it will probably survive. Your call. UninvitedCompany 21:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Hi I am David Magnus. I have been a photographer since the early 1960. My work is well know. My work has been published all over the world. At this time I have work in Morrison Hotel Gallery LA USA> My agent is Shutterstock. My work appears on their web site. You a Google me try David Magnus Beatles. Can you help me please, what other information do you need. I am mentioned in the Tony Barrow book about The Be3atles. He was their PR The article you have seen is just a test run, I will put in morer personial information about myself.

Kind Regards

David

Captsungam (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

If you are really notable in Wikipedia terms, rest assured that someone will write an article about you, please don't try to do it yourself, I have rarely seen it succeed. Wikipedia requires sources to have multiple, in-depth coverage of the subject, not merely passing mentions. Theroadislong (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

wp article says "Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method." please try to prove how Daniken can be here? Krochmal (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Krochmal I don't have to "prove" it the reliable sources say it and that is all that matters, Wikipedia is not interested in my opinion or yours. Theroadislong (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

it is not matter of opinion here but logic because pseudoscience is linked to wp article. thats for your cosideration. everybody has right to publish a book and express ones mind. and he never claimed to be science. so why you fight so much against him? consider pseudoscience means fraud. it is heavy offence! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krochmal (talk • contribs) 09:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Morning,

Sorry about the confusion here. I am just trying to add Dr Darden to your notable Alumni for FSU and you have taken him down twice. My editing skills are limited and I tried on this recent edit to add the link to Darden's Amazon page https://www.amazon.com/Ellington-Darden/e/B000APAG9K%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share

There is a huge amount of material on Dr Darden on the web, images of him in his bodybuilding days, and links to his books and articles. I chose the Amazon page because that shows a selection of his numerous books that are still in print.

Darden is most likely FSU's most successful and widely read author with 75 books published and 7 million copies printed. A very modest man he never promotes himself. Last year he was entered(by his students and friends) into the FSU Distinguished Alumni Awards for the University College of Education which was submitted to Ashley Milton, the Alumni Development Manager. He didn't win but I imagine he will in the next couple of years.

Darden spent 5 years at FSU where he earned his doctorate in physical education under Professors Frances Hall(physical education), Robert Singer(motor learning) and Harold Schendel(nutrition). All his professors are dead now and Dr Darden himself is around 75 years old.

Dr Darden was an exceptional athlete and played football at Baylor University. He started bodybuilding seriously whilst at FSU and won 17 titles including Mr Oklahoma (1964), Mr Texas (1969), Mr Florida State (1969), Mr South (1970), and Collegiate Mr America (1972).

He has subsequently appeared on numerous television shows, been the development manager at Nautilus Fitness machines for 20 years, written over 400 articles and 75 books on weight loss, weightlifting, fitness and nutrition. He has lectured in the USA, Canada, Great Britain, Australian and Europe and attended 2 Olympics. In 1989 he was elected as one the top ten healthy American Fitness Leaders by the Presidents Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. He invented HIT or High Interval Training and has a website on the subject http://www.drdarden.com

Dr Darden has helped millions of people in their fitness goals and I hope you see to reinstate him as a distinguished alumni, perhaps using your skills as an editor, to include the right links.

Many Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnesgerlach (talk • contribs) 15:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

hi,

could you please review my content? ive included more source based on the last revision since 2 months ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kschay (talk • contribs) 03:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey this is Shailz. I re-edited the page, added more references and removed the flashy intro... could you please recheck and let me know as to what might be the issue with it or if there is none than kindly approve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.72.205.118 (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Dear Theroadislong,

Thank you for reviewing Ulrike Anton. May I ask for specific examples of poor sourcing, where it is lacking or the errors in the sourcing already provided?

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by MEdwardSims (talk • contribs) 16:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

For example two sections, early life and education have no sources, all content needs to be sourced. Theroadislong (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for approving the SAT article! LorriBrown (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello theroadislong:

 Help me understand why I'm so lost on Wikipedia. I was trying to help people who wanted to know who Ball Road in Anaheim,California namesake is. Turns out it my great great grandfather Hezekiah Wright Ball. So did i put to much information about him or to little? Citations. The historians of the town doesn't count? Magazine's article don't help. Or is the subject matter unwanted by Wikipedia standards?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Ballroad
  No tilde on my pad  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballroad (talk • contribs) 02:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC) 

Cullen328 attacked me first by attacking my username and userpage. Am I not allowed to defend myself? --Vigilante Girl (talk) 09:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Vigilante Girl Cullen328 is one of the most doggedly, helpful and mild mannered editors I have ever come across in my 13 years editing Wikipedia. Your username does indeed give the appearance of being combative and as for tackling vandalism, your edit history shows nothing of the sort so far. Please assume good faith. Theroadislong (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Well he was still rude and condescending to me. He shouldn't be allowed to get away with that just because of his reputation or because you like him. I reverted vandalism on the Sea Otter page. And maybe Cullen328 should assume good faith of me insteas of sending an obviously patronizing message. I have every right to be offended when someone talks down to me. --Vigilante Girl (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you are trolling, you have made no edits to the Sea Otter page. Theroadislong (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I am NOT trolling! If it wasn't on this account, it was on an ip. I reverted the edit where a vandal called Sea Otters fish. --Vigilante Girl (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

You know what? I think I'll leave this site. You all obviously care more about your hypocritical hierarchy than you care about knowledge or helping people. I have enough to deal with in my life and I'm not gonna let you and your friends push me around. --Vigilante Girl (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

There have been zero IP edits to Sea Otter in well over two years. Interesting. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Correct, but [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

And, for what it's worth, [2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I hereby acknowledge that this person may well have made that specific productive edit about four years ago, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

That said... A somewhat bitey newbie. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

From the get go. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Dear Theroadislong

We’ve been in correspondence on your Talk page a few times over an article on the IoAAS, indeed you were very helpful in looking it over.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Institute_of_Advanced_Architectural_Studies

Your last comment was that ‘it's looking good to me’, but you thought that the references needed a bit of work on them, which I did. I then posted the Draft Article for Review on 26th July, and to be frank I was hoping on the basis of your positive comments that you would probably endorse it and just move it up. Seven weeks later, I’m sorry to say that nobody else has looked at it at all! If you would be agreeable, do you think you could maybe approve it now? If not, of course it is not a problem, and I can wait for another reviewer. But I’ve got an idea for another article - and to be honest I’m fretting a bit over getting this one accepted before I can move on! If you can help, I’d be most grateful, many thanks ArchaicW (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Theroadislong (talk) 11:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much - I'm most grateful to you. Best wishes ArchaicW (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Theroadislong! Thanks for reviewing my submission. :) I have found some from web and added as references from playlist.net, bbc.co.uk and film music reporter. I don't want to get it declined again. :( That's why I am keen to make sure I've done it perfectly. N.B: Replaced Wikipedia pages, IMDb and Discogs links added before as references by some news link featuring Rutger Hoedemaekers' band and him. Please cooperate.

It's looking better but still has some unsourced content. Theroadislong (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you. Yes, I am reading about the references. I realize they have been formatted incorrectly in the entry I am currently working on and I will redo them before resubmitting. I appreciate your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Readingwearingrocking (talk • contribs) 18:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

company is 4 years old, we are information sharing website, we should have wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandumx (talk • contribs) 09:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Carry Somers page is similar in tone and content to many other people in the sustainable fashion industry whose pages I have edited. The external links to Fashion Revolution all appear to have been removed by WikiFashion and there appears to be no tabloid links in the references. Can you clarify what you are wanting to change as the content herein appears no more promotional than that of other fashion designers and campaigners whose sites I visit and review? Ecochic (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

with this I want to refer to your recent reply to my resubmission of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dubblestandart

I did the changes you previously requested!

I changed the reference section so that it now lists the independent sources only. I removed the German Wikipedia entry. The other segments like collaborations, releases a. o., show connections that define the interlinked activity and therefor also justify the notability of this musical group. This article has been written, after reviewing many existing articles about bands.I do not see those differences that u state as a lack of "qualification". There are so many entries with much smaller, barely traceable content, sometimes even without anything in the reference section at all. I repeatedly reviewed the history section, its exactly how content about musical groups is presented on Wikipedia.

Your criticism concerning, being not neutral: There are thousands of entries made by entities related to the subject, weather its entertainment, science, politics or whatever. Wikipedia, to me, is super-respected as an independent resource and this is why I submitted. Everything on Wikipedia also supports the exposure of the subject, therefore it is almost impossible to debilitate the accusation of advertising. Don't you think that it comes naturally, that if you operate as a band worldwide( on a proven level), you would want your profile on Wikipedia? I don't have any wishes than just making this project correctly listed on a worldwide basis and Wikipedia is the best platform to do so.

I agree the text flow and purpose should not be in any way suggesting a commercial cause(which might always happen in blurry area), but as long as the content is about a musical group that has worked internationally for 3 decades, worked with many international artists(and still does) the worldwide community will appreciate reliable information about them, outside of the commercial world. That's all I want.

I absolutely respect your aim to have the highest standards implemented, but I have been reediting my entry many times now based on your requests and would kindly ask you to approve.

Many thanks

Kind Regards Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Zawilensky (talk • contribs) 15:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Please firstly read other crap exists. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia does NOT host profiles. You have not addressed the issue of formatting sources in-line and the draft is stuffed with promotional content such as "came to internationally success through their collaboration", " known for energetic, often improvisational live sets", " most successful album to date"' "a well known progressive Austrian record, distribution and publishing company", " legendary Firehouse Crew" Also see WP:BAND for what is required. Theroadislong (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I did not added any 'so called "inappropriate external links"' to Wikipedia, as you commented.

I knew a Book swapping website donatebooks.org in India and hence for everyone else's benefit I added it there in the page.

You deleted it as per Wikipedia rule and that is well agreed. But your comments could have been better by just highlighting Wikipedia's rules rather than blaming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharat1 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Theroadislong, I have taken the liberty to remove the A4 tag from this article. I do not think that it technically applies. The "story" of the article has fundamentally changed from what was an article about a "budding" scientist that lacked reliable sourcing to a well publicised (potential) hoax. The trail of coverage should pass notability easily if taken in combination. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Theroadislong!! Thanks again for your supervision and guideline!! I have added three referrrences to the specific content you asked to cite and verification. Those are from MANIFF, the film direector's referrence and Arri Media. Oh, yeah, added a picture of the composer too! Should I resubmit the article for reviewing again? Will you approve it? I appreciate your cooperation. Marnie Hawes (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The "Early life and career" section has no sources, where did the info come from? Theroadislong (talk) 06:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I found it on IMDb, Redbird Music Website and the musician's official website. Should I refer to those sources? Marnie Hawes (talk) 09:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

They are either not reliable or they are primary sources. Theroadislong (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Theroadislong, Added a detailed news on Rutgers De Volkskrant as a source for that part. Any more fixing needed? Marnie Hawes (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

It looks like it might survive an WP:AFD resubmit and see. Theroadislong (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Really! I am so excited! Thanks a lot Theroadislong for helping me find out the issues and fixing it. Resubmitting.Marnie Hawes (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Theroadislong!, I am waiting for a review impatiently. I will die waiting if it really takes 8 weeks to get it reviewed. Would you please help! I don't know how many times I have visited your talk page in the last 3 days! And refreshed it again and again to see if you've replied or not. ha ha ha. In the mean time, I have read almost all of the previous discussions happened here. I must say, you are very generous. I liked the way you approach new Wikipedians like me. One more thing I would like to add is, your name. First time,I was like, how to pronounce it! What does it mean! Typing it multiple times , make me understood it says, "The Road is Long" . OMG.(Curious to know what you meant by this, which road is long and where are you heading up to, Kidding!) I like your user page too! Your sense of art is amazing. I don't know if I can give you a barn star or not. I really like you, Man! Please don't think, I am saying these things to get your review. :( I truely meant what I said about you! It's okay, if you leave my article pending for review. Marnie Hawes (talk) 09:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I added a donatebooks.org entry in the list of book swaping sites on the wiki page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_swapping There are many such mentioning of items/topics/subjects across wikipedia which doesn't have any article available/already written in wikipedia. If those items can exist on wikipedia then why can't the one which I added. Eventually the objective is to share right information and my addition will help people's reading the article to know that a book exchange site i.e., donatebooks.org also exist apart from the previously mentioned one.

There is no article for DonateBooksOrg and there was no sourcing, so no reason to add it apart from promotion. Theroadislong (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback.Please kindly once again review my page.Kindly advice and help me further content updates.--Ahmedpgp75 (talk) 08:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Your page has been deleted, please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Theroadislong (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Theroadislong, Thank you for your feedback regarding the page Nadine Akkerman. I'm obviously new to this whole game and wondered if you might give me some more feedback regarding the references I have put in thus far. Will the url suffice or ought I include the title of whatever I'm referencing (which seems superfluous if I'm directing the reader to the review itself)? Thank you, Marvelhouse words (talk) 11:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I have formatted your first source as an example on your draft Draft:Nadine Akkerman. Theroadislong (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

October 2019, Volume 5, Issue 10, Numbers 107, 108, 137, 138, 139, 140 Check out what's happening in October at Women in Red... Online events: New: STEM / Fashion / Geofocus: landlocked countries / Stub Contest Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Women vice Chancellors in Top 200 universities Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

I am working on the Raigmore Filter Bunker page.

I have two issues.

Firstly I own the bunker in question, but somebody tells me my own drawing of the floor-plan is a copyright infringment. It cant be. I measured by building, I drew the sketches on my computer to my sizes. How do I stop the images being deleted. The info in the talk page made little sense to me!

Secondly, the text and pictures I put in keep vanishing. Is this because I am doing something wrong and being censored, or is it incompetence in my part.

For example I *THOUGHT* I had added Here is a plan of the lower floor: lower floor of bunker 1989-2019

It appears in preview. I published it. Then it is not there? Any advice welcome. I appreciate you are NOT a help manual,but I am stuck. Iain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iainmaoileoin (talk • contribs) 20:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

As the images were tagged for deletion I removed them from the article, you have now replaced them and as long as you hold the copyright that should be fine, what is more problematic is your conflict of interest and your addition of details which are not suitably sourced. ALL content requires independent published sources, it is not sufficient to use your knowledge of the building we need published evidence of all the details. Theroadislong (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello

I have created an article :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:EFard,_Banking_%26_Financial_Solutions It has been rejected because: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

I am not sure what is the problem and how I can fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EFarda (talk • contribs) 10:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The draft is just a blatant advert for your company, and contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 10:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I have created this page by looking at the pages of other companies, and tried to be factual. Is there some kind of protocol that I should follow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EFarda (talk • contribs) 11:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. You rejected a couple of drafts. I'm very sorry - I added the wrong tag, instead of adding a draft tag I added a draft submission tag. How foolish of me! Once again, my apologies. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

No worries. I've done the same many times. Theroadislong (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I added sources and updated the entry based on your feedback in August. Possible to consider it again? MisMurphy ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisMurphy (talk • contribs) 13:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It was actually worse than non-notable, it was copyvio. I only noticed it because I had previously deleted the exact same page (same content at same place) from that user previously, so it was on my watchlist. Not sure how much detail a non-admin can see when looking at a page that has a deleted history...whether you would even know there is a deleted history for example. DMacks (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Well caught, sorry I missed that one. Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

For pitching in on Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old. -- Worldbruce (talk) 03:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi

You declined my article on Dr. Steeves. I have provided enough citations and many links within the article as well I have their recent CV and from that CV I have plenty of information about them regarding their work and many more things.

Can you tell me what do I need to do more so that the article will be approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawa Sahil Chouhan (talk • contribs) 13:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem, the draft Draft:Paulette Steeves reads like a CV and as I said, is woefully lacking in sources, bloated and promotional. All of the in line external links need to be removed, as does everything that doesn't have a reliable independent source. Articles on Wikipedia must be adequately supported by independent reliable sources so that information can be verified. Theroadislong (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on my draft article regarding Eric Maddox! As you suggested, I've removed the in-line external links. I've also edited the text and added more citations that specifically focus on Mr. Maddox and his role in the capture of Saddam Hussein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RSM400 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

OK thanks, I will try to improve.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lagardet (talk • contribs) 19:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I will try to improve. Lagardet (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Uday.simha.prakash (talk · contribs)
  • User:Uday.simha.prakash/sandbox/nemmadi.in (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey! Thank you for making time to audit my page submission. I obviously am new to this, i have been looking at using this from the guides i read online. It seems i am not doing too good a job. I read your comments, thank you. How may i change the submission so that people know an organisation exists that does this kind of work?

What i did was visited the Homejoy page and followed a similar language.

Please direct me to where i may understand better how i could change this submission.

Thank you again.

Uday.simha.prakash (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I've a question on how to cite the date of birth and location of a notable person. This is related to a page you reviewed for me previously, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athel_Cornish-Bowden. I originally had the birthdate on the page but removed it because I didn't have any evidence to back it up. I now have access to the person's birth cetificate, but page "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability_(people)&action=edit&section=15" says "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth," so the question then is how do I add the birthdate to the page? Rhodydog (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The simple answer is that you don't! We don't add ANY personal details unless they have been published somewhere. Theroadislong (talk) 07:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question. I know you're not going to like this and I've been scolded for bringing this kind of thing up before but I examined 10 biographies at random of notable persons (across different walks of life) and each one I examined gave an uncited birthdate. This means that not all editors are as careful as you are. If someone wrote a biography on the person in question in a reputable journal (e.g Nature) which gave details such as the birthdate, I assume I could use that as evidence? 128.208.19.3 (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC).

Please read other crappy articles exist, it's not an excuse! If the birth date is sourced in a reputable journal then by all means cite it. Theroadislong (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree absolutely it’s not an excuse! However, it would be useful if Wikipedia editors could be more consistent. Obviously you do what you to maintain consistency but there are so many biographies of notable people that I’ve checked which just state the birthdate, as well as numerous other bits of information, without any evidence. Rhodydog (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for rejecting my article

UnicornTears11 (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your help and hard work. A little something sweet as a sign of appreciation. Hello-Mary-H (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, you declined my article, and it is true that I am new. But I don't see why the sources I mentioned should not be reliable and independent. The citations come mostly from different international newspapers. I could add much more (I have three classers of press) but I need a hint what kind of press would be helpful. The general advices in the wikipedia manual don't help me, I can't see my mistake. And for the style: I tried to make it encyclopedic. Where are your problems? I would be happy to learn and improve. Can we get into dialogue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lagardet (talk • contribs) 10:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The "Life " section has only one source, other content is inappropriate in tone for example "Braun's political approach is also reflected in a decidedly intercultural mode of production", " painfully questioned the meaning of artistic creation", "The impulse to turn to contemporary dance"... none of it sourced. The draft also has multiple in-line external links which we don't use. Theroadislong (talk) 10:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I just tried to make it better...Lagardet (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Sir please help me I was try in one year but to success — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4066:13:19B3:A4B2:CED:3864:8EE4 (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Why my sandbox article is getting rejected? I have placed the reference links, Internal Links from Wikipedia, etc. How can I get the article published? Please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diwakarmudaliar (talk • contribs) 10:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I am considering the option to be adopted by a more experienced editor. I have created my user page with the request: I would like my adopter to be a English native speaker and have a background in Geometry. Best Regards;

Dario Pellegrinetti (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments! I have made numerous stylistic adjustments to bring the entry in line with Wikipedia requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandarin54 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MurielMary was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Article needs more detail in order to be accepted as a separate article from the one on Derry Girls.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Louisa Harland and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Louisa Harland, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MurielMary (talk) 11:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Theroadislong! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! MurielMary (talk) 11:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the refusal here. I have many cited sources, including from books, and reputable sources. Does someone over at wikipedia who has something against the guy? Because this is what it's looking like at this point. I've seen hundreds of other approved posts with less sources than this article. So whats the vendetta? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.205.253 (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You have cited IMDb, Instagram, Wikipedia and YouTube none of which are reliable sources these will need to be replaced. There is no vendetta. Theroadislong (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi there Theroadislong,

My apologies I did not realise that my edit was inappropriate. This was my first attempt in contributing to this amazing resource.

My intention was that the book reference would be useful resource and be of value to corroborate other content. My inexperience also resulted in the positioning of the link on the page near top whereas I had thought i was adding to the reference section below.

A question of more haste less speed I guess.

Again my apologies,

Kind regards

APShanahan (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you could add the content and then add back the source, you might find this helpful WP:REFB. Theroadislong (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi!

Thanks for reviewing the article. Could you please let me know what modifications should I make to make it acceptable? Should I use different citations independent from Walton's website?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CREworld (talk • contribs) 17:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes three of your five sources are to their own website which doesn't help with notability, see WP:CORP for what is required. Theroadislong (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello?

Would it be possible for you to send me a "simple step by step" procedure on how to insert an external link to an other (professional, relevant, serious,...) website which wouldn't be in-line ? I really don't understand what I am reading on Wiki.

Many thanks in advance Best rtegards Patrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatmanSA1 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

External links belong in there own section at the end. Theroadislong (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

JSTOR,Dawn,and Firstpost and Rekhta and his reference in Google books are individual sources. He does not has his own website. May i know which Individual source you are referring too  ? . If its Rekhta its Urdu's website for all Urdu poets ( kanhaiyalal kapoor is one of them ). Need clarification.

Apologies to bug you again, but just wanted to check, does it look okay now ? or should i remove external links section too ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumeetworld (talk • contribs) 15:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the draft. I have removed the FB and Pintrest links. Also cut down on External links and moved it to Further reading. Let me know at your convenience if it looks okay now. I can remove Further Reading section as well if its not required. Looking forward for your review. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kanhaiya_Lal_Kapoor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumeetworld (talk • contribs) 15:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The Rekhta website is not independent, it is the website that publishes his ebooks, we need in-depth independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, it publishes books of all Urdu authors not specific to him. However,even if we dont consider Rekhta, arent articles or dawnn, Jstor , Firstpost and references to Google books of Literature okay ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumeetworld (talk • contribs) 17:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi my name is Madison I recently made an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Brice_Gelot) regarding an artist it was rejected for the reason : Not clear how he would pass WP:ARTIST.

but as you mention

Creative professionals 4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums

the artist is represented by notable galleries as saatchi, artsper and artsy

which additional information should I ask him or should I add ?

Regards

Madison Y. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madison.y (talk • contribs) 23:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

They would not be considered notable galleries they are merely online galleries.You should also declare your conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi there: You have declined my incomplete article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Leon_C._Shelly as a submission for review. I did not realize I had submitted it for review (and have no recollection of doing so), because I still consider it a work in progress. I would appreciate it if you would return my article to its previous, unsubmitted status. I will submit it for review when I feel that it is ready for review. Thank you! Filmhunter (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

You can click the large blue "submit" button when you are ready. Theroadislong (talk) 08:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I'm reaching out to see if you can review the draft made for Qualifacts. I submitted for review 2 months ago. Here's a link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Qualifacts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judahpedia13 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your review of my article. I made the changes you suggested, as well as a few others that were needed. Please let me know if there's anything I need to do next to get the article to the next phase. Thanks!-jlc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcollinsycc (talk • contribs) 19:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks a lot for your answer. The link to images on commons is really relevant in this case and illustrates excatly what I am writting. Therefore would it be possible to leave these couples of links

Many thanks Regards Patrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatmanSA1 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

If you think they are relevant then you should use the actual images and not the links. Theroadislong (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I more or less figured I need more references and I am working on that. I have a different question that I cannot seem to get any help with. There are 2 photos and one image for this article but they are not shown. I received a message saying that they violate copyrights. Well, I took the two photos myself and the other is a PC screen shot of a CAD drawing that I made myself. I do not understand how these are copyright infringements. PK2112 (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

You need to upload any images to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page but you you would be better advised supplying some sources to your draft first. Theroadislong (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

thank you Theroadislong, I made the suggested changes on Victoria Noel-Johnson page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billoz70 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing my draft page and giving feedback. I've updated it now. I'm interested in graph databases and want to add pages for each of those that I consider broadly used and sufficiently notable to be here on Wikipedia (AgensGraph, TigerGraph, GRAKN.AI etc). Of those, I think AgensGraph is the most notable and have tried to reflect that, but as they are a Korean company, most of the writeup about them isn't in English. I've made some fixes, please could you re-review at your convenience? --Croesyceiliog (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• Madison.y (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Brice Gelot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, I did have a look to the WP:ARTIST, and at the section "Creative professionals" :

4.The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums

the artist Brice Gelot (d) is represented by notable galleries as (Saatchi Los Angeles // Artsper Paris // Artsy) also (b) Brice Gelot recently had an interview for an art magazine and will be present for an exhibition in Miami for Art Basel the biggest international art fair for famous artist or new emerging artist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Basel)

Madison.y (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Being included in online galleries confers no notability, as far as I know and interviews do not count as independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I did research after your message and those art galleries are only accessible to represented artist / notorious artist / new emerging artist (art dealer / curator or art gallery themselves) : (https://help.artsper.com/hc/en-001/articles/360024354293-I-m-an-artist-Can-I-exhibit-my-work-on-Artsper-)

see also Artsy : (https://www.artsy.net/contact) // Artsy Support // HOW ARTSY WORKS

Artsy is resource for learning about and collecting art by over 100,000 artists around the world. We partner with leading galleries, museums, art fairs, and auction houses in building our online database, which currently includes over 1,000,000 artwork images, including the largest online database of contemporary art. We do not work directly with artists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madison.y (talk • contribs) 22:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Why magazine interview doesn't count as independent sources ?