User talk:Theroadislong: Difference between revisions

The Wikipedia page "User talk:Tuminof" has been changed on 19 October 2011 by Theroadislong, with the edit summary: General note: Adding spam links on Venice. (TW)

Hello Therodislong, my link regards official collaboration with the city of Venice! Isn't a spam! Remind please. Bests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuminof (talk • contribs) 11:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Optical Express thread has dropped off the COI noticeboard and there's been no activity for some time. I'm willing to take the COI template off if you think it sounds like a good idea, on the understanding that both parties stick to the talk page - the article must now be on the watchlists (and hair-trigger revert lists) of enough experienced editors that we can come down heavy if it starts up again. Sound like a plan? Failedwizard (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed... no problem.Theroadislong (talk) 09:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: Pinkadelica reverted their last edit. I see that they have resumed trying to add in marketing and copyrighted material into the article. I issued them another warning regarding the copyright material. If they continue along the same lines, please report them to WP:AIV. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the DynaVox, which is fairly adverty and wondering the best course of action for it - do you think it's a db-spam level? I'm wary of nominating without a second opinion... Failedwizard (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed some of the marketing speak and added some citation requests I don't think it's bad enough for db-spam but it certainly needs working on.Theroadislong (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers :) I'll add it to my ongoing projects list. Failedwizard (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please explain this? Those are not external links, they are a new editors attempt at references. Yoenit (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies but they failed to verify the content.Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But why are you reverting my edits. I was adding information about a person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drugsarebad89 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your content was unreferenced and you are edit warring.Theroadislong (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Many thanks for pointing out what I should have realized before I started. I'll work on contributing to another article for now, and return to an initial submission later ... obviously one in which my business and personal interests doesn't conflict with. Webmaster,Great Atlantic Media Group (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We are new to editing content on Wikipedia and will be more mindful of proposing future updates on our Talk Page. The updates we recently made were factual updates to our research section (these changes can be referenced on our website here: http://www.northshore.org/research/about-us/research-facilities/). Aside from utilizing our Talk Page for future updates, do you have any additional recommendations? Again, we appreciate your feedback. Northshoreweb (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that editing that page under this account might be seen as a COI. We took very good care of editing the text in a way that it is neutral and factual. Be fair, if I wanted to put promotional text in there, wouldn't I have done that with an account bearing not this name?

So could you please be more specific in what part(s) caused the offence in your eyes, so that we can make sure the new text is up to par for all to enjoy the completeness of the information.

For example, I saw you even rolled back the infobox change, in which I updated the current bandmembers and removed the old bandmembers, because the old bandmember list with all ex-members included was just too long and also included in the text anyway. I fail to see how that is a COI.

Omnia webmaster (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add back the info box changes but the rest was VERY promotional, non neutral and unreferenced.Theroadislong (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. We will revise the text again. Can you please point out here what you found promotional, non neutral and unreferenced, so we can make sure the new text will be acceptable for you (and all the others)? That would be greatly appreciated. Omnia webmaster (talk) 10:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You my good friend are not as bright as you might think you are. My personal comment was the last sentence. The rest are true facts. If you have problems with the facts, then search them up. If you can prove me wrong then I will oblige and not repost the truth back onto the BDS page.

Yours..., MYGAMEUPLAY