User talk:Theroadislong

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Welcome to my talk page. Click here to leave me a message .

You are a remarkable editor in many ways. You would be a good administrator, in my opinion, and appear to be well qualified. You personify an administrator without tools and have gained my support already!

Maliner (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The road is indeed long, but we’ve come to the right end of it. What you waiting for!? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is incredible what I was looking for. @User:Theroadislong is someone I used to take as an admin. You're already established and godly in all you do especially at AFC and help desk. Have my support dearest. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 I'm honestly surprised you aren't an admin already. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aww guys...you're making me blush. I'm just back from a four day walking holiday around the coast of Cornwall, I will give the suggestion some thought as always. Theroadislong (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

🤗 Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Its me Alragon. I want to say that yes you made a mistake i was going to cite it and according to my information that information is 100% correct. Because I live here, furthermore there are citations that are in other language to i am trying to translate it too. Alragon1 (talk) 08:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then please add the relevant citations rather than edit warring. Theroadislong (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

did it I added an article there are various articles for that exact same thing.

Regards! Alragon1 (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

How much time could it take for technical moves? Alragon1 (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HI, can you tell me what is Wikipedia commons as i got a notification but i am not able to open it? Alragon1 (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alragon1 Hi there. You mean Wikimedia Commons, it is actually a repository of media files that can be used on all Wikimedia projects. You might want to read Wikimedia Commons for more information. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Theroadislong I very much appreciate your thoughtful input to my article on the artist Bonnie Rychlak. I have spent a significant amount of time doing further research and addressing your concerns. I either eliminated the texts that you identified as problematic as original research or included the full citation from the original source. I added a number of sources that underscore the subject's notability both as an artist and as a curator/author. I would appreciate it if you would take another look and let me know if my revisions have successfully met the terms for publication. Also, would it be possible to remove the comments at the top of the draft that have been resolved? I know there is a concerted effort to increase the representation of female artists on Wikipedia, and I sincerely hope to continue doing so as I encounter the work of artists like Bonnie Rychlak who I believe merit a place on this platform. Thank you! Gaw54 (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a lot of inappropriate tone (ie. she has advanced the use of wax in sculpture to new levels of appreciation) and too many quotes, but I will leave it for another reviewer, the comments are removed after acceptance not before. Theroadislong (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your resistance to seeing the notability of this subject is baffling to me. Bonnie Rychlak's significance as both an artist AND a scholar is reflected on the most basic level in the fact that she appears in several other Wikipedia pages (see what links here). Doesn't the fact that she is one of the most preeminent scholars on Isamu Noguchi--a major artist of the 20th century--in and of itself put to rest the question of notability?

As an art historian, I have long appreciated Rychlak's scholarship on Noguchi and drawn on it more than once in my own teaching and research. I was subsequently introduced to her work as an artist in a collaborative exhibition she mounted with another artist, Jeanne Silverthorne. While Silverthorne has established a more visible artistic career, Rychlak's own artistic practice and reputation is on par with her colleague. Indeed, the fact that an entire exhibition catalogue exists dedicated to the two artists written by Terrie Sultan, a significant curator and scholar of contemporary art as recognized on Wikipedia, would unquestionably establish her notability to anyone with an awareness of the landscape of contemporary art in the U.S.

I could go on. But I hope you get my drift. Rather than standing on shaky ground questioning the notability of someone in a field in which you are clearly not qualified to judge, I think it would be far more productive if you could provide specific and constructive editorial advice. Calling sources "trivial" is insulting. Do you have any awareness of the reputation of some of the critics who have taken note of Rychlak's work? Perhaps you should Google some of them. Or simply accept the assessment of another reviewer who found the article of value and move on.

I thought the idea here was to encourage rather than discourage new contributors to Wikipedia. At this point, I have little appetite to further contribute my professional knowledge to a forum where I am beaten down at every turn and where my own professional assessment is questioned. Gaw54 (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaw54 Apologies I thought the notability hinged on the importance of the work in public collections and these were not linked, I have linked two, another has no source. I have removed the tag. Theroadislong (talk) 07:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Gaw54 (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already added citations please don't undo it.. Alragon1 (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that your style of writing is not suitable in places for an encyclopaedia, “He was the individual who had the esteemed privilege of being the first to receive the honor of pledging allegiance to Shah Fakhar-u-Din” and “To his followers he was venerated by the honorific title 'Qibla Alam', signifying an elevated spiritual status within the Islamic mystical tradition” and “Maulana Fakhruddin's remarkable benevolence deeply moved him” is NOT neutral tone. Theroadislong (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok you want me to make this article nuetral right? I'll make sure to do it. Alragon1 (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone objected? Do you know him? Alragon1 (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write that article that i cited. Alragon1 (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never said tht you did, ALL content should be written in your own words though referring to the source but NOT copying it. Theroadislong (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok boss got it. Alragon1 (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Each time I try to insert the proper citation, the cite inserts a different one. which has nothing to do with my text. Here is the one I want to insert:SSC-MS-00282, Sophia Smith Collection, Mary Conway Kohler, Biographical Note, Smith College, Northampton, MA: See full Biographical Note. Henrybardklein (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see any relevant edits of yours, where are you doing this? Theroadislong (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you review the sources of this article and confirm whether it is accepted or rejected Draft:Mohamed Aarab DRsabire (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't appear to pass WP:NSINGER but as I can't read Arabic I will leave it for another reviewer. Theroadislong (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been waiting for more than 15 days. I think it is a long time, and everyone ignores it. This is how I see it DRsabire (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have reviewed it... he totally fails the criteria at WP:NMUSICIAN so I have declined it. Theroadislong (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that reputable sources that talk about his artistic works have been added, and some of them have also been added. Where is the problem? DRsabire (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look from another perspective DRsabire (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to re-submit, I will not review again. Theroadislong (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have resubmitted. Thank you for the initial comment DRsabire (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you review it again? DRsabire (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The result will be the same! Theroadislong (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your service, dear friend, I created a page about the Iranian actor and composer Mr. Javad Nazari Shekarchi with the title Javad Nazari Shekarchi, which was transferred by your Excellency to the draft:Javad Nazari Shekarchi I have fixed a lot and added other reliable sources such as library and news sources and now this page has more than 110 reliable and live sources, so please transfer it to the main page, thank you very much ناتاشام (talk) 09:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to submit your draft Draft:Javad Nazari Shekarchi for review but be aware of WP:CITEBOMBING a LARGE number of your sources are absolutely NOT reliable or independent, such as Google search, IMDB, factburger.com, Spotify, www.wikidata.org, Peliplat, Binged, mycast etc etc etc. Theroadislong (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I have nothing more to say, and I will neither edit nor give sources, when out of the 116 available sources, according to your word, all of them are of poor quality, so I will not take your time, nor tire myself unnecessarily, I will only serve you one issue. I would like to say that in many articles in Wikipedia, the same sources that are of poor quality are cited in your opinion, I don't know why the same high-quality sources are introduced at that time, but in the article I wrote, they are introduced as low-quality, in any case, I am very, very sorry. I want to take your precious time, you can delete the article in question or do as you see fit. Good luck and God bless you.ناتاشام (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See other stuff exists, you need to submit the draft for review or it will just be deleted after 6 months. I am not an admin I cannot delete anything. An article should only require 3 high quality sources to be accepted, but if you are not willing to share them I can do nothing else for you. Theroadislong (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that the ,QueryString:'javad%20nazari',ResultSize:-1,ScenarioCode:DEFAULT,ScenarioDisplayMode:display-vignet,SearchContext:0,SearchGridFieldsShownOnResultsDTO:!((Id:134,Label:'Exemplaires%20disponibles')),SearchLabel:,SearchTerms:'Authority_id_idx%202989516',SortField:!n,TemplateParams:(Scenario:,Scope:Default,Size:!n,Source:,Support:,UseCompact:!f),UseSpellChecking:!n),sst:4) National Library of France, Web News, and the Internet Archive, and ,QueryString:'Javad%20Nazari',ResultSize:-1,ScenarioCode:DEFAULT,ScenarioDisplayMode:display-standard,SearchContext:0,SearchGridFieldsShownOnResultsDTO:!(),SearchLabel:,SearchTerms:'Javad%20Nazari',SortField:!n,TemplateParams:(Scenario:,Scope:Default,Size:!n,Source:,Support:,UseCompact:!f),UseSpellChecking:!n),sst:4) Library montpellier3m, all of which are mentioned in the article as sources, are sufficient?

That they exist, you can confirm, and if necessary, the rest of the sources can be removed. Tanksناتاشام (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, dear friend, I deleted many resources, there were about 28 resources left, which in my opinion were necessary, please take a look once more, so that if the problem has been fixed, I will send it again for evaluation, thank you very much. ناتاشام (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my God, I looked now and saw that I didn't pay attention to the template and deleted one of your comments in the article When I was deleting the sources, this happened. Unfortunately, I apologize.ناتاشام (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you can review the sources for this article. Sources have been added in English and French. You can verify it and accept or reject it. Draft:Draganov (musician) DRsabire (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Courtesy ping @Oliwiasocz) I've noticed your decline there. I think you might have been confused - while Treblinka extermination camp is much more famous, that article seems to concern a different entity, which has separate articles on pl and de wiki (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q15106709). See also Draft:Treblinka labor camp#Name (read about Treblinka I). And in the extermination camp article, search for "Treblinka I" - it is even explained in the lead (the extermination camp is Treblinka II and it explains how it is different from Treblinka I: " Treblinka I was a forced-labour camp (Arbeitslager) ... The second camp, Treblinka II, was an extermination camp (Vernichtungslager)"). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and best regards, my dear friend, according to your instructions in the draft:Javad Nazari Shekarchi, I removed the extra links and brought the number of sources to about 17 sources. If it is possible for your Excellency, review it again and if there is no problem, please let me click the review option and send it. Thank you for your effortseffortsناتاشام (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Excellency"? I am not royalty I am just a mere editor like you, you need to submit the draft for review I won't review it a second time, I will leave it for another reviewer. Theroadislong (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, dear friend, I did not mean to be bold, in my opinion, all human beings are equal and equal, so considering that human beings are the best of creations, I consider all human beings to be excellent and good. ناتاشام (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and regards again, dear friend, I have again sent the article for review according to your order. You can either review it yourself or refer someone else to review it. Thank you.ناتاشام (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello This is my first time on here and I don't have much of a clue! But the reason I wrote an article about Devon VW campers, is that there's an article about Holdsworths, which are nowhere near as well known or common. Holdsworth Motorhomes I just wondered why that one was ok and mine isn't? Flamingopinkbathroom (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See other poor quality articles exist, Holdsworth Motorhomes is so bad it could probably be deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi there Flamingopinkbathroom, (your username quite got me, hehe). This is not Theroadislong, it’s one of his talk page watchers. So, I see the article you mentioned and would tell you from an experienced editor perspective that the article in itself isn’t even in good standing, it is having several statements that are unsourced and unverified, that is, we do not know where whoever created that article got the information from. So, that page is not even one to use as a guide or example, and by the way, because Wikipedia has an article about something that is closely related to another thing doesn’t mean Wikipedia should also have an article about that other thing. In a nutshell, whatever statement you make in any article, our verifiability policy requires you to reference a source that will clearly support/verify that statement. I hope this helps you understand why the article you created was declined. (Oops, just saw Theroadislong reply you :)) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a printed book about all the different versions of VW campers, which has an extensive section on Devons. Haha I know that's really old fashioned! Flamingopinkbathroom (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Books are absolutely fine as a reference, sources do not need to be online. Theroadislong (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please give me examples of what is inappropriate for Wiki Henrybardklein (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is virtually no useable content there, the style is chatty magazine article not the dry neutral referenced tone Wikipedia requires. Theroadislong (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the piece about Judge Kohler. - Can you give examples of what is inappropriate. Henrybardklein (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I found it. Henrybardklein (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please direct me. I can no longer locate my draft Henrybardklein (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's here Draft:Mary Conway Kohler it hasn't moved? Theroadislong (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my draft I see 'Generation of the 1950s.[self-published source?]' which is clearly not a self-pulished but a retrived eternal source published by an independent authority. Please explain. TrevorGlynLocke (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TrevorGlynLocke I didn't add that tag but [1] is clearly written by Carol Leeming so would be deemed self published presumably and is not a reliable independent source. Theroadislong (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can esaily take it off; no problem. TrevorGlynLocke (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Theroadislong,

I am writing to request the retrieval of links that were recently removed from the Foodhub Wikipedia page. The links in question were not spam but were, in fact, original business links directly associated with Foodhub. Reference :[2]https://foodhubforbusiness.com/nz/our-organisation Reference: [3]https://global.foodhub.com/

As a food delivery company, it is crucial for our Wikipedia page to provide accurate and comprehensive information, including authentic business links that users can refer to. Similar companies, such as Just Eat, have included their global business links on their Wikipedia pages, (Just Eat) and we believe that Foodhub should be afforded the same opportunity to ensure our page is as informative and helpful as possible.

The links that were removed provided valuable information about our services and operations, contributing to a fuller understanding of our company for Wikipedia users.

I have noticed some outdated information and would like to update the content to ensure accuracy and relevance.

I understand the importance of maintaining Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality, and I assure you that any edits I make will adhere to these guidelines. I am committed to providing reliable sources to support the changes.

I kindly request that these links be reinstated to maintain the integrity and completeness of the Foodhub Wikipedia page. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your positive response. Best regards, Ruthisabellafh (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you left a comment in Draft:Renaissance in Ferrara. I am replying to your question. The article was machine translated and I tried to correct some of the phrases to make them sound more natural, but there might still be issues. Also, I am still learning to use sandbox. Crisdapic (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mangled "machine translation" content includes "produced original achievements" " was contributed by the school " "he court of the Este in Ferrara was one of the most vital in northern Italy" "his interests in the fable world of medieval heritage," "as well as update to humanism" "ranging among all the new ferments" etc etc etc PLEASE edit for comprehension. YOU are being paid for this work you should NOT expect volunteers to correct your poor translation. Theroadislong (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for the feedback. I did not notice this mistake. Crisdapic (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have added the corrections you pointed out in the article. I am still missing a section to proofread, but soon it will be all corrected for better comprehension. Crisdapic (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theroadislong,

A couple months ago you commented on the draft Cindy Ji Hye Kim page, saying it appeared to meet notability requirements but needed to be unprotected to be approved. The page has been unprotected. Is there anything I can do to get the page approved?

Thank you for your help. Diaeinsofa (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Theroadislong (talk) 06:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Diaeinsofa (talk) 11:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article created by me named Lovekesh Kataria who is a popular youtuber and a contester of popular OTT show Bigg Boss. I have cited all the relevant articles despite you rejected my request. Kindly respect labour of other, if there was some error you might have improved it. Kindly publish it Sumanrsb2 (talk) 07:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being popular is not a criteria of WP:GNG. The Times of India is not a reliable source and their own website is not an independent source. Theroadislong (talk) 07:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my very first article was (almost immediately) rejected in early April. I learned and understand why and believe the objections were addressed. The article is Draft:Gibbs Gardens . It is now sitting for review and approval. Perhaps it is just a matter of time but am not certain. Since you were among those to provide initial feedback, I am hoping you can now provide further input. Is it a matter of time because of the article backlog or is there some other specific roadblock?

Your insight is appreciated.

Gardendcs (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong

Dear editor,

Thanks for all your valuable comments. I have modified the article "The Alexander Silberman Institute of Life sciences" (Draft:Alexander Silberman Institute of Life Sciences) accordingly, and below I provide a point-by-point summary of the changes I introduced.

I added to my user profile (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Biochen123) an unequivocal statement that I am not getting paid for writing this article (and also not for writing other articles on specific researchers). I believe the amount of time that took me to respond to your comments is an evidence to this fact, as I would have been much quicker had I been paid for this work.

I carefully went through Wikipedia articles of renowned institutes, and made sure I adhere to the same standards. I added a section entitled ‘Notable achievements’, to match a similar heading (‘Innovations’) in the article on Harvard Medical School. Whereas the Harvard article cites in this section their own website (which is less compatible with Wikipedia policies), I referred to specific peer-reviewed published papers. I only referred to highly-cited papers published in high-impact journals.

The section ‘Study programs’ was heavily modified and shortened, to match the style of Yale School of Medicine. You have raised a concern that this section only uses self-citations. However, similar to Yale, we now cite the study program page of the Hebrew University (not of our Institute), which is the only available source that provides a deep description of the study programs in the Institute.

I have also invested much effort in citing independent resources to the information I provide. As you can see, the article now includes numerous references to JSTOR articles, specific award websites, other Wikipedia articles etc. In addition, in the section ‘Notable members’ I included specific references to the ‘best scholars’ portion of the Research.com website, which lists leading scholars in various fields: “The 3rd edition of Research.com ranking of the best researchers in various disciplines relies on data consolidated from a wide range of data sources including OpenAlex and CrossRef. The bibliometric data for devising the citation-based metrics were gathered on 21-11-2023. Position in the ranking is based on a scientist's D-index (Discipline H-index), which only includes publications and citation values for an examined discipline.”

I hope you would find that the current version of the article adheres to the standards of Wikipedia. It is written from a neutral point of view, and refers to a range of independent, reliable and published resources.

Best,

Biochen123 Biochen123 (talk) 11:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Alexander Silberman Institute of Life Sciences now suffers from WP:REFBOMBING I will leave it for another reviewer should you re-submit. Theroadislong (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | July 2024, Volume 10, Issue 7, Numbers 293, 294, 311, 312, 313 Online events: New: Translation contest 2024 | Science Fiction and Fantasy | Women in Sports Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Wiki Loves Sport 2024 22 July - 22 September Tip of the month: A foreign language biography does not guarantee notability for English Wikipedia. Check the guidelines before you start. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 14:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]