User talk:Theroadislong/Archive 50

Silver Magazine
Hi there. I did message before, not really sure how this works. I’m disappointed that my submission was rejected but would massively appreciate some help fixing what is unacceptable. I know there are tons of other mags with Wiki pages and I just need to understand what I can do to make our listing okay! I’m not looking to ‘advertise’ - I’m far more in the business of just underpinning our existence and the way we are challenging the norm. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samhlowe (talk • contribs) 19:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have published about it in reliable sources.

The article should be limited to a summary of what such independent sources have said about them. If there are no sources then we don’t have an article.Theroadislong (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Riftia pachyptila
Thank you so much for reviewing my draft (article on Riftia pachyptila). It is just that this article is part of my Masters Degree Assignment on writing a wikipedia article and it may take me some time in order to write proporly, so I am writing in my sand box for the moment and I will improve what I write continuously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maissa.gh (talk • contribs) 23:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The Tyne (Band) Page
Hi I'm really sorry, my favourtie band has asked me to make them a Wiki page. Is there something I'm doing wrong in getting them one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HattiePrice1011 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly you will need to declare your conflict of interest on your user page, then please read WP:BAND there you will find the criteria for musicians and ensembles, that you will need to pass before you can have an article accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Anna Kessel
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Need help republishing the article
Hi TheRoadIsLong, I've revised my draft by adding more relevant information via independent, third-party sources. I'm unable to resubmit the draft. Could you help me, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasBha (talk • contribs) 14:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to click the large blue "submit" button, though I suspect it will be declined again as not notable enough. Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes less is more
I strongly agree with you that sometimes less is more - that an article can be improved by radical cutting of content. Usually I am applying said scalpel to articles in the areas of medicine, health or nutrition (my area of expertise), where content was often created resting on references that did not meet WP:MEDRS. David notMD (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

A Family genealogy article?
Would you look over Harrison family of Virginia It looks to me like a Genealogy article. I am sure that there are many surnames who could justify a similar article.Oldperson (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Some families are more notable than others I guess, the article is a "good article nominee" too. Theroadislong (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Riftia Pachyptila Article
Dear Theroadislong, user Maissa.gh is editing in her sandboxes the article relative to Riftia pachyptila as part of an Educational Assignment. you can find more info on the course here. Please give her some time before editing her work! Thank you, Donvannelli (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In which case please ask her not to submit it for review, we don't accept drafts of articles that already exist. Theroadislong (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually it may be possible in certain circumstances to publish this one in mainspace, depending on the student's article's ultimate subject, and whether it were to be published as a new section in the existing tubeworm article, or as a separate article on a particular microbe which contributed to the tubeworm's system. At the moment, the article Riftia pachyptila does not identify the bacterium or bacteria associated with this particular tubeworm, and maybe it would improve WP if one or more of these bacteria/microbes were to be identified by name. Worth considering, anyway. (Edited to add that my comment refers to the subject matter of the submitted article only - not to the quality of the submission). Storye book (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I think her final objective is to add a few paragraphs (or section) to the existing article on the tubeworm, adding information regarding the symbionts. There is a lot of papers on the symbionts that we have covered in class. Please let me know if drafting a new section before adding it to the main article is an appropriate. I will for sure suggest her not to submit her work for review (too early at least). I've also added the educational assignment badge. Something I had missed earlier (my bad). Thank you both for your comments! Donvannelli (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my Article
Hi Theroadislong,

I made the changes you suggested to the article I submitted. I have resubmitted for review once again. Can you review one more time?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:George_Hammer_III — Preceding unsigned comment added by AleLagos77 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
Hi there, I have changed the references for my article and submitted it for another review. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noreen Ly (talk • contribs) 10:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but it looks like blatant advertising to me, with no evidence of notability. Theroadislong (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft: John Rennie Short
Thank you for your advice! K. Kramer Ahjazzer (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Jim Simons (Mathematician)
Hello Theroadislong,

Thank you for your message. All information came from a recently released biography of Jim Simon's life. Appendix 2, which was not referenced in the post, compared Mr. Simon's performance to other well-known investors clearly showing that he had outperformed them over time. The comment was not meant to be promotional, but perhaps it was subjective.

If I left out reference to his performance, would I be able to repost the change?

Many thanks again.

--Pxepa (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure...just keep it neutral in tone. Theroadislong (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd add: and if the description or comparision you want to add can not be kept neutral (e.g., just because it is not neutral itself), pay a special attention to proper attributing the statement, as described at Neutral point of view (in short: Peter is cute. is BAD as a biased opinion apparently said in the name of Wikipedia; John said Peter is cute.[ref: John D. "Who is cute and who is not?", N.Y. Press, 2012] is GOOD as a neutral information about the fact of publishing a biased opinion.) If the topic is disputable, strive to present both/all points of view (we describe disputes, but not engage in them – WP:IMPARTIAL) not giving prevalent representation to any of them (WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV/FAQ). --CiaPan (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Questioning your edits.
This is in good faith, but I want to state my case on why the edits you made to List of university and college schools of music https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_university_and_college_schools_of_music should be undone. So according to the edit summary, you Undid colleges and universities without an article. Shouldn’t they still be on the article, since the point of the article is listing the schools of music? Even without an article attached to the school, they are still colleges/universities of music, and therefore should be on the list. Thank you for reading and responding.Elijahandskip (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Normally list articles only include notable subjects (those with Wikipedia articles). Theroadislong (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I do understand where you are coming from, but since this is a list of colleges, which are all notable, I think the names should stay. Just because a topic doesn’t have a Wikipedia article yet doesn’t mean it isn’t notable.Elijahandskip (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would interject that Theroadislong is quite correct; list articles are not meant to list every possible member of the list in existence, only those with Wikipedia articles. Not every college is notable- even if most are.  Colleges must meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. If you add a link to a list article with the intention of writing an article, that should be made very clear- and the article to follow relatively soon afterwards.  It is better to write the article first, though.  331dot (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I use notable in the sense that Wikipedia has an article about it, not all colleges are notable enough for an article they need to be the subject of multiple in-depth coverage in reliable soures first. Theroadislong (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Submission declined on 6 December 2019 by Theroadislong (talk).
Hello Theroadislong,

Thank you for taking the time to review my article on Aska. Would you be open to helping me understand which sections read more like an advertisement than an article (and why)? I very much appreciate your feedback (this is my first attempt at creating an article myself)!

Yours truly, Elliot — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElliotMacy (talk • contribs) 20:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Promotional content includes " fine dining restaurant helmed by Swedish chef ", "Aska offers a multi-course tasting menu in a dining room of only ten tables"' "the new, bilevel space comprises a main dining room, courtyard garden, private dining room, and cellar bar." " one of only ten restaurants in the city to hold the honor." Theroadislong (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Anthony Blunt
My edit made the introduction to the article more succint and accurate. His treason is the only reason anyone even knows who he is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4F00:F2:2179:9E3D:2F4C:6B63 (talk) 06:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Fabrizio Grossi
Hi,

I have changed and submitted the page again, hope this time it's good enough! Also I realized that I have made a huge mistake: I misspelled the artist's name in the title, but I am not able to correct it.Can you please let me know how to do it? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandree1 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

My First Article
Hi Theroadislong, I update all the links, I used good/notable sources. This is my first article and I'm excited to publish it appreciated if you can review it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The siner (talk • contribs) 20:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for creating this interface
This is very helpful. I wrote to you about Jerry Horner, but I appreciate this interface to be able to communicate with you. Wishing you the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclements6 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Request on 21:04:27, 17 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Mclements6
I am writing because I am trying to establish a wikipedia page for an influential violist. Although it has been declined because I am non-neutral, I remain the best source biographical and career information on Jerry Horner. Once the page is published, I am sure that his proteges who serve in orchestras and chamber music ensembles around the world, will edit the page. Jerry was a humble man and his influence was wide. He was the principal violist in three of the great orchestras. In addition, he served as violist in two of the longest standing string quartets in history. Finally, although I wrote the article, most of the information I provided is merely factual.

I would appreciate your help in publishing this page. His omission from the classical music wikipedia pages is a rather glaring omission.

Thank you for your help. Mclements6 (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Mclements6 (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you may have misunderstood how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with them have chosen to publish about them. The article should be limited to a summary of what such independent reliable sources have said about them. Content like "distinguished service in many of the best known orchestras" " widely regarded", "esteemed career" etc etc is not neutral in tone and not appropriate for an encyclopaedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. It is a little difficult establishing wikipedia articles concerning significant older people whose peers are now deceased and never knew wikipedia. Regarding string quartets, in general, although the quartet repertoire is profound, by definition its audience is small. Is it appropriate to have another person submit the same article? In some ways I would argue that the Dallas, Houston, and Pittsburgh Symphonies are widely recognized historically as being among the top orchestras certainly in the country for classical music during this time period (1960-1978). Achieving a principal position in those orchestras was very competitive by definition. We are really talking about someone who achieved peer review. In addition, Jerry Horner is referenced in wikipedia articles written about the Vermeer, Fine Arts, and Berkshire Quartets. Creating a record for Jerry (who was the longest serving violist in the Fine Arts Quartet) helps to give information about 25% of the membership of the well noted quartet. Any help you can give would be most appreciated. With kind regards, Mclements6 (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid unless you can find reliable in-depth coverage in published sources there can be no article, did any newspapers or magazines write about him for example? Theroadislong (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * These would make a good start, . Theroadislong (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

He was a humble man...son of a fisherman. I attached an article from a magazine. Largely, however, his influence is heard in the sounds of the musicians he influenced. They are in orchestras and string quartets around the world. I could list some of them, but the list would be long and non-inclusive. He performed more than 100 concerts a year around the world which is a sort of peer review too. In addition, the discography of the Fine Arts Quartet is significant:  http://fineartsquartet.com/discography Should I connect Youtube soundfiles? He was not a self promoter... Again, thank you so much for your help. This was important to him and it could not be done before he passed.Mclements6 (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

An article is being written about him in The Strad. I could send you the mark upMclements6 (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

In addition, his website contains an interview conducted for a news channel in Mexico.Mclements6 (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Mclements6 (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Interviews are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes, The Strad article will be useful once it is published, I have to sleep now but will take another look tomorrow. Theroadislong (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help. James Campbell, who is been a very important musician who built the “festival of the sound” in Parry Sound, Ontario, was a colleague of Jerry’s for more than forty years. In addition, the Penderecki Quartet which is in residence at Waterloo, came from Poland to study with Jerry. Finally, Peter deSoto, who is the founder of Quarteto Gelato of Toronto studied with Jerry as well. Those are just some of the musicians from Canada alone who worked with Jerry. Sleep well, and thank you for your help. Mclements6 (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Santiago Bibiloni
Hello, I am waiting on my review for more that three weeks now. Trying to post ir since October. Would you give me a solution, please?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millie Vago (talk • contribs) 15:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You have not addressed the issues of neutrality it is still full of unsourced marketing trumpery. Theroadislong (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Help please!
I wanted to know if you could help me with the Kent Tate page. I have been attempting to fix some of the deletions of good references that were made on the article after I requested some very minor edits. I got quite upset about it but that didn't help. I've recently gotten up the nerve to try to make some edit request to add back in the stronger references and to try to modify some of the text to match the statements. Multiple references were removed from sentences that I had used statements from several different sources. Apparently, that is not advised. I kept getting the same editor who if it were a regular page not a COI page I might complain that what they doing is a sort of vandalism. Can you kindly take a look at my recent edit request and tell me if you think they are unreasonable or if you agree with the reason for denying the most recent edit is reasonable. If I thought it would be acceptable I would revert back to the original sentence for the #1 and change the reference to the Talve reference; however, nowt it seems to me that the editor doesn't think that statement should be in the article. I am asking you because you seem like a reasonable person and you approved the article for AfC. I personally find the process for COI editing very humiliating and unfair. The article was approved by you and this editor has taken it upon themselves to strip out content and references and block me from making corrections. I really am only trying to improve the article and really don't get the resistance. I've created multiple articles for other artists and have never received such resistance. Can you help me or could you help me delete the page before they weaken it so much and then tag it for deletion? Sorry for venting! Thank youLorriBrown (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You have been given excellent advice by User:Spintendo, I don’t think what he suggests is at all unreasonable. The article is certainly not a candidate for deletion and accusing other good faith editors of vandalism is not helpful. I would strongly suggest you step aside from the article and let it grow with other peoples edits, I’ve created more than 100 articles, I rarely edit them, they have a life of their own, just let it go. Theroadislong (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I can appreciate that getting worked up is not helpful; however, User:Spintendo’s removal of multiple references – which were is the version of the article that you approved by the way – was very disconcerting.  I requested a very minor – perhaps even annoying (but not intentionally so) – edit request initially that resulted in the unsolicited removal of multiple references plus content.  My recent edit request was an effort to try to correct some of these changes.  In the most recent edit request - Spintendo requested for proof for the statement that includes ‘performance’, ‘film and video’ and ‘installations’, stating it is too general and that Talve is not a good source.  To me,  in her essay she describes why she considers Tate work as installation comparing these previous exhibitions to installations and why.  I do have links to several exhibitions she refers to plus some more but is was the 1980’s….  This denial just felt like yet another block. It is dizzying for me to construct these edit requests (working in edit mode on the talk page is difficult) and I frankly lost my mind for a second, which I do regret going on a rant on your page and in the Teahouse.  I have left this article alone for the most part for almost one year.  All I was interested in doing was some minor updates to the article to include a filmography that supports the artist’s current practice.LorriBrown (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Quickshot Page
Hey TRIL - thanks for reviewing the page. Any specific instances where you think it sounds like an advertisement? Definitely not my intention. Don't believe the notability is an issue so just straightening out the language is the obstacle here. If you want to go ahead and make the necessary changes so it can be published. By all means :) MaskedSinger (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * thanks for the notes. Will work on tightening up the language. Thank you! MaskedSinger (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to take another look, I've resubmitted it. MaskedSinger (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you please take another look. Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Any chance you could take another look at this? MaskedSinger (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Dana Densmore
Hello,

I have added more credible sources to the draft: Dana Densmore page and would love if you could give me anymore specific edits! I really need this published for a class, so any advice helps! TLHistory (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid your topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, can you please elaborate? I am new to this and I read the notability guidelines on here, but what specifically is it about it that does not make it notable? TLHistory (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could suggest how you think she passes WP:GNG, you are free to re-submit, I'll let another reviewer decide. Theroadislong (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019


This year's Reviewer of the Year is. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
 * Reviewer of the Year

Special commendation again goes to who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to and  who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by.
 * Redirect autopatrol

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
 * Source Guide Discussion

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag. Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This month's refresher course

Draft page stuck in pending review
Hi Theroadislong, was wondering when we can expect the draft page for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Natalia_Safran to be approved. We rep this client; she has quite the list of accomplishments. She also has an existing page live here (polish) : https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalia_Safran. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to expedite this process. Thank you for your time! Miguel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobelinecomm (talk • contribs) 01:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly you need to declare your conflict of interest on your user page and then remove all Amazon and IMDb references as these are not considered reliable. Theroadislong (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you and apologies for my incomplete draft.
Thank you for your swift and clear review of my article on the cultural scientist Alana Conner. I have updated the entry with 13 high-quality, independent, secondary sources that attest to her notability. Please let me know if these additions are sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlleeCat7 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Sulfolobus solfataricus article
Dear Theroadislong, I'am a degree student working on my sandbox ( User Flavia Caccaviello ) to add a few paragraphs or information to the existing article on Sulfolobus solfataricus as part of an Educational Assignment. You can find more info on the course here. I've also added the educational assignment badge. Thank you for your comment! Flavia Caccaviello (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Vivian Wang Article
I did read it and did the best I could to make changes. It is not easy to understand. That's why I asked for help. If there's a way I could talk with someone and make the necessary changes I can do that. Or, I could pay for some professional help but have been warned against it. I really don't want to submit the article only to have it rejected four months later. I'm sure you understand. As a donor to Wikipedia, I'm a big supporter but this process has me very, very frustrated. Whatever help you can give me would be much appreciated. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Halper (talk • contribs) 16:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Vivian Wang Article
Vivian Wang satisfies the following criteria for being notable: 1.The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. 2. The person is known for originating a significant new technique. 3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. 4. The person's work (or works) has: (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition and (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. This is all documented in the article itself. If you have specific suggestions for references, I welcome them. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Halper (talk • contribs) 16:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to any of your sources so cannot help, the draft certainly doesn't show she is notable at the moment I'm afraid. You need reliable independent sources which cover them in depth, the gallery sources are not independent. You also need to declare any conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Vivian Wang Article
When I first submitted the article on Vivian Wang I acknowledged that I was connected to her but apparently not clearly enough or according to the proper format. Vivian Wang is my wife. Nonetheless, the article is free of a bias. It is simply a description of who she is and what she's done. If this connection disqualifies me from submitting an article about her, please let me know as I spent a lot of time writing the article and then attempting to submit it (so far unsuccessfully) to Wikipedia. If not, then I will move forward. I would be happy to pay you to help me publish this article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Halper (talk • contribs) 16:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Why
Alright, so 40 MILLION people play Overwatch. That’s a lot of people. Being within the top 500 best in the world is difficult and notable. I don’t understand how that is not notable but some random teapot museum in the Carolinas is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShowMePity (talk • contribs) 20:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You may well be right feel free to nominate Sparta Teapot Museum for deletion. Notability is assessed by the number of reliable sources which cover the topic indepth. Theroadislong (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have saved you the trouble Articles for deletion/Sparta Teapot Museum. Theroadislong (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Pulse Secure Declined
Good day, Thank you for the quick review of the page I submitted. In the rejection, the listed reason was reads like an advertisement. Can you give me some feedback on what part of the article read like advertising, so I can correct it? I styled it after Barracuda Networks, a company that is close to it in form. The one thing I did notice on the Barracuda Networks article is that a lot of the sources were just rehashes of press releases on third party sites, so for this draft I made sure to have better sources. Thanks for your help, and the work you do. CatHerderCam (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input
Since my subject is a YouTuber, it's a bit of a conundrum to avoid any citations from that site, but I reworked the article and added a lot of other sources that I think will be better. If you have time, I'd appreciate any more input you have. Merry Christmas/Happy Hanukkah/a pleasant general season to you! :) Perennialpoet (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Hedju-Hor page declined
I saw that you declined the English page on Hedju-Hor. I have no true conviction about it, but I solely made it because pages existed in other languages and not in English; all I did was translate it. If the sources aren't strong enough, I recommend you look at the other pages for consistency and delete them. (New to this. Not sure how it works) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagnumEnforcer (talk • contribs) 07:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Why
Why the rejection? Elkapitan81 (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Your draft Draft:Giovanni De Jesus Milanez has no sources, in order to demonstrate notability, you need to provide references to articles written about Giovanni De Jesus Milanez in unrelated, independent journals, magazines, books, etc. Theroadislong (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I Tried, im only 8. Brep8 (talk 15:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The Deadweights ‎
Clear cut hoax. How did this go undetected since 2007? I declined my G3 so that someone at List of hoaxes on Wikipedia can curate it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 09:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes have to hand it to them, brilliant hoaxing, how they survived for so long is hard to fathom, most could have been speedy deleted at the time of creation, I haven't checked yet, but there could be more. Theroadislong (talk) 09:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not quite as elaborate as this User:Rhododendrites/Chaney from a few years ago but still high up on the bogus meter. Congrats to all for finding it. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 09:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Larry Ely Murillo-Moncada
Hello! Theroadislong You've reviewed my draft article on Larry Ely Murillo-Moncada and I've mentioned that another articles were also reviewing indeed. I if you check you'll found out I've also created that article. If you help me and possibly replace that article with his new one? Seeker 18th (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

question about my article
Hello, Could you let me know how I can improve my article so that it is published? Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.114.86.34 (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no way of knowing what your article is? Please log in and try again. Theroadislong (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

re rejection Collibra page
Hey, thanks for the quick feedback on the article. I am connected, not as employee, but as a student to the company that sponsors our research. I study data innovation, and I believe I did a fair job at making sure the page has independent sources. As a 'unicorn' Collibra as a company has become the subject of master class case material: e.g., Harvard Business School http://www.datawest.org/uploads/9/1/0/0/91005152/dw19_draft_agenda_12-02-2019.pdf. Wikipedia would benefit from having a central page with history and relations to its technical grounds which already have established Wikipedia pages. Students can then expand on the page with their own studies over the coming years. Could you help us publish this article with your editorial guidance?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techhistorians (talk • contribs) 17:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Changes to Papua New Guinea work
Hi,

I totally understand that I needed to add some context to the work - you got there before I had a chance.

While I understand that a Facebook blog might not look important without context, in Papua New Guinea, these can be extremely influential. Kramer is widely regarded as having been elected based on the blog and he wields a LOT of power because of its readership. I've added some citations to support this (you deleted things while I was adding them, give me a few minutes to type!).

Dadi Toka Jr may not look important but he's basically the Papua New Guinea version of the chief of the Sioux, so saying he's unimportant is fairly insulting and I'm going to take that tag off fairly quickly before it gets picked up and spread through Facebook. He's in the midst of a major campaign to restore land rights to his people, who have essentially had the capital city stolen from them. He receives death threats over this, and in PNG that's pretty serious stuff (check out our level of violence, its appalling). He's likely to enter parliament fully next year and is a likely future Prime Minister. And regardless, as the head of the Motu Koita Assembly he's one of the most powerful men in PNG. I don't think Wikipedia is the place for hyperbole so I haven't written that. But that's the context behind the person and position.

Appreciate your points and I've added some citations - should have done that before. Hopefully that context gives you a bit of understanding and I'm happy to receive any constructive feedback on how to make things more relevant to those reading them for the first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wantok Author (talk • contribs) 19:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Missing independent sources
Hello Theroadislong,

thank you for your kind words. I completely understand, because it is well-founded (independent sources are missing as far as I got the final result), but I want to give it a last try to have an English article belonging to https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayonara_Player (Germany) https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayonara_(p%C5%99ehr%C3%A1va%C4%8D) (Czech Republic, first article, not by myself)

First question:

How do I add those in the English Wikipedia, so that the two other languages appear in the left hand menu "Languages"?

Second question is:

Would it meet the quality requirements if I add the following sources? - A 10 pages article from Luke Baker on LinuxLinks (2019) (with an amazing summary by the way) https://www.linuxlinks.com/sayonara-player-small-clear-fast-audio-player/10/ - Abhishek Prakash from It's FOSS has the 2018 article "Sayonara is A Beautiful Lightweight Music Player for Linux" https://itsfoss.com/sayonara-music-player/ - It's supported by the German ubuntuusers.de, which I would add as a source for the chapter with Ubuntu mentioned https://wiki.ubuntuusers.de/Sayonara/ - The German publisher (known for the printed magazine c't - most famous IT magazine in Germany) is listing it with a 4,2* rating (even if it's only 5 voices): https://www.heise.de/download/product/sayonara-player-88402

What do you think?

I'm begging you to keep an eye on the list in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_audio_player_software

There are lots of smaller players without the media library functionality and without knowing the author of Sayonara Player (I'm independent as you can see, when you have a look at the Guayadeque Player entry in German Wikipedia) I can say, the player is worth it to get more and more known. As a reference kindly see the list of my articles published: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Dominic2105

Thank you very much for your time today. Even if it shouldn't be released, I'm saying thank you for your invest. Dominic2105 (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Re: Sasha Gordon Page Review
Hi Theroadislong, I'd ask that you please reconsider the Sasha Gordon article. I believe that number 3 and/or 4 of the "Creative professionals" notability guidelines are met here. The artist has won significant critical acclaim (in the past two years, her body of work has been featured in HiFructose (https://hifructose.com/2018/08/06/sasha-gordons-surreal-intimate-scenes/), It's Nice That (https://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/sasha-gordon-art-280119), Amadeus Magazine (http://amadeusmag.com/blog/sasha-gordon-paintings-steeped-identity/), and New American Paintings (https://www.instagram.com/p/B6bLYSsl2-5/). She was an Honorable Mention is the new $50,000 Bennett Prize: https://thebennettprize.org/honorable-mentions-2019. In the past year, her work has been shown at highly publicized/reviewed shows including "Big Painting" at the Patrick Parrish Gallery (NYC), Nostos at Matthew Brown (LA), and Night and Day at Thierry Goldberg (NYC). Lastly, while a vain 21st century argument, her Instagram following and active engagers includes a virtual who's who in the contemporary art world: https://www.instagram.com/sashaagordon/. She's young, but she's already notable and continuing to gain prominence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohio2292 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You are free to move the draft to main space yourself, but I doubt it would survive at WP:AFD "significant critical acclaim" has not been established here, Instagram and blogs are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for the help. My sense was that HiFructose and It's Nice That are both pretty well-established fine arts publications that would rise above being a blog. They're certainly not the New York Times, but they seem to have a decent barrier-of-entry as far as their editorial standards. You have a lot more experience on here than I do so you're probably right that it won't make it through, but I'm stubborn and feel that the artist (whom I do not know personally) is worthy of a page and I'd like to maintain it as she continues to blow up, so I'll give it a shot. I've noticed that some Wikipedia pages for majorly acclaimed contemporary artists like Jonas Wood aren't kept up with a lot of helpful information, so I'm trying to go more in-depth with a handful of artists that I can follow closely and build their pages as relevant information comes to light. Ohio2292 (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Improvement has been made.
The page has been improved with all the needed references and links to various articles and websites regarding the New Community Bible. Though not popular in western earth, it is highly appreciated edition in the southern and eastern earth. A Constantine Winchester (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The draft is just a blatant advert supported by blogs, totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 08:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Publishing Victor Ekpenyong
Hello Theroadislong, thanks for your comment on my draft for Victor Ekpenyong regarding the source. I have corrected it. Do you have an idea on how much longer it will take for the article to be published and made available to search?

--Mhfatih (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You have not submitted the draft for review yet, but I fear that the subject is not notable yet and would be declined. Theroadislong (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

First Timer Assistance
Hello, I'm interested in getting something published, perhaps the Brad Daniels piece. Is there anything you can do to assist or fix? Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgeWrites (talk • contribs) 14:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

references updated of the article Sayem Sobhan Anvir
Dear Theroadislong,

I have updated references of the article Sayem Sobhan Anviras per your recommendation for your approval. Please let me know if further information require.

Best Regards, mfrshahin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfrshahin (talk • contribs) 11:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Thomas John Williams
Hello,

Could you please delete the above draft from Sandbox.

Thanks,

Londoner23 (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Group of Five conferences
Resubmitted. You rejected the first draft of my first attempted at creating a page. I'd appreciate your review of the second draft. It includes multiple, possibly duplicative citations addressing previous issues as not being notable even though the terms and vernacular are commonly used in the vein of that topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhanChavez (talk • contribs) 04:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Update
Edited several related pages which would link the term "Group of Five" to Power Five conferences. Available for review in my limited contributions. I understand rejection for lack of notability or citations, however, upon review of pages which link to the Power Five group, common references across pages, as well as many external citations, there is no good reason that the "Group of Five" page should not exist alongside "Power Five" to disambiguate and provide proper information. It would be inappropriate to place a map and/or listing of "Group of Five" members on the "Power Five" page, as the "Power Five" page is specifically about the Power Five, not the Group of Five.

Else, if "Power Five" is allowed (64 of 130 schools) as "notable" enough, but "Group of Five" (60 of 130 schools) is not, then what would you say to 60 or 66 of those schools. They're not notable enough even though they play in NCAA Division I football? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhanChavez (talk • contribs) 23:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

PhanChavez (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you Theroadislong for the message and for helping with my article Gentlemen's Fury. Happy Holidays. Best, Cleobarbara (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Rejecting submission
Hello,

I just wondering. You wrote "Rejecting submission: e - Topic is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia (AFCH 0.9.1)"

How about all the other Developers? Did they paid you? How much? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_genealogy_software — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midibo (talk • contribs) 12:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Your draft User:Midibo/sandbox has no independent sources and is written like an advert, it is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I have no idea whether other developers paid for their articles, but I would suspect not. Theroadislong (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry. But I cannot accept this as an answer. I wrote what the others wrote too. Delete all the articles from the others too and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_genealogy_software because its "Topic is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midibo (talk • contribs) 12:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

How about all these programms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Windows-only_software Topic is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midibo (talk • contribs) 12:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC) Topic is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia? −
 * They are not written as adverts like yours, if they were then indeed they would be contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I changed the article. I wrote exactly what others wrote. No excuse for advertisements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midibo (talk • contribs) 13:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * BUT... Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have published about it in reliable places. The article should be limited to a summary of what such independent sources have said about them. If there are no sources then we don’t have an article, your draft has zero independent sources? Theroadislong (talk) 13:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I changed the article. I wrote exactly what others wrote. No excuse for advertisements anymore! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midibo (talk • contribs) 13:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Is Google Play not an independent source? What is for WikiPedia independent? Not Google? Are the other developers notability enough? How much notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midibo (talk • contribs) 13:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Ryan Trotti - Declined
Feedback, noted. New cite added. Ryan has now been recognized on with a full front page featured article on a third party newspaper (cited), a full on-air TV broadcast with CBS for their "Sound Check" music segment (cited), as well as a full on-air TV broadcast interview with NBC regarding winning the CCMA Entertainer of the Year (cited).

Would encourage you to look deeper into the citations and you will see these are fully credible, third party, major media groups, with unbiased, full feature coverage of Ryan Trotti. These are not simply "passing mentions" as previous feedback indicates.

Respectfully, this is the 2nd time that feedback was used as the reason, despite the first reviewer essentially "retracting" his/her comment after diving deeper into the citations.

I would humbly encourage reconsideration for this entry, as the artist is certainly being recognized by the proper outlets, winning significant awards, charting commercially available music, and being included as a lead performer in many national events and venues from coast to coast.

With sincerity, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1312:47C3:EC19:FB66:1729:BB18 (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Brazilian numbers
Bonjour cher Theroadislong,

Thanks for your comment on my draft about "Brazilian numbers". You write today, "this submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia". English is not my native language, I understand "test", I understand "edit", but not "test edit". In this submission, like other mathematical articles about number theory such as palindromic numbers, prime numbers, Fermat numbers, Mersenne numbers, transcendental numbers, ... there is an introduction, followed by an history paragraph, then different properties and paragraphs for distinct families of numbers: primes, repunits, composites, ... and at the end, a notion of highly Brazilian numbers inspired by highly composite numbers coming from Srivinasa Ramanujan. There are in the text 28 Wikipedia references (in blue) towards mathematical terms or famous mathematicians, and ten references or external links towards historical articles. I don't forget the 18 links to OEIS sequences related with Brazilian numbers.

Please, do you think it is possible that this draft could be reviewed by a mathematician editor from English Wikipedia, maybe could you send him this draft or you can send me the Wikipedia surname of such an editor? So, because, I'd really like to understand why "this submission seems not to be an article worthy of an encyclopedia". It was about the same first comment for Fench Wikipédia, before French mathematician editors come and read my draft before to improve this draft together. I really don't see how to improve this draft which looks like the corresponding article of French Wikipédia. Big thanks for your help.

Have a very nice and good year 2020.

OSS117 (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You may be referring to the French article that you created? The only content of your English draft is "Brazilian number, I wrote for French Wiki the article "Nombre brésilien": https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nombre_br%C3%A9silien

I propose to write the same in English.Brazilian number, I wrote for French Wiki the article "Nombre brésilien": https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nombre_br%C3%A9silien I propose to write the same in English." We cannot accept a mere proposal to write an article? Theroadislong (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Theroadislong,

You write "The only content of your English draft is "Brazilian number, I wrote for French Wiki the article "Nombre brésilien": https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nombre_br%C3%A9silien". I really don't understand because in the English draft, after the introduction, there are seven paragraphs: 1. History, 2. Some first properties, 3. Primes and repunits, 4. Non-Brazilian composite numbers, 5. Numbers several times Brazilian, 6. References, 7. External links. I understand you don't see the complete draft with all the text. I have removed the first sentences which was related to my English not to much perfect. Please Theroadislong, could you tell me if now, you can read the complete draft? Merci, thanks you very much. Sorry to disturb you. OSS117 (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My decline referred to your submission here User:OSS117/sandbox which has no content apart from a comment. Theroadislong (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Possibly meant to submit Draft:Brazilian number...? -- CiaPan (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Ah, ok, I understand. I speak about this draft, the draft cited by CiaPan : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Brazilian_number. I have not put this draft in my sandbox because at the end of the draft, there is a brown box where it is written: "Review waiting, please be patient."

So, please, must I put this draft in my OSS117 sandbox, or can you review the draft directly ? Merci.OSS117 (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, you have submitted your draft for review already. You did it on 8 November 2019, in Special:Diff/925184549. -- CiaPan (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it was a misunderstanding with Theroadislong, very very sorry. So, now, I have only to wait for review quietly, I have nothing more to do? Merci for your precious help. OSS117 (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Fringe theories and § Due and undue weight
I made an edit - congruent with Wikipedia's Raison d'être, removing a word and giving the reason in the correct place - perhaps you missed it. Including the pejorative 'pseudoscience' was designed to, and had the effect of invalidating the organisation in question, and demonstrated clear bias on the part of whoever included it. And by the way, who are you and who gave you the authority to determine what is right or wrong on this particular entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by From Clairwood (talk • contribs) 11:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Truth in Science is a United Kingdom-based creationist organisation which promotes the Discovery Institute's "Teach the Controversy" campaign, which it uses to try to get pseudoscientific intelligent design creationism taught alongside evolution in school science lessons" seems to be exactly correct, as Wikipedia sides with science not Pseudoscience. Theroadislong (talk)

Creation science is not pseudoscience, but it seems Wikipedia has taken sides, rather than attempting to be objective. Here is a talk by Prof. Stuart Burgess (BSc Eng, PhD, CEng, FIMechE, FRAeS), 'Why Biblical Creation is Good Science 4/10/14 @ 3:30 pm EST' - won't let me post the Youtube link for some reason. He has taught engineering design at Cambridge University and Bristol University in the UK. He has won many national awards for engineering design including the Turners Gold Medal and a Mollins Design Prize. He has published over 130 scientific articles on design in engineering and design in nature. He has seven patents and carried out design projects for industry including designing parts of rockets and spacecraft for the European Space Agency. He is author of the books Hallmarks of Design, He Made the Stars Also, and The Origin of Man. He has lectured in many countries including the USA and Japan.

From the Wikipedia site - 'Wikipedia has been criticized for exhibiting systemic bias, for presenting a mixture of "truth, half truth, and some falsehoods",[24] and for being subject to manipulation and spin in controversial topics.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by From Clairwood (talk • contribs) 14:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You are correct Wikipedia has taken sides and sides with science. Please discuss this on the relevant article's talk page not here, but beware of Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctionss. Theroadislong (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)