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 .

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]

https://imgur.com/a/EZCeLCj

There's a link to the offending bathroom suite! I got it second hand off eBay, bathrooms not quite finished yet, it's been a traumatic DIY journey. Flamingopinkbathroom (talk) 12:35, 3 July 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]

I finished proofreading the article. Crisdapic (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I improved the texts considering a more neutral tone. Crisdapic (talk) 22:41, 17 July 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]

Hi Theroadislong!

I am about to submit my article, pending Mr. ColinFine's answers to my questions on notability, reliability and independence :).

I have not yet mastered the procedure for "tagging". Kindly bear with me on this ;). Where do I get the tags? Which part of the draft do I insert the tags relevant to my topic and how do I go about inserting them?

Thanking you in advance Theroadislong :)! I look forward to your pleasant but helpful reply ;).

Warm regards,

Eleni Eleniofillyria (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean by "not yet mastered the procedure for tagging" ? Theroadislong (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Theroadislong!

In the ATC template you sent me, there was some mention -- at the bottom -- of "tagging" your submitted article with the relevant tags to facilitate the approval process by the editors & moderators.

I am trying to finish the draft for formal submission to the editors, but it seems your colleague, Mr. ColinFine, and I are still debating whether my sources fulfill the Wikipedia guidelines of "notability, independence, and reliability".

I am perplexed up to now! But I stand firm on my facts that my sources fulfill the guidelines.

What can you recommend Theroadislong to break this impasse? Do you have a governing body here in Wikipedia wherein we can submit/elevate cases like these when the editors/mods cannot agree on the next step to do :O?

Looking forward to your friendly advice. I thank you in advance for your help!

Eleni Eleniofillyria (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "impasse" and there are no "mods" here or "governing body"? You haven't even submitted Draft:Emeline Paat-Dahlstrom for review yet? Theroadislong (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hellw can you please review my Article Draft: Army Law College Akaayu (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Theroadislong, I have edited the above mentioned entry Anaxam that you had marked and shortened for being too unsourced and promotional. I had the same issue with the german entry that I also did. With the help of a german admin who had critizised it for relevance and length as well, I improved this one step by step until he said it is ready to go: no promotional language anymore, relevance is clear now and the entry short and precise enough. Now I would like to suggest the same improvements for the english entry as well, which would mean slight additions to your cutback version. Before I do this: Would you kindly find the time to have a look at the work in my sandbox and comment if you agree that this version is ok? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J._Berndorff/sandbox Thanks a lot! J. Berndorff (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a paid editor you will need to use the request edit system on the article talk page using {{edit COI}}. Be advised that nobody will simply accept your new promotional content, you can request changes line by line with reliable independent sources but not a wholesale replacement of your preferred version! Theroadislong (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. Thank you for the advice! I will do that. J. Berndorff (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback on draft:Element_Isle page. Previous feedback had been that I had focused more on the work of the company, than that actual company and that I needed to include more about the notability of the company itself. It appears that in doing this that I must have made it sound 'promotional'. I have tried to address this now. CaptainTavish (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Theroadislong, I'm reaching out to you due to your interest in removing unnoteworthy articles. I have nominated three schools for failing WP:GNG, all of the articles nominated is the same nature as the one you deleted.

Below are the nomination pages:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMK Seri Kembangan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMK TTDI Jaya, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoke Kuan High School

N niyaz (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atryvanel21 was warned on their talkpage and has not made any further attempts to put their social network site. Make sure you only post to AIV if that user persists in their behaviour. it'll give them time to familiarise themselves with wikipedia. thanks. Office7724 (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also this page Draft:Chateando was deleted so it's likely they'll get blocked only if they repost it. --Office7724 (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your good faith clearly extends further than mine. Theroadislong (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 123creativeuser (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jeewi Lee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I have trouble successfully uploading the article of the artist "Jeewi Lee". Apparently the submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Could you explain this further? Jeewi Lee is an artist, who had international exhibitions, has galleries representing her in Dakar, Berlin and New York. She has been exhibited in well known institutions such as "Gropius Bau" and "Hamburger Bahnhof". Further, a book about her works has been published by publisher Hatje Cantz (https://www.hatjecantz.de/products/65857-jeewi-lee). Why does she not qualify for a Wikipedia Article? I added many referenced to proof the information stated in the wikipedia-article.

It would be great to receive feedback and help from you.

Thank you in advance!

Best wishes 123creativeuser

123creativeuser (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to explain how you think they pass WP:NARTIST because it's not remotely clear from your sources that they do. Theroadislong (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just wanted to say that I appreciate the higher standards being applied to Wikipedia article creation than in the past. I'm adding better primary sources to the essay for Jane Fine, but I still have a few press releases. These only pertain to the announcement of art exhibitions and grants. I assume that's okay? Given that I need to provide citations for everything, such as a person's date of birth, I assume it's better to have a press release versus nothing at all? ChurroCat (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes for something as simple as a date of birth but they are ignored when a reviewer is checking for notability and if an art exhibition has not been reported on by secondary independent sources then it isn't notable enough to mention, you are NOT creating an artist's profile here, it is an encyclopaedia article which reports on what independent sources with significant coverage have published. Theroadislong (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]