User talk:Theroadislong/archive 7

Please do not revert the changes that do include facts

Dear Theroadislong, please consider not deleting the facts about Alcoa Russia, that I have added. They are true and verified. If you think the text is overly promotional, I will appreciate your help in making it better for Wikipedia. I do not think that adding the date of acquisition is overpromotional. Thank you! --SvetlanaFaynberg (talk) 05:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You have taken the promotional tone piece out so it's much better now. It needs reliable third party references though, the company website is not enough. Kind regards Theroadislong (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I've seen the recent blog posts attacking you. I personally investigated the issue. You deserve more than a barnstar for your patience and goodwill in the face of someone viciously insulting and wrong on the facts. Thank you. If that's why you are considering retiring, I hope you'll reconsider. :-) Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I want to second what Jimbo says; you're an innocent bystander wounded in an edit war. (The guy may actually issue an apology of some kind, I think.) --Orange Mike | Talk 02:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Wish I had a barnstar from Jimbo.Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Have a nice cup of coffee.

Sophus Bie ^(talk) has given you a cup of coffee, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Coffee promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a coffee, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, bitter goodness of coffee by adding {{subst:WikiCoffee}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I happened to run across the discussion, and I am so sorry that you had to deal with that cantankerous so-and-so. You're a good editor, and you definitely don't deserve that sort of abuse. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 18:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness.Theroadislong (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Linda Biggs AFD

The Linda Biggs article has been nominated a second time for deletion. As you were a participant in the first AFD discussion, you may wish to particpate in the second discussion. I see you have recently retired, but I'm still posting this just in case you change your mind. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Openet Page

Hi Theroadislong

The external links were suggested when I first created the page to show secondary sources of note.

An administrator asked for me to show more relavnt links outside of what I had already used.

Apologies if I added theses incorrectly

You also appear to have now requested more secondary resources. I was of the opinion that I have quite a few? Irish times, TMC Net, Light Reading etc?

Let me know how you would suggest I get rid of the warning tag on my page?

Thanks

Stephen 0001 (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should be referenced to reliable third party references NOT the articles own website, if there aren't any third party references for the material then it probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. At the moment the article looks more like an Openet website hence the advert tag at the top.Theroadislong (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Theroadislong

I am new to all this so forgive for the basic questions.

Do the numerous third party references I use throughout the article not help? If you look at the reference list at the bottom of the page you can see that there is a long list of references from Indurty publications?

I have been trying to make to bring the page in line with guidlines to get the advert tag removed, however so far no luck. If you read the article you will notice there has been numerous changes to the page by outside influences that I have not changed, even some that could be considered negative but true.

While in college I did work exp with the Company and have followed there growth with interest ever since, although it may look like advertisment I am only trying to post factualy correct information.

Any suggestions on how to improve the page are most welcome.

Stephen 0001 (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:The Beatles

Care to explain why you reverted me? Hot Stop 20:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

My sincere apologies... no idea how that happened? Except that I'm on a dodgy slow running macbook, with a faulty trackpad. All good wishesTheroadislong (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It seemed kind of odd since I hadn't seen you in the discussion at all. Hot Stop 05:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Gerry Shaw here- do you think you can remove that "close connection with subject tag?" I can't think of much else I can do the clean this up... — Preceding unsigned comment added by GerryShaw (talk • contribs) 21:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Kevin Ou Page

Hi Theroadislong, I've noticed you recently added issues to the Kevin Ou page which I uploaded. As this was taken from a Bio that I wrote away from Wikipedia, on second reading it was a very biased article, and because of this large sections of the article have been rewritten.

Could you have a second look at it for me (now it has been rewritten). Hopefully this will be close to solving the issues you have raised, if not I would welcome been pointed in the right direction.

Regards JP222 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JP222Wiki (talk • contribs) 10:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It's still written in a very non neutral, promotional tone. There are no third party references for awards and many, many unreferenced statements and much only referenced by his own website, blogs or Youtube and other references which fail to verify what they are intended to. I'll have a look and see what I can do later. RegardsTheroadislong (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Theroadislong I appreciate your help on this — Preceding unsigned comment added by JP222Wiki (talk • contribs) 12:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat me to it.Theroadislong (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism? Who Dares Sings

Please can you give me an explination for classing my post as vandalism? please note I have emialed the administrators in complaint about this unfair acusation.

I would like a real expliantion and please note I will be reverting

The show was a ratings hit in the United Kingdom (Please note the ref section below where I made the edit)

Gracias For Your Indulgance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steph mot'd lulu (talk • contribs) 21:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted by user Barek as unsourced I suggest you take it up with him.Theroadislong (talk) 07:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: DJ Mell Starr not Mentioned

Hi Theroadislong, I noticed you stated Starr is not mentioned on the Master of The Mix site. Your information is incorrect as he is one of Season2's contestants. The info can be located as you scroll down the page in this area of Master of The Mix Wikipedia page: Season 2 (2011–2012) under Contestants his name reads DJ MELL STARR. Please provide an explination as to why you stated (failed) and removed the citation. Thk you. QTPepsi (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

there is no mention of him here? [1] Theroadislong (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Failed Verification for DJ Mell Starr

Hi Theroadislong, I also noticed you stated Starr is not a verified citation for Rasheed Chappell's "Do Your Thing". Your information is incorrect as his name is stated under # 12 for Rasheed Chappell's single "Do Ur Thing" from the Future Before Nostalgia album on itunes. Please provide an explination as to why you stated (failed verification) and are requesting citation info. Thk you. QTPepsi (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

and no mention of him here? [2] Theroadislong (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of links - I have added a talk on - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Divya_Prabha_Eye_Hospital

Hello Theroadislong,

I added the links only after talking to Devin, the owner of this hospitals. The links I put in are not promotional links. These links are help people in searching all doctors in that specific hospitals at one location.

I see you have deleted the links at all other places, I have spoke to most before adding. Would an email from them help?

Could you please let me know if, I can add this in any other section like "Reference" links? These will be helpful for patients.

These links are nofollow and so will not help me rank high. So, I am not adding for ranking my page high. I am only trying to help users get more information about doctors all at one place for a specific hospital. Please help.

Your help appreciated. I want to follow the guidelines and only work on that. Sorry, if I had done anything wrong. Hope you can help me.

Thanks, Mini... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minibalaraman (talk • contribs) 05:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia it is not a page to help people search for doctors? Please read Wikipedia is not a collection of links RegardsTheroadislong (talk) 08:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy tags

G11 isn't really the right tag for a page like Its our planet - no doubt there is promotional intent, but WP:CSD#G11 is for "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Where there is only a link to an external site, WP:CSD#A3 no content applies. It's important to get the right tag, so that the newbie article author gets the right message and may learn to do better. Keep on New Page Patrolling - a tedious task, but essential! Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes sorry my mistake, cheers.Theroadislong (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation:Bruce Clark (legal scholar)

Thanks. Is it OK that I copied and pasted the text only of the article from Talk to Creation but not all the editing and declined and waiting for fresh review data? How do I deal with the fact there are no footnote numbers in References? Can you help me with instructions on how to insert a fresh footnote 27 in paragraph 2 under the subheading "Federal imperial statutes" on the phrase "as sovereign States"? Nice talking to you. Cheers,--Evarose3 (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I have recopied the "edit" version for you which retains the formatting for the references. I think you will struggle to get the article agreed though as it still reads very much like an essay and not an encyclopedia article. Good luck.Theroadislong (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Might I impose upon you to take a given section of your own choice that reads like an essay and convert it yourself to read properly for Wikipedia purposes. I have read all the recommended theory articles on the subject and now would benefit from a practical implementation. If that is not possible many thanks for all you have done already. Best,--70.26.28.64 (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the subject is way beyond me! All good wishes.Theroadislong (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the good wishes. I am sorry. I must have implied that you should become an expert in the subject and revise the substance of the point made under one of the subheadings. Actually I was not talking at all about substance but rather only about appearance or "style." I feel I have explained the issue of constitutionalism vs imperialism that constitutes the basis for Clark being notable and, moreover, that I have verified what I have said. That is, I think I adequately have covered substance. If that were true you would have each point being made in its sequence and, in consequence, you would already know that the imperialism threatens the democratic peoples' constitutional supremacy. It is an issue that greatly and perhaps adversely affects the public interest, yet the public is not informed about it. The "smear and disinformation" campaign in fact has ensured that the public is not interested in Clark, which signifies all the more they should be informed. But how to inform them? It seems the problem is my writing style. An earlier reviewer User SarahStierch said it "reads more like an essay," as you also have indicated. Therefore what I was asking you was to show me by example how to write in a more effective and acceptable style any given point. The fact I can not get help from anyone in that connection, not just you, presents the same "head in a vise" feeling that Clark's clients who arguably are victims of the "serious bodily or mental harm" caused by imperialism must experience. Society is blind to its role. Me putting Clark into Wikipedia could change that information hiatus. Please just bear with for just another few moments, but I have to admit I just wrote my principal Wikipedia mentor User Matthewrbowker as follows. But I have to go to his Talk page to copy it so, in order not to lose this much, I will have to save and then return in just a minute to paste my question and its supplement. I asked: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evarose3 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Matthew: I have a question based upon the priority of encyclopedia objectives when substance vs appearance:—if the pursuit of true knowledge in terms of notability and verifiability is satisfied, what does it matter that the expression stylistically reads “more like an essay” than the norm?--Evarose3 (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

A supplemental question please:—if your own answer to the question favors accepting instead of declining might you relay the question and supplement to Sarah Stierch and Theroadislong?--Evarose3 (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Theroadislong: Is there a person, panel, committee or board within the Wikipedia organization to which we could apply for an authoritative policy ruling? Taking for granted that the article "reads more like an essay" in terms of style, I have to submit that this article is a prime candidate for the application of Wikipedia Pillar 5. The proof its subject is notable is verifiable. Inclusion of the article could help to prevent the ecogenocide he so desperately wants to halt. Keeping it out can do harm but including it, no harm. The imperial legal establishment would applaud the exclusion of this article. I am begging you to try to understand my anxiety over the public's awareness of the simple truth about Bruce Clark and the issue that makes him famously infamous, taking the side of the constitutionalism in an imperialist era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evarose3 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The subject of the article may well be notable, but the article as it stands seems to be about MUCH more than Clark himself? I have absolutely no idea what "ecogenocide" may be or the "imperial legal establishment" or "constitutionalism in an imperialist era" I suggest you try and find more reliable third party sources. I don't feel I can help further. RegardsTheroadislong (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It is an article about a man whose life became devoted to the resolution of an issue sufficiently important to make him notable. For this reason it is not possible to verify notability without also verifying his issue: the two are virtually one. Taking on imperialism alone and pro bono is a long and arduous road, and I guess that is how you feel about reading my article. If that makes it a coatrack then it is a coatrack but I do not believe that is a fair and just or justifiable question. The article is honest because I am honest. No, it is not subterfuge, neither consciously nor subconsciously. And thank you for correcting the photograph caption.--Evarose3 (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I received your good bye. Thank you. All the best,--Evarose3 (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

article SOLAR TURBINE PLANTS

i have few question pls help me. when i add inline citation to this article its get deleted and then there is a display please include inline citation. I have added few links in my article. please reiew those asap. and please help me with the problems that comes on my wikipedia article page at top.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solarturbine (talk • contribs) 16:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Michael Dowd article picture

Theroadislong, do you know why my picture keeps disappearing? See the talk page of the page on me. I don't know what to do. Please advise. Thanks! MBDowd (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems it was deleted because there was no evidence of permission for more than 7 days.[3] User:Explicit deleted it. Kind regards Theroadislong (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you flute

	Magnificent Mediator
	Thank you for mediating the King's School dispute. You brought the right argument at the right time with a good dose of gravitas. Stay classy. Earthbee24 (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Request For Proof Read

User talk:ChristianULC/Universal Life Church World Headquarters

Per your offer Thank YouChristianULC (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to create the article but as it stands, it reads more like a passionate advertisement for the church and not like an encyclopaedia article. Neutral statements of verifiable fact backed by reliable, independent, third-party sources are required, blogs, Facebook, Linked in, and Youtube are not acceptable references. Good luck Theroadislong (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

How did you do that?

...and more importantly, why is doing that so cryptic here on wikipedia? I've battled the Article Creation Wizard until I was as dizzy and exhausted as a Pug chasing its own tail. What links do you follow to open an article creation applet, like the one you linked on my talk page?--XB70Valyrie (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You just put two square brackets before and after the article title...simple!Theroadislong (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		Helping create an article and teaching a man how to fish. XB70Valyrie (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Page won't die...

…so Talk:Optical_Express has come back to haunt… any ideas? Also we may need to discuss if the section page editors are warring about can, or can not be placed in the talk page (I suspect we might have different opinions on that one - but it would be good to have the conversation). Fayedizard (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Difficult! I don't personally think the links belong on the talk page as they are, unless they are backing up a proposed form of wording for the article. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for peoples campaigns, though once they have been reported by secondary sources we should consider including them in the article bearing in mind due weight.Theroadislong (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I argree, my thought was that I'd rather have the material there to be critiqued and (I pressume) rejected as being a problem - rather than sections being blanked - but the situation appears to have resolved itself… Fayedizard (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Bookspam

I am so sorry and utterly mortified. My understanding was that, as the people featured in the entries in question play major roles in my biography of Ben Nicholson, mention of the book would be a useful addition to the articles. I will now endeavour to find the time to insert additional and useful information relevant to the entries in question. I had no idea I was a 'bookspammer', but now that I have read your guidelines I fully see your point. Thank you very much for your understanding. Lalagioconda (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

American Water Works Association

Theroadislong--You are obviously much more experienced in WP than I am. I made a lot of changes to the original AWWA article. I agree with you that the original article read like a brochure or advertisement. I have been a member of AWWA for 41 years and I felt it necessary to make the changes so that the article was factual and not based on self-congratulation. Please help me fix the article so that it is not and advert. I really do need some suggestions.

Also, I read the History of the article and it looks like a lot of people have participated in editing the page. Your tag of single source appears to be related to only one citation in references. I will look for more. I must admit that I am confused by the whole "tags" system. Drinkingwaterdoc (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

In furtherance of my effort to obtain references from outside sources, I have added a number of references to AWWA activities from other websites. I am not sure if this is standard WP practice or not. I would appreciate your thoughts. Drinkingwaterdoc (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I have not heard back from you on my questions or request for suggestions. I have made changes to make the article more neutral. I have added references. If I do not hear from you in 5 days, I will remove the tags. Thanks Drinkingwaterdoc (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Drinkingwaterdoc (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

As a first time page creator, I want to Thank You for making some corrections to my page: Cathy Segal-Garcia I will do my best to get at least one Reference before you (or whomever) delete my page. It was a lot of work to create so far. A lot of hit and miss, trial and error, with soooo much to read, learn and follow for an old broad like me... but I'm determined to get it right! Thanks again... enjoy the strawberries. Redlippedlady (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Hmmmm, I thought I had sent you a Thank You bowl of strawberries, but I don't see it here. So here's another one! You made some adjustments to my page: Cathy Segal-Garcia that I had missed, overlooked etc. This is my first attempt at creating a page and is quite daunting at this point. I will do my best to impliment a Reference before my page gets deleted. It was soooo much work to create. So much to read and understand in order to get the info on the page that is appropriately developed. I am determined to get it right... eventually. Redlippedlady (talk) 07:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you so much for helping me keep this page on Cathy Segal-Garcia. I'm trying, but not too good yet. I really appreciate your jumping in and correcting my blunders. Redlippedlady (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Lists

Hi Theroadislong, Thank you for your feedback on the Martin's Page. I am new to Wikipedia and I was wondering if you could further explain why encyclopedias should not contain lists of items. Kggantz (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Because to me it looked just like advertising.Theroadislong (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Rudy Buttignol article - I wanted Film Dept York U to be an external link not a citation. Found a citation to add. Want to link to Dept Film York U too!

Dear Theroadislong, Thanks for your close read.

I had originally wanted to externally link the Department of Film York U and now it has become a citation.

I can easily find a citation from a good source and here's one that can also be viewed online: http:www.tandemnews.com/viewstory.php?storyid=7226

Baldassarre, Angela (April 22 2007). "Italian documentaries at the Hot Docs International Film Festival. Italian-Canadian mogul Rudy Buttignol receives Outstanding Achievement Award". Tandem/Couriere Canadese (Toronto).

So should I put the Baldassarre source in, and keep the link to the York U Department of film too?

Sofiabrampton (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really clear what you are proposing? The link you give above doesn't mention him attending York University? The citation should verify the information in the article.Theroadislong (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Re Rudy Buttignol citation 5 added to Early Life Section

Hi, Thanks again for your help.

I just added to: Early Life Section - Baldassarre source #5 re graduate of York University

Sofiabrampton (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

But again I can see no mention of him attending York University there?Theroadislong (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Re Rudy Buttignol citation 5 added to Early Life Section

Hi again, Theroadislong.

Re the Baldassarre article, there is a line (looks like the beginning of the 3rd para) that states, "This year Hot Docs honours the great Italian-Canadian Rudy Buttignol....came to Canada in 1955, later earning a BFA from York University."

However, I see that someone else put the Canadian Film Enclyclopedia in as a source to back the York University claim.

Do I need to do anything else re this one?

Many thanks again.

Sofiabrampton (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I put the better reference in myself.Theroadislong (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the better ref.

Many thanks for helping me, Theroadislong.

I am so new at this I don't know if an electronic version of a Canadian Film Encyclopedia is a better source that a newspaper like Tandem.

Cheers! Sofiabrampton (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Poor use of TW

Instead of reverting edits that have explanations, why don't you look at sources. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.22109&lon=-5.24887&zoom=15&layers=M shows quite clearly that this is the railway line and that the A30 is further North. Also the discussion page on Commons for the picture I removed also raises this point.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

My mistake I was looking at this link https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&safe=off&q=carn+brea+map&ie=UTF-8 but hadn't noticed that it was the leisure centre being marked and not Carn Brea. All good wishesTheroadislong (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and sorry for assuming that you didn't check a map.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I've downloaded the image and photoshopped out the A30 label but don't seem to be able to upload it over the old image something to do with svg or png extensions. will have another go later. cheers.Theroadislong (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Martin's Famous Pastry Shoppe

Hello, could you please justify the close connection tag you just posted on the Martin's page by telling me which sections of the article that you believe require clean up. Thank you Kggantz (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The parts that you just re-added.Theroadislong (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I just don't quite understand as to how including product information and history about the origin of the company's name is not neutral. It is a simple presentation of the products the company offers, which is similar to the information included by many other consumer goods companies and the reason why Martin's is named as it is. Could you please specifically show me which guidelines this information violates. Thank you Kggantz (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Earthenware

We have an anonymous edit warrior who insists on removing the term "glaze-firing" from the article. These are bad faith edits because he will not sign his name and will not engage in discussion on the Talk page. He has used eight IP addresses, all of them in Leeds, to give the impression that it is more than one person editing. Please do not allow yourself to be bullied by him. He probably comes from an industry background and wants to ban the terminology of studio potters. Marshall46 (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Josh Devine speedy

I've changed your speedy on that from A7 (unremarkable person) to G10 (attack page) as lines like "MK likes to take it up the butt" are potentially negative info about BLPs. The claim that he plays for a band called onefagrection, verges into vandalism and hoax territory. Valenciano (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I should have noticed that...ThanksTheroadislong (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages

Dear Author/Theroadislong

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address recently edited an article on Methamphetamine. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please visit my Talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I have more than 16,000 articles on my watch list and regularly patrol new pages so any editing of health related pages is entirely random really, I don't think I can be of any help to your study. Good luck.Theroadislong (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Newport Harbor Yacht Club

You said that :I have removed the article from my watch list, do whatever you like with it. What on Wiki says that local newspapers are not worthy of notability?--WPPilot 14:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You did not answer any of the questions that I asked, you simply repost the questions on the talk page. That seems a bit odd to me, but for your review I post it once again here:

There is no evidence of any notability, two references from local newspapers and a You tube link. Virtually all content is from the Newport Harbor Yacht Club's website. No significant coverage elsewhere. It desperately needs some reliable third party references.Theroadislong (talk) 07:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I am going to remove your tag on the oldest yacht club in Newport Beach California. PLease do not tag and run without making clear what it is that you are objection to or suggesting. It is miss placed and you provide nothing to qualify your tag:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage

This is a Yacht Club that is the oldest Yacht Club in Newport Beach. Its website must be considered as reliable, in regard to the historic value and contributions that this club has made the the local economy for almost a century now. It has represented the United States in the Americas Cup and its historic contributions are well founded in the historic creation of the city of Newport Beach. Any club that has a history that far far far outreaches the digitial age is going to be in the same situation on Wikipedia. With regard to the standard of each of the following:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

Once again we are dealing with historic institutions that have been a part of this community for generations. Its own website has nothing to gain in the many documents that it offers in regard to its overwhelming historic roots. Remembering that the Internet and most of all Wikipedia have only a short history in contrast to this Yacht Club. Wikipedia has a catagory for "Yacht Clubs" and in the real world if a yacht club is a member of the US association of Yacht Clubgs it is a YACHT CLUB, no two ways around it

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article.

The simple fact that this is a qualififed yacht club and is regarded as such by the local media in the area of that club should be more then enough to deem as reliable.. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Most local papers are digital now and have information regarding these yacht clubs that can be used to satisify the need for 3rd party verification, but at least as far as Yacht Clubs are concerned, the simple fact that a club is a club, should qualify it to have its own page that with any luck will evolve for years to come. --WPPilot 01:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There are two references from local newspapers and a Youtube link, this could NOT be considered significant coverage by any stretch of the imagination? The articles website is not a reliable secondary source and that is what this article needs.Theroadislong (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Then are you suggesting that this 90 year old yacht club is not notable enough to be included in YACHT CLUBS OF THE UNITED STATES[1] like the other yacht clubs? You are simply wrong. You are interperting this improperly and you are ignoring the "REAL WORLD" that perceves a yacht club as notable if it is a member of the US yacht club association. Would you suggest that, unlike all other yacht clubs that are on Wikipedia, that this club somehome does not qualify to be a yacht club and as the result of the local coverage (NOTHING IN WIKI NOTABILITY SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT EXCLUDING LOCAL COVERAGE), what is it that you suggest this story does? Delete it? Merge it with Newport Beach? Delete all the yacht clubs with local coverage? What is it you think should be done here please tell!--WPPilot 14:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't shout, the article needs more reliable secondary source. Please see WP:GNG for a guide to notability.Theroadislong (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you suggest, merge the story with Newport Beach? Remove it all together? Merge it with other yacht clubs unless the internet media has something posted about that club in the Wall Street Journal? Are you suggesting that local papers are biased? Have you patroled the other yacht club pages to have them removed as well? The guidlines are clear in that the editor has discression. You are simply being foolish and using one line of a wikipedia policy to attack something that really should be left alone. What are you suggesting here? I also have a issue with drive by tagging, in that if you post a tag you should as the tag says use the talk page to define your actions. Rather then point your finger at others perhaps you might consider being productive and contributing to a story, rather then trying to have it removed.--WPPilot 16:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

As I clearly state above, the article needs more reliable secondary sources, the references you have found do not amount to significant coverage. Please see WP:GNG for a guide to notability.Theroadislong (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

These questions are for you, the user that posted the tags. Please answer them as I do not see any other users that maintain your perspective; What do you suggest, merge the story with Newport Beach? Remove it all together? Merge it with other yacht clubs unless the internet media has something posted about that club in the Wall Street Journal? Are you suggesting that local papers are biased?--WPPilot 14:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines WP:GNG suggest that availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability and as there don't appear to be many, it would suggest the club isn't notable enough for an article, but I am not going to pursue this any further.Theroadislong (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you suggest, merge the story with Newport Beach? Remove it all together? Merge it with other yacht clubs unless the internet media has something posted about that club in the Wall Street Journal? Are you suggesting that local papers are biased?--WPPilot 14:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

University of Lahore

I am slightly confused, why have you reverted all of the edits I made to this page? You do realise that it takes some serious effort to do that much work on a page :/ UJMi (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

My apologies I hadn't noticed that the coi revert included your edits too.Theroadislong (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Oneness Pentecostalism NPOV tag quote

Hi long road, I have responded to your comment on the talk page of Oneness Pentecostalism

"I am not sure what point the quote is making. Can you explain further?"

This is just an alert. Let's continue our discussion over at the article's talk page. Thanks DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Mountaintop University

Hello Theroadislong. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mountaintop University, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a school though? Theroadislong (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know. It seems like some sort of on-line educational company. I nominated it for speedy deletion under G11, advertising or promotion. Somebody else will delete it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Phillip Witcomb

Thanks for your message are you saying I need show my birth certificate to prove I exist....it all sounds strange to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Modern Master (talk • contribs) 14:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

All Wikipedias biographical articles require references as the tag expalins. If you are also the article subject then you shouldn't be writing it at all, if you are notable someone else will write it.Theroadislong (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Theroadislong. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard‎.
Message added 13:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I would like your opinion on this, you recently nominated a page for Phillip Witcomb for deletion and I've been working with him to see if Notability can be established, It was clear he wasn't aware of the process of how articles are created on wikipedia. Thanks. — raekyt 13:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Why deletion ?

I don't understand why you're deleting my Primecuts article as it's my uncles and all the information is from him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.53.149.226 (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not deleting the article, I am proposing that it be deleted by an admin, as it is written like an advert, you can contest the deletion by clicking on the link in the speedy template. Kind regardsTheroadislong (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

RE: Speedy deletion nomination of User:Thesocialpro

Hi. With reference to User talk:Thesocialpro#Speedy deletion nomination of User:Thesocialpro, I've moved the page as a user sandbox. It's at AFC anyway, but I thought that moving it would be a little less BITEy than the CSD. Please feel free to revert if you think it's justified. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, but I don't think we should encourage those who are writing extremely promotional articles about their own companies!Theroadislong (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I understand where you're coming from, but AFC should deal with the tone of the article. Not all such articles are created by SPAs, so I prefer to assume good faith that the authors will develop into editors in other (related or not) areas without pushing certain POVs. I'll keep an eye out in this case. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wordsworth

Hi Theroadislong! - and thank you for your input. The 'Stephen Wordsworth' page about me was someone else's idea, but I agreed and provided them with the data. When I checked it later, I saw there was already a 'notability' issue flagged, and that none of the internal text links had been inserted; also that some of the text was a bit 'over-written'. So I set to work to add some proper third-party references, insert the internal links and to make it as factual as I could, since it was much easier for me to do that than for anyone else. And having spent many years in countries where power cuts are frequent, I am in the habit of saving every few minutes, so I did lots of small changes, and the end result obviously got flagged up by the system. Anyway, when you have time, take a look at how it is now, and let me know if it's OK or what. Regards, Stephen Sjwordsworth (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Dodo

Hi Theroadislong, I presume that the guys vandalising the Dodo page are one and the same, look at the names: Benevolentben12; Thunderbob01 - Benevolent+ben+12; Thunder+bob+01. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Not vandalism

Hi, please see this revert: what you reverted wasn't vandalism, but a self-revert: see edits of 12:18-12:19 and 12:25-12:27. That self-revert was not just permissible per WP:VANDNOT but correct: Template:Infobox person#Parameters states that |children= is for "Number of children (i.e. 3), or list of names if notable"; the link which was added was redlink, therefore the child is non-notable, so the user was correct to remove the link again. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. I saw he had put "dead" in the box first and assumed wrongly that this was not constructive.Theroadislong (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

and from the subsequent edits it appears I was correct and they were vandalism.Theroadislong (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Reverting to stub for Chris Rogers (journalist)

I have posted my comments on this on the talk page for the Chris Rogers article. Would welcome yourt thoughts. Many thanks. Laurencebaskind (talk) 09:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Node Pole

The article The Node Pole has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication that this is a notable term. No Google news hits. Few web hits outside of www.nodepole.com. Of the sources provided, one is a specalized wiki, and so is not a Reliable source. Another is from nodepole.com. The third does not even use the term. This smells promotional to me. A previous version of this was declined at AFC as promotional, and then speedy deleted as promotional.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DES ^(talk) 15:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I am notifying you because you edited this article a bit. DES ^(talk) 15:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It has been speedy deleted before I was just seeing if there was anything worth rescuing this time but see it has already been deleted again. No worriesTheroadislong (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Please explain why you reverted my edit?

Is that anything wrong with the content or something else. can you give some reasons.

Mhurgaiya 10:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Your edit was unreferenced, introduced a red link and seemed to be promotional in nature.Theroadislong (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Oops, i have no idea about that redlink, just i used [[ ]]. Any how i will check it out. Thank you any how. May be its my mistake of using [[ ]]. I cant find any reference for location based marketing. Did i need to create one for it. I dont want to edit again without clear this thing. Mhurgaiya 12:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

John Donne as a Protestant

I don't know the extent of your understanding of Christian denominations, but Anglicans are protestants. John Donne is an Anglican, Anglicans are considered a Protestant denomination, therefore John Donne is a Protestant. Please revert your misguided reversion. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That may be your interpretation but Anglicanism is considered by many to be a distinct branch of Christianity altogether. See the article on Anglicanism Kind regardsTheroadislong (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Totally agreed. It is the colonel who is "misguided" (such a cute term) on this issue. Afterwriting (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You're the one ignoring the proofs I've offered, so I'm not misguided, If you want a theological argument, I'm ready and willing. Dispute resolution has been commenced. I'd advise you to hash out with me there. Proof will take the field. If you don't provide yours, the two categories (relevant) should stay.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "John Donne". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 14:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Stephen C. Bailey Page

Can you tell me what the process is that I should follow at this point? Can I make the case for inclusion? Can I argue that despite this fact the article is unbiased and referenced? Will the article automatically be deleted? I'm not sure what my options are at this point. Stevebaile (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevebaile (talk • contribs)

Gilberto Geraldo

--FlavioFLMoura (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

as you have been os kind in replying to my talk as I was trying to make sure I am willing to make things right, not because of my involvement with the subject, but the talent and gift of this Brazilian painter. For that I have made the changes and run the page in sandbox to let you check and see if there is anything else in need of review. Would you please??

thanks so far

Why deletion ?

--NebadonUrantia (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Your reason for deleting added Urantia links doesn't seem appropriate. The links are relevant to the topic. Everything on the .info information only website is referenced with click-able links to the Urantia Foundation's on-line Urantia Book (no ads, non-commercial) If you look at the top left corner of the pages, you will see that the pages are very popular and helpful after being up only a month. This is definitely encyclopedic content and should be allowed for users to be able to access ADDITIONAL relevant information references. Your reconsideration would be appreciated.

The links are very poor quality, Wikipedia is not a diectory, you have a conflict of interest and I suggest you make your case on the articles talk page. Others have deleted them too.Theroadislong (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest on General Teaching Council for Scotland

Hi there, thanks for getting back to me. I'm aware of the issue with the conflict of interest which is why I posted for help under the TeaHouse. I also tried to contact editors who had edited the article previously but no-one got back to me. I'll read the guidelines you have suggested. Is there any way of submitting articles like this to others before publishing? AngelaHamilton (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there again, would you be able to advise whether this is a suitable citation that evidences the claim that GTC Scotland is the world's first independent self-regulating body for teaching: EIS welcomes election of world's first independent teaching council, many thanks, AngelaHamilton (talk) 09:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks that's great I've added it for you.Theroadislong (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. AngelaHamilton (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

On your revertion of my edit

I think that evolution should be included in the list of creation myths, because whether or not it happened, if evolution were not included, the page would not adhere to the WP:NPOV standards. I say this because the Genesis account of creation is included in the list of creation myths. Since the Genesis creation is included, and the Genesis account, whether or not it is actually true, is a position held by many serious Phd scientists, classifying it as a myth would not adhere to Neutral point of view policies. Come to think of it, I think I will edit the article to include neither evolution nor creation. Thanks,

Legolover26 (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Theroadislong. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You can't be serious?Theroadislong (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You reverted my edit

Why did you revert my edit on Semi-Slav defense? It does indeed have to do with Category:Chess, and it does indeed have to do with Category:Games. And please respond on my talk page. Legolover26 (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Poor quality?

Do you think that the link I provided in my edit to Caenorhabditis elegans is low-quality? No, it is not. It is an excellent game on the anatomy. Thinking that it is low quality is completely subjective, and furthermore, my edit does not violate established wikipedia policy. So why did you revert it? Legolover26 (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want the link on the page I suggest you argue your case here [[4]] RegardsTheroadislong (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Teamneurs

Hello Theroadislong. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Teamneurs, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. Electric Catfish 19:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

However, I have re-tagged as an A7. Electric Catfish 19:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

OE (again)

Hey, could I ask a favour and get you to have a quick look at the recent Optical express edits? I'm starting to suspect myself of loosing my sense of perspective and that's not healthy... :s Fayedizard (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's so difficult to keep this article fair and neutral! I've removed some bits, but I suspect they will be re-added. CheersTheroadislong (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sory if this is an intrusion, but I am (as you know) not experienced with WIKI. You have made a number of edits that are quite correct by editing guidelines. However there are a number of things I would ask you to look at:Hardlygone (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Watchdog: The reference link to BBC Watchdog features content about OE pricing and not the posting on the WIKI page of OE that talks about clinical procedure - ie 7 out of 10 were not offered to see the surgeon. Should that therefore be edited or removed as there is no proper citation?Hardlygone (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed this because as you state it wasn't referenced.Theroadislong (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The advertisements that ASA have approved (or rather not rejected) make the 1,000,000 procedures performed worldwide.Hardlygone (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying here.Theroadislong (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The removal of "claim to be UK's No.1" was harsh. In the above Watchdog page, the BBC say "Optical Express is the largest provider of Laser Eye Surgery in the country, with two hundred branches in the UK and Ireland and 120,000 consultations a year." Surely that substantiates our claim as "the UK's No.1" - and is much less of a claim if the BBC have stated this on national TV and on their website?Hardlygone (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have re-added the claim with the reference.Theroadislong (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, can I ask if you can look at the OE Talk page to review recent requests? I do not want to start another bun fight/edit war and therefore have not responded to allegations of lying, however I believe the truth will either come out in course or will become irrelevant. I also understand that recent direct edits on the page were wrong and I apologise.Hardlygone (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Werner Ressdorf

Hello Theroadislong. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Werner Ressdorf, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertation of significance and is sourced, which is enough to pass A7. If you would like to pursue deletion, you may take it to AfD. Thank you. Electric Catfish 19:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I would be interested to know what you consider to be a credible assertion of significance? One of 14 candidates for mayor?Theroadislong (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Being a candidate for mayor is a valid assertion of notability. Additionally, it's supported by 2 citations. No, it would not pass WP: POLITICIAN, but it's enough to pass A7. If you would like to, you may take it to AFD. Electric Catfish² 20:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I've taken it to AFD. Electric Catfish² 20:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Your actions have come up in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#Response of New Editors to a Welcome. Furthermore, the project's leader, Dennis Brown, is (IIRC) on probation for over-eager CSDs, so your contributions to that thread would be both interesting and welcome. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter

Hey Theroadislong. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi why do you keep undoing my Mum and Sons changes? It's an obvious influence. Their influences section is very incomplete - it just talks about literature. If you would like to add some influences feel free - but why delete mine? Thanks for your efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanGDiddy (talk • contribs) 21:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to find a reference that supports what you say otherwise it's just your own opinion. cheersTheroadislong (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)