User talk:Theroadislong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my talk page. Click here to leave me a message Face-smile.svg.

Your draft article, Draft:Berlin Brands Group[edit]


New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022[edit]

Hello Theroadislong,

New page reviewer of the year cup.svg

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022


  • There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
  • Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
  • Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
  • This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.


Everlasting Fireworks looped.gif

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023[edit]

Hello Theroadislong,

New Page Review queue December 2022

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards
New page reviewer of the year cup.svg

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Powelliphanta patrickensis picture[edit]

It's at TeaHouse, Commons Admin and Commons Deletion Discussion. Possible they inadvertently uploaded it not realizing the CC license release, but just a heads up as you may get reverted since they sincerely believe their copyright being violated. Slywriter (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, thank you for reviewing Travelpix. Have added more content. Please advise next steps to get the page approved. Travelpix (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 16:24:17, 20 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Jacob Jesus[edit]


Thanks for reviewing the submission.

Beside YouTube and Facebook, I added sources that reference and speak about Maggie. I added YouTube and Facebook as part of explaining about the person and show the number of followers but they are do not form the base of the article. If this is still a concern, I would be happy to remove them.

Thank you, Jacob

Jacob Jesus (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, got your message. Understood. I guess it does sound like a grandiose claim if you weren't a Biker in the 1980s. There's a lot of in-depth articles, but they're by journalists/mechanics who were trying to copy the design and style but didn't always have the resources. Here is a page of them But maybe making such a claim should be only referred to these customizers and not the industry itself. I'll cut that out. Also I should maybe change tack a bit and make it more general? For instance, Andy coined the word Bloodrunners and it has been adopted by the very Bikers who do it in real life. If you Google Bloodrunners, the charities come quite high on the listings. Funnily enough, Andy is creating a new edition for its 40th anniversary. He asked fans on his Facebook page today for their memories. Have a look it's quite funny, and revealing.

What do you think? Shall I give it another go? Trinny116 (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

White T[edit]

Hey thanks for going through the wiki. Themovieguy2023 (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jeesch. I mean is an article only allowed to come from The New york Times? haha.... theres literally like a hundred articles i've found.... yet they aren't presigious enough? The movie is ten years old.... lots of the articles from back then have dissapeared off the web. (I'll continue to add what i find under references.... hopefully someone can help/approve) - I appreciate all your help/guidance Themovieguy2023 (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Question Regarding Draft:Candela Technology[edit]

Hi! Thank you for the help on this draft. I have since addressed the potential paid editing (I suppose indirect still counts), though you have noted I should not move forward with editing until all was classified. I was wondering if there is possibility of moving forward with the page now. I am still quite new to page creation but trying to learn! Thanks. Aidan C Byrne (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are free to edit the draft here Draft:Candela Technology. Theroadislong (talk) 12:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wilson Dumpster fire[edit]

The article and all related Talk pages on Wilson became such a dumpster fire. My thinking is that you and I were trying to provide guidance on the unique requirements of Wikipedia but failed in the face of offended stubborness. Going forward, I intend to never revisit. David notMD (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The ferocity of the fallout took me aback somewhat! I will tread carefully. Theroadislong (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please Delete My Draft Article[edit]


I request you to please delete my Draft article I had submitted.

Thanks and regards,

Devarshi Devarshi 2000 (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Devarshi 2000: You can do it yourself by adding {{db-g7}} to the top of the draft, though this comment of yours above appears to be the only edit made on your account. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women in Red in February 2023[edit]

WIR Black History Month 2022.png
Women in Red Feb 2023, Vol 9, Iss 2, Nos 251, 252, 255, 256, 257, 259

Online events:

Tip of the month:

  • Explore Wikipedia for all variations of the woman's name (birth name,
    married name, re-married name, pen name, nickname)

Other ways to participate:

Facebook icon.jpg Facebook | Instagram.svg Instagram | Pinterest Shiny Icon.svg Pinterest | Twitter icon.png Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply[reply]


Sorry for editing that article. Wikipedia told me to edit it. Also, what was vandalism in my edits?

Learning With Ameer (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good work. I tried and failed to rewrite the third para in non copyvio words. Time was against me. I may have another go later. This whole article has been copyvios throughout. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Finished the work. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have been assiduously kind, I might have reduced it to a single line stub! Theroadislong (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't understand reason of rejection left in your comment. Cercle project is about Facebook livestreams and YouTube videos, so how Facebook and YouTube links can be a "not suitable sources" here? Tomasz w (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are primary sources, we have little interest in what they say, we need secondary sources that discuss the topic in-depth. Theroadislong (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are already added secondary sources from an EDM media, describing project history and its activity. Facebook and YouTube sources are added only for parts where secondary sources aren't available. For example, Facebook post is sometimes the only one place with an information about event cancellation and there is no other way to quote it, so I still don't understand article rejection for this reason at all. Tomasz w (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most of the content is a list of shows live streamed by Cercle, which is just promotional, that is not what the article needs. Theroadislong (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are many Wikipedia articles that include lists of episodes e.g. for TV shows and thre are no voices saying that is "just promotional". Where was the discussion about whether the Cercle episodes list is a needed information or not? Is this just your one-person, arbitrary decision? Tomasz w (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See other stuff exists. Feel free to re-submit and get other opinions, I won't review it again. Theroadislong (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

there is no undisclosed payment[edit]

Hi, dear Theroadislong, there is no payment for the article I undid the changes as a user seems to erase the table of information on the CSDI page. the page has created as I found the gap that almost all central securities depositories all around the world has a page on Wikipedia but nobody has created such page. I benchmarked their page and used the information available on the internet to created the page but a user has deleted information table on the page and I undid them to restore the table can you restore the information box on this page? thanks. Ali.Alimardani61 (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My apologies if I was mistaken, your user name is the same as a business writer based in Tehran. Theroadislong (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appeal against deletion of a few small edits[edit]

Hi, I just appealed via your entires about the historical, statements of fact, minor, about Micro Arts Group. I'm sure you are really busy but can you check them over? Rules say: "While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable". These are objective small edits and objective true statements (not 'beliefs') like 'Micro Arts was invited onto Micronet 800 (in Prestel) in 1985' etc. How is that against rules? What is your justification given the rules have exceptions for exactly this type of thing? Just to update, this was a genuine mistake as I did not know this rule about founder member etc., and I was adding small * historical statements about an independant arts organisation * (Micro Arts Group, not me). If I put on my page as you say - "make the required disclosure on your user page" - can the edits be put back on (small edits only)? If it makes any difference, I am now on the committee of the Computer Arts Organisation, a charity, which has been around for over 50 years. That is same 'status' as V&A Museum, Tate, etc. Thanks Geoff Geoffd99 Geoffd99 (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what "statements of fact, minor, about Micro Arts Group" you are referring to unless you mean the spam links like this one [1]? As you have a conflict of interest you should not be adding anything about your organisation, you can however submit suggestions on the article's talk page with the {{request edit}} template.Theroadislong (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help regarding sources.[edit]


An article I wrote was recently declined with the following message:

Interviews, IMDb, YouTube and blogs are not reliable sources and we don't use external links in the body of an article.


When I researched how to write an article on Wiki everything I read had links throughout the body. How else would I properly source information? Is it simply that it should not have the link, but a citation?

I am also curious what sources are deemed appropriate for an actor if IMDb is not allowed?

I appreciate any help you can offer. Many hours have been spent on this and I'd prefer to get it right.

Thank you. Suspenders Unbuttoned (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles never have external links in then so I'm not sure where you saw that? See reliable sources for help with what is required All of the fan cruft will need to be removed and the article will need re-writing in a neutral encyclopaedic tone rather than the present chatty style, you will also need to declare your conflict of interest as a "Fan Group". Theroadislong (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Would you mind taking a look and seeing if I am on the right track? SU2Buttons (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Submission rejection[edit]

Hello Theroadislong, Would you mind taking a some couple of your precious time to review my article i have resubmitted it with a couple of changes you had suggested. Thank you and i really appreciate your time Elimug89 (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Gallia (journal)[edit]

Hello, Theroadislong. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Gallia".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Maisie Myra Marks[edit]

References 1,5,6,8,9,10,15,16,17,24,29 are Trade Newspapers and Articles from independent sources where she is mentioned 11 & 18 are books (they are slightly different editions with different material) There is also extensive material in the archives, which includes material on what she did and the significance of her charitable work -- not just the MBE.

Back in the relevant period, 1957-1988 there was no internet, no blogs, the number of newspapers etc was significantly smaller. Hence the number of articles etc is significant. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have misunderstood how Wikipedia works, you have written all that you know about your mother and then tried to verify it with sources. We work the other way around, we collect all the sources that contain significant coverage of the topic and then report on what they say. I will not be reviewing the draft again and will leave it for another reviewer. Theroadislong (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope. I know far more that is either not relevant, not notable or does not have citations. Rigor is that you consider propositions for an argument and then look to see if there is a reasonable and unbiased validation. That is what has been done in the article. If you look at the original it definitely contains material that was not notable or could not be validated.
For instance General Relativity is accepted, so one provides some reasonable cite (or often no cite). String theory is not fully accepted, so rigor says that you mention both for and against. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK...if you want to change the way Wikipedia operates I suggest you visit the WP:Village pump. Theroadislong (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't mean to be nasty, but at the same time I have to ask whether you have considered that you have confirmation bias, specifically belief perseverance. You have not once confirmed that your original objections about cites are invalid and removed them.

I accepted that the first draft had major issues, but ... Ldm1954 (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments on drafts are removed when it is accepted. Also see WP:EXPERT Expert editors can be very valuable contributors to Wikipedia, but they sometimes have a difficult time realizing that Wikipedia is a different environment from scholarly and scientific publishing. Theroadislong (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You continue to dodge the question of confirmation bias or belief perseverance. To quote,them%20in%20a%20negative%20light.

"...if the new information contradicts what we already believe, we respond differently. We are more likely to:

Become defensive about it

Focus on criticizing any flaw, while that same flaw would be ignored if the information confirmed our beliefs

Forget this information quickly, not recalling reading or hearing about it later on Ldm1954 (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For help with drafts about living people see WP:BLP. You have not provided new information to substantiate your mother being a notable topic for Wikipedia, as other reviewers have also confirmed. Theroadislong (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Become defensive about it"

"Self criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice", Joyce Carol Oates Ldm1954 (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Markerstudy Group[edit]

Thank you for your review of my first draft.

After taking the article from the PR team I edited it to fit within Wikipedia's guidelines. Could you outline which of the below 4 criteria are most concerning to you?

In my opinion it has been written in an independent style but please do let me know if you disagree. However, I do agree with the in-depth criteria and fear I removed too many things that I deemed not noteworthy from the original I was provided with.

A question on secondary - I removed all links from what I was given that linked to the company website, but do the articles being linked to have to be secondary as well. Many of them are written by newspapers but may contain quotes from company employees (at external URL destination). Steve From Marketing (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources, you need to show that your company passes the criteria at WP:NCORP. Currently the draft merely advertises their services and has routine reports of acquisitions. Theroadislong (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Respect and Request[edit]

Dear Theroadislong,

Firstly I have to express my deepest respect to your patience I can see in many of your replies.

Then I would like to ask you if there is some mechanism to draw attention of the community to pages subjected to possible vandalism. If you check the end of this talk page, you will realize how I came across your name - we have a common friend, who is actually... testing the limits of my time and fantasy.

Thank you in advance for any help. Klingm01 (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had noticed that their edits were becoming problematic there, since I have zero understanding of the topic I would not venture to edit much in that area knowing their animosity towards me. Any edits made without a source can of course be reverted and the user warned with the template {{uw-unsourced1}} be wary of calling it vandalism though as that has a very specific meaning here. Good luck! Theroadislong (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a lot. Klingm01 (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, the person is threatening me: "Also, please say hello for me to <XYZ>, and ask if I will see her at IMC20 in September.". <XYZ> is my boss. I haven't spent here much time, but is this really normal on Wikipedia? Klingm01 (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No it is NOT normal, the user is very combative. Theroadislong (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for help[edit]

Hi; a newbie posted a request to review their draft article after an AfC rejection (Draft:Leon Emirali). I happened to pass by and add a reflist to the article as it was logged as a maintence issue. My resonse to their request is here User talk:The joy of all things#Advice welcome. Just letting you know in the interests of parity and fairness. I hope what I have replied is okay with you. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]