User talk:Theroadislong: Difference between revisions

By /

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

Hello @Theroadislong, I am writing to kindly ask that you review the draft:Videojet Technologies article again and remove your comment about LLM. The page has been revised by humans and now includes 14 citations. If there is anything else needed to improve the page before submitting it for publishing, I am happy to oblige. Thank you for your help. DL548 (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer comments are removed once the draft is accepted, your draft is NOT acceptable as it relies on primary sources and press releases. Theroadislong (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Theroadislong I have removed the references to the company website and the press releases issued by the company itself. The article references are now all from unrelated sources. I would really appreciate your feedback if additional improvements are needed before it can be published. (Theroadislong (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)) DL548 (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for reconsideration: Draft:Galloni.net

Hi there. Do you know if users are allowed to remove the AfC headers from a draft they created, like this? I wasn’t sure if this would be seen as an attempt to conceal the page’s AfC history. —Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess they are allowed, but it isn’t really helpful as they won’t be able to submit when it comes to it! Theroadislong (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment – I have read several references about how to write a wikipedia page and am doing a full manual rewrite now….   Ciaran.debuitlear (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how can I upload Edmund to Wikipedia find reliable sources since there are other medieval Parliament members who have it despite being minor figures. Alex132219georgiacyber (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See other stuff exists, your draft Draft:Edmund Sparsholt has a single source and zero indication of how they pass WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey i wrote a page about my family history, and roots of the surname, of which the only other family regarding the surname brussels ive found after lots of searching are extremely clueless and curious aswell on the surname, you left a comment on my denial of the submission for Ancestry not being a reliable source, yet my photographic evidence is not taken by users online (such as writers on wikipedia and forums etc.) but rather the British Government. Ancestry is not user based, however the trees made by users are. My article does not mention a tree or show any family connections (apart from the regards of Matin and Beatrice) of who have a Marriage / Divorce record (which is also found on the references which i linked), they are also my great grandparents and id have thought knowing my own family history from not more than 100 years ago would be viable (of course readers dont know this, and editors have no evidence that im part of that family) but how is knowledge meant to be shared online, if theres nothing online, therefore my whole point of writing this? I hope i have conveyed my point for a resubmission – of which being I am the first source along with Government records to be on the internet writing about the history. RoyalRedRanger (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Genealogy sources you will need to find another venue to publish your family history, it is not suitable for Wikipedia, we cannot accept original research or content supported by photographs and ancestry.com. Theroadislong (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This John fettiplace is a different one the others are the 1658 one and the 1580 one but this one died in 1672 and is a different person who was the 1st baronet, put him on Wikipedia because he had significant coverage and the others are different people Alex132219georgiacyber (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for the feedback in regard to a COI.

I’ve reviewed, rewritten and reduced the ‘reception’ section completely, now with citations, from just two publications. I figure ‘less is more’ and I believe I am now demonstrating notability by describing the coverage which is clearly attributed to two reliable and independent sources. It is my view the quotes demonstrate critical perspective and not admiration or ‘puffery’ as I keep being told.

Other changes made:

Added an ‘Info box/quick facts’ section.

Added an ‘Affiliations’ citing contributions to the arts.

Removed ‘Further reading’ section.

Reduced and rewrote the ‘Reception’ section.

Please may I ask for a review of the submission?

Kind regards, Thomas Flynn (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s been pointed out at WP:ABOUTSELF that Facebook posts ARE allowed, as long as they are not making exceptional claims. I merely cited them as evidence that there have been 5 volumes and b/c another editor tagged the statement “this full-length release includes 4 new tracks.” [citation needed] after the removal of said citation. In lieu of the FB posts, I could post directly to the band’s website where they describe the album and the songs added. Would you be ok with that? Raybeezer (talk) 10:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The content is not in dispute so probably doesn’t even need a source. Theroadislong (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jeffrey Kaplan (philosopher) you accused me of using AI and even claimed that I left “instructions” in place. Can you please explain what you mean? I have never ever used AI on wikipedia because 1) I don’t need to 2) It’s forbidden. I am drafting that article because Professor Kaplan is a very important researcher in the field of Jurisprudence that I research and I feel like the world deserves to know him better. So I never would use AI to write anything on that draft Victor Zaak Saraiva (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sorry you have an [insert year] comment which looks like AI created it. Theroadislong (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Just so you know: I didn’t write that. It was a fellow wikipedian who is editing that article. He likely did it so I would find a date with a source to back it up and write on top of that blank. I’ll probably do it today and remove the blank regardless Victor Zaak Saraiva (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope all is well. I’ve switched to the talk page for Hoek as you suggested. I have put in one in Jan 2025 and one in Aug 2025 but no reactions. Could you be so kind to review? Ewout12345 (talk) 07:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to request edits with the template {{edit COI}} or nobody will see them. Theroadislong (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Theroadislong, thanks for your feedback! You’re helping a newbie editor turn into a seasoned veteran of the wikitrenches, so it’s much appreciated. I’ll remove references to the press releases and blogs from the article once I get to a laptop, but I did want to ask two things for my reference.

One: are authored articles/opinion pieces published by the subject/associated parties on notable media platforms okay to refer to as sources? I am aware of the notability requirement, so I will be more cognisant of only selecting publications that are of high merit for this and future pieces, if that is the case. If not, I shall steer clear.

Two, speaking of merit, while I technically agree with you that The Times of India is, well, questionable (to put it politely), it is still very widely read amongst the English-speaking audiences here. Is there somewhere I can refer to for the reasons why it is not considered notable media within the Wiki community? I want to clarify I do not mind foregoing its links – to the contrary, I am quite happy to – but I just want to know the logic for my working, if I am to provide the suggestion to someone in the future.

Once more, thanks a ton for the feedback! Srambled089 (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“authored articles/opinion pieces published by the subject/associated parties on notable media platforms” clearly these woud not be independent sources so would not contribute to any notability. See WP:TIMESOFINDIA for the reasons why it is not considered a relaible source. Theroadislong (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re right, I had a brainfart there. >.<
And thanks a ton for that link! Srambled089 (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removed all (I think) references to blogs, press releases, and The Times of India. Let me know if there are any other improvements I can make to this draft. Cheers! Srambled089 (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you’ve removed the reference section heading twice now.

Is there a reason? MmeMaigret (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC) MmeMaigret (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no draft at Draft:Jeffrey Kaplan so I don’t know what you are referring to? Theroadislong (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I see now Draft:Jeffrey Kaplan (philosopher) looks like the ref section was removed when I left a comment weirdly, I have added it back. Theroadislong (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theroadislong,

The draft of the article Swedish National China Centre was declined due to not draft’s references do not showing that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. I’ve added a source, a newspaper article that’s independent from the subject. I was wondering what additional references that would need to be added in order for the article to be qualified? The institute that we are an independent unit of, Swedish Institute of International Affairs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Institute_of_International_Affairs) and our sister centre, Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_Centre_for_Eastern_European_Studies), doesn’t seem to have any independent references either. What makes their page eligable but not ours?

Apologies for any misunderstaning, this is the first time I’m editing. Thanks! Kinacentrum (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See other stuff exists, Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies and Swedish Institute of International Affairs should probably both be deleted as they have no evidence of passing WP:NORG. Theroadislong (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

My name is Jonathan and I recently received a rejection on my submission. I am the founder of the record label (which I disclosed) and was trying to capture its history and celebrate the bands — and the moment in time – that were involved. That said, can you provide more context into why it was rejected and how I can make it more impartial? I included links to all of the reviews I was able to find that exist online (or on the Wayback Machine) and felt I portrayed the label neutrally.

Any feedback would be appreciated, as I would like to have a successful post. Thanks.

— Jonathan ~2025-33072-38 (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft Draft:Dreams by Degrees was declined not rejected, it is extremley promotional and VERY poorly sourced with whole sections having no references, you are using external links in the body of the article, we don’t do that. “trying to capture its history and celebrate the bands” is against Wikipedia guidelines too. Theroadislong (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi it would be of great help if you could point me to the citations you think are not correct. I have been back n forth on this & your team has been amazing providing me pointers & leading me so far. Really really appreciate your help. Thank you RasikaofVR (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Times of India, Instagram and YouTube are not reliable sources, but you haven’t shown how they pass WP:NSINGER. Theroadislong (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok got it. Removed them can you please check. Thank you RasikaofVR (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if i can resubmit RasikaofVR (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nidSbW1Thc&list=RD9nidSbW1Thc&start_radio=1&pp=ygULTG9yZCBibGFraWWgBwE%3D <— Here is some music of Lord Blakie, a pretty well acclaimed Caribbean musician with sources and I can find more. I think he is certainly notable enough, especially as there is a page for Mighty Dougla among other even smaller Calypsonians, even Mighty sparrow knew and spoke about Blakie in some of his songs.

The battle of Belvedere estate wasn’t a battle instead more of a skirmish, sources don’t refer to it as a battle but more of an “attack” / “Skirmish” I’ll find some more sources (I know four is a bit small but there are limited sources, and there haven’t been many battles/Skirmishes in Grenada, the national archives might have letters regarding the battle (mentioned in letters from Samuel Mitchell to the English government and the king about the situation in Grenada). Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve now added more sources and there are 14 sources for Blakie, many from news sites, books and other websites.I will now search for more on Belvedere Estate Skirmish so both can hopefully be readied to the Mainspace. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: Hi! I hope you are well. You declined Draft:Rodrick Simmons on November 7th for notability reasons. I resubmitted the draft on November 8th with several new independent secondary sources providing significant coverage.

COI is disclosed. Would you mind please taking another look when you have time to see my revisions on the draft? Thank you! TerryAnderson1 (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about Draft:Viragalur? It has been more than 18 hours and the status is still “Review in progress.” and “If this template has been unchanged for more than twelve hours, please ask for live help from our experienced editors.” SaTnamZIN (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Sorry I was waiting for a de-direct to be deleted, then got sidetracked into building a snowman with my grandchildren who had never seen snow before. Theroadislong (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your editting!

I made a draft Draft:Habib Minachevich Minachev a month ago (11 october) about russian chemist Habib Minachev. The page was declined due to the lack of sources. I don’t quite understand what sources I have to add more if there is not any more, though most of them are from the russian wikipedia title about this scientinst. Could you please help with that and tell what I should do to have my titile released? The rules of the english wiki is very confusing) MeyBoy (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I did not use AI; I used Grammarly for standard grammar and spell-checking. Furthermore, you shouldn’t use GPT Zero to review articles. See the following page, Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing: “Do not solely rely on artificial intelligence content detection tools (such as GPTZero) to evaluate whether text is LLM-generated. While they perform better than might be achieved by chance, these tools have non-trivial error rates and cannot replace human judgment. Detectors can be brittle to multiple factors such as text modifications (e.g. paraphrasing and spacing changes) and the use of generative models not seen during detector training.”

Regarding the article. Everything is 100 percent verifiable in the articles that I reference. The Harvard citation I used is allowed. See this page: Wikipedia:Harvard citation template examples Orlando Davis (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again please read WP:REFB, your sources are not correctly formatted and give the impression that you have used AI. Theroadislong (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently no reliable method to prove whether a particular piece of text was produced with AI or not. Because of that, declining an article based on a suspicion of AI involvement rather than on verifiable evidence creates a standard that cannot be objectively enforced.
Wikipedia’s guidance on AI-generated content does not prohibit contributors from using AI tools. The relevant policies address verifiability, originality, and lack of plagiarism, not the mere use of technology. As long as the content is supported by reliable sources and complies with core content policies, the method used to draft it is not itself a policy violation.
It is also a practical reality that AI-assisted drafting is becoming widespread across many fields, including publishing and academic work. Wikipedia cannot realistically police authorship methods; it can only enforce the accuracy, sourcing, and neutrality of the content itself.
My submission complies with these required standards: the statements are fully verifiable, properly sourced, and not plagiarized. Declining an article on the basis of presumed AI involvement alone risks discouraging motivated contributors who are following the actual policies. Orlando Davis (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the lecture, it was also declined because of poor referencing, please place references directly after the content that they support. Theroadislong (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did as Orlando Davis suggested and checked an article for verifiability – Draft:Aluma Restaurant (Jerusalem) is full of material source-to-text integrity issues. Also Draft:Prince Alexander Literary Prize (Belgium) has a broken reference and – seemingly – communication intended for the user in the references section. I have additional relevant diffs that further indicate OD is not being honest about their LLM usage. @Theroadislong did you ever reference using an automated AI content detector (GPT Zero, etc.) or is that something OD came up with? Either way, I am going to open a case at WP:AINB about this later today. NicheSports (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has already been rejected, and I am requesting a fair opportunity to revise and improve it. I perceive the current actions as a potential form of edit warring, given that I am following the Articles for Creation process, which is explicitly designed to provide feedback and allow contributors to refine their submissions.
It is well documented that some editors use repeated tagging or premature objections in a manner that can constitute edit warring. While I cannot be certain of intent in this case, it is possible that the actions taken fall into that category.
I respectfully request that I be allowed to continue working on my articles and submit revisions according to Wikipedia’s established processes. Should my articles meet the required standards and be accepted, I ask that this decision be respected, and that the process be allowed to function as intended. Orlando Davis (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your drafts have been declined NOT rejected, rejection has a particular meaning at WP:AFC and please don’t accuse reviewers of edit warring there is zero evidence of that. Theroadislong (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Orlando Davis, when you submit an article to AfC, it’s assumed you’ve got it to where you believe it will pass and want it reviewed. You can work on an article in draft for as long as you want, as long as you edit it at least once in any six-month period, and no one will review until you submit.
Can you point me at where it’s well-documented that “some editors use repeated tagging or premature objections in a manner that can constitute edit warring”? Valereee (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. Tag bombing is recognized on Wikipedia as a form of disruptive editing.
Relevant policy pages include:
Orlando Davis (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to provide the diffs of where this edit warring/tag bombing occurred. Theroadislong (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But none of those apply here. Tag bombing is generally done on live articles by people who are in a content dispute at that article. I would assume reviewers at AfC who engage in disruptive editing on any sort of regular basis end up p-blocked from AfC; I’m not actually sure I’ve ever seen anything worse than ill-considered declines from inexperienced editors. And I don’t see any evidence of tag misuse in TRIL’s work at AfC. Valereee (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This comment (as well as a few others, such as the responses at WP:AINB) sure looks like an LLM was involved. @Orlando Davis I’m not going to hat this because I prefer to avoid subjective “this looks like AI!” types of arguments, but please be aware of WP:HATGPT, which is part of a guideline, not essay NicheSports (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is or isn’t edit warring is subjective, and what is or isn’t LLM is also subjective. This conversation is going nowhere, and you know it. Furthermore, it doesn’t matter who is or isn’t right for it to be harassment. Stop harassing me! Orlando Davis (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You know, since you pointed out your qualifications in an earlier conversation. I have a college degree in literature. I can’t prove that because I want to remain anonymous. Not only that, I graduated Magna Cum Laude, and before AI existed. Are you sure about what you are saying? And you know, I have a certificate in human resources, and from that, I know that you should treat your employees well, or else they’ll quit. Well, that applies to Wikipedia editors. What are your degrees, and grades? What qualifies you to be a writer? Orlando Davis (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey OD, hoping we can deescalate here. I agree with Valereee’s comment at AINB – I think you could be a valuable contributor here if you could be more open to feedback. However, your editing history shows extensive signs of LLM-generated content. You have been asked repeatedly about this by several editors, always denying it, without providing an alternative explanation for the WP:V and WP:NPOV issues in many of your article creations, issues that – coupled with your edits showing WP:AISIGNS – are indicative of insufficiently-reviewed, LLM-generated content. You have repeatedly accused other editors of harassing you without evidence, and otherwise acted non-collaboratively. I think there are three paths forward. 1) you admit to having used LLMs and promise to not do so anymore 2) you provide a realistic alternative explanation for the issues I documented at AINB 3) you continue down your current path of not discussing what caused those issues. In paths 1 and 2 you will be completely fine, without any sanction, and other than me potentially tagging some of your previous article creations, you will not hear from me again! But in path 3 this may end up at ANI or similar. I’m really hoping we can change our course. NicheSports (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Determined to have the last word at any cost? Orlando Davis (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It won’t make any difference, so you might as well knock it off and stop pretending to have authority you don’t have. Orlando Davis (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t have any authority. I do LLM patrol and also want to help you because I sense things are not going down a good path. I won’t respond anymore because I don’t think it will be constructive. Open to feedback from others NicheSports (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Orlando…no one here has any kind of “authority”. We’re all just editors, some with different tools we can use because the community has decided it can trust us with those tools. The tools can be removed by community consensus at any point if the community decides it no longer trusts us with them. Valereee (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for reviewing my submission.

To address your concern regarding the connection of one of the award’s jury members to RTBF, I have added an additional source from La Libre Belgique:

https://www.lalibre.be/belgique/2012/08/09/mieux-faire-connaitre-alexandre-le-prince-discret-WM3D42KFEBA6PBPIUBYECKSTUQ/

While the article only mentions the award, it also refers to a previous La Libre article about the prize:

“Finally, as we have already read in La Libre – see the editions of July 28 and 29 – the Prince’s widow has also decided to create an annual literary prize for both French-speaking and Dutch-speaking individuals.”

In your opinion, would this addition satisfy the requirement for a third independent source to establish notability for the article?

Thank you for your time and consideration. Orlando Davis (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a passing mention only, sources need to cover the topic in-depth with significant coverage. Theroadislong (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The La Libre article states that there was a previous La Libre article dedicated to the award. I am arguing that this serves as proof that the article exists, and I hope that it will support approval of the article. We do not need to include links on Wikipedia. Orlando Davis (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think this supports approval of the draft remotely, but will leave it to another reviewer. Theroadislong (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can get other opinions and help here Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. Theroadislong (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Orlando Davis (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing my article about the MasterCooks.

I see you removed non-notables. Since they have Wikipedia articles in their native languages, don’t they count as notable?

Thank you for your input. Orlando Davis (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No… each language Wikipedia is a separate project with their own guidelines on notability. Theroadislong (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t agree. It conflicts with the spirit of accepting all nations equally into Wikipedia. But I will leave it as you edited it. Orlando Davis (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review my draft.

The article draft appears to meet the general notability requirements for organizations (WP:NCORP). Notability for restaurants is typically established by significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, which this draft demonstrates.

The depth of coverage ( WP:CORPDEPTH) is sufficient because the sources cited are not routine business announcements, but full-length feature articles and reviews from major, independent Israeli publications.

The sourcing clearly demonstrates significant coverage in sources such as the ones below:

  • The Jerusalem Post (Brinn, 2016) provides an in-depth “Dining: A gourmet experience” review of the restaurant, while also focusing on the chef’s background and food concept.
  • Ynet / Ynetnews (Gordon, 2016) features it as one of the “New and noteworthy in Jerusalem.”
  • Walla! (Laor, 2016) includes it in a feature about “The hot trend: Three restaurants opened in hotels.”

These multiple, dedicated reviews from established news outlets demonstrate that the restaurant was the subject of non-trivial, in-depth attention from the reliable press, which is sufficient to qualify as notable. Orlando Davis (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave it for another reviewer I am not convinced. Theroadislong (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a queasy feeling about the article and welcome your addition of the tags. I am minded to completely revert the recent radical update to the article (diff) and seek consensus on the new content. What do you think? 10mmsocket (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I boldly reverted it anyway to your last edit. Let the possible-COI editor discuss on the talk page. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I think that’s the best thing to do, I’ll await their response. Theroadislong (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are struggling to understand the review process here. We addressed all the previous comments and, after reviewiign with the Scotland Programme Manager and documenting how we had addressed the comments, we resubmitted the article.

We waited 2 months with no activity and then it was rejected yesterday by someone who clearly had no information on the discussions with the Programme Manager.

Today, after the rejection, as we were preparing our response, a new reviewer made a number of major changes to our article with no consultation or dialogue with us instead of making recommendations or suggestions. This included removing two tables which have taken us about 500 hours and six to nine months to research and document.

As there appears to be no means of communicating with the reviewer directly, and we have a meeting of our group tomorrow, we will have to revert back to the previous version to get agreement on how we proceed.

This has been a massive effort over an eighteen month period by our group and we will prepare a response to the rejection. It is very confusing to receive this rejection after we have addressed all the previous review points and met twice with the Programme Manager. Iwmackay (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Exit mobile version