Jump to content

User talk:Bradv: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Abrobo819 (talk | contribs)
93 edits
No edit summary
Shouston17 (talk | contribs)
113 edits
No edit summary
Line 347: Line 347:
Thank you!
Thank you!
[[User:Abrobo819|Abrobo819]] ([[User talk:Abrobo819|talk]]) 19:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
[[User:Abrobo819|Abrobo819]] ([[User talk:Abrobo819|talk]]) 19:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

== 11:39:27, 19 December 2017 review of submission by Shouston17 ==
{{Lafc|username=Shouston17|ts=11:39:27, 19 December 2017|declined=Draft:Jugnoo_Rahi}}


Hi Bradv,

Thank you for reviewing my article. I would really like some suggestions as to how to make this article better as I have been trying for a long time to find new references and improve it. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Revision as of 11:39, 19 December 2017

User talk:Bradv/Talkheader

Editor of the Week

Editor Worm That Turned submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Bradv to be Editor of the Week for a number of reasons. I first came across Bradv when he was trying to fix a tag and ended up mediating a dispute admirably. Looking at his contributions (10.000 edits plus), he spends the majority of his time helping, be it at the Teahouse or at Articles for Creation. He has been away for a while, but has recently returned and I'd like it known how much his work is appreciated.

Bradv
Improves the encyclopedia
 
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning May 8, 2016
10K to mainspace, uses the summary 97% of the time, recently re-activated, fights vandalism. The majority of his time is spent helping other editors.
Recognized for
Fighting Vandalism
Nomination page

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk 19:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

06:28:01, 21 February 2017 review of submission by Brutesin


Have submitted the link where it defines notability and reason why award was given. Please see newly added link with details. As its been awarded in 2011 there are few archives available at this point and this is one of them, which defines notability. I also chatted on wiki and got it confirmed. Please recheck. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brutesin (talk • contribs) 06:28, February 21, 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://issuu.com/abpl/docs/av_8jan11

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

added Joe Roe
readded JzG
removed Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Aydin Aghdashloo

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Aydin Aghdashloo. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Message from GermanGamer77 21:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I intend to have "Yee" reviewed. GermanGamer77 21:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You think this is up to Wikipedia's standards? Bradv 21:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Dirkworld

hello Bradv,

So this page exists on other countries wikipedia pages. Why is this being rejected for the usa when it has credible sources, links to publications and international album release reviews, the all music guide, Kerrang, metal hammer,etc.

What needs to be done to finally get this up for good? This is a group who have sold well, toured and had major album releases since 1988. Any help would be so appreciated. Dirkworld (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia's guidelines for notability are listed here. There are a set of 12 criteria that help identify whether bands are worth writing articles about. If it doesn't meet any or all of those criteria, perhaps it is not suitable for Wikipedia at this time. I hope that helps. Bradv 02:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Message from umairsy

Dear Bradv,

As suggested by you, changes has been made in the reference section. The blog references has been replaced with authentic book references.

This article is very important piece of history, which is missing now. Please check Wikipedia page on Battle of Chinhat for more reference on Barkat Ahmad.

Umair (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2017 (IST)

Thank you for that. Can you also remove the link to Wikipedia as a source? Wikipedia also is not a reliable source. Bradv 12:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully fixed. Removed the link of page of Sir henry Lawrence. Request another kind review. Umair (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2017 (IST)
 Done. Bradv 14:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bradv for your services.

Message from AntonSamuel regarding move from cantons to regions

Hi! Why did you reverse the Rojava-related articles that I moved? I thought I had followed the guidelines, I waited a week and there was pretty much consensus on the talk pages. The only one who opposed misunderstood the sources, which I explained to him but he didn't respond much to that. So I thought that according to the regulations regarding moves ("Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly..") that it would be valid for me to move them. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move discussions are to be closed by an uninvolved editor (see WP:RM#Closing instructions). The discussions are now relisted for another week in order to get a broader consensus. Once the consensus is clear someone else will close the discussion. It's very well possible that the discussions will go your way, but we need to allow the process to continue. Bradv 14:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For the selfiess service towards making Wikipedia articles authentic and complete. Great at providing guidance to make Articles better and publishable. Umairsy 18:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Request on 20:57:49, 7 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Antonzaitsev


Hi. First of all, thanks for the review. It seems there is a huge pile of submissions and you do a great job reading all these drafts.

Secondly, thanks for understanding. It's frustrating indeed to have a draft declined.

You said I should find sources and provided some links to start with. As I know from communication with another reviewer it's okay if the sources belong to the same country as the subject of an article. So if the subject has the good coverage in Russian sources, it's enough. Is it correct?

Please comment on these sources.

Antonzaitsev (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't read Russian, and neither do the majority of users on the English Wikipedia, so I can't evaluate the Russian-language sources to verify the information in this article. I can only evaluate based on the English-language sources given, of which there are two:
  1. https://www.fastcompany.com/most-innovative-companies/2013, which says in its entirety: "Topface: For championing a local, online dating scene."
  2. https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/top-10-russian-internet-companies-in-2012-20345, which only has three sentences on the subject.
As you can see, I simply don't have enough information to be able to accept this submission. Perhaps you can find some more English-language sources, or find an experienced editor who can speak Russian. Just out of curiosity, where are you getting the information to write this article? Are you translating all of this from these sources, or do you have another source that's not listed here? Bradv 21:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I want to find an experienced editor who can speak Russian, what should I do first? It's all translated of course. If there was another independent source, I would cite it. Antonzaitsev (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2015_Thalys_train_attack#Requested_move_21_November_2017

According to the current draft of Wikipedia:Names of articles on recent events, first sentence, "There is no consensus" on article naming. We are keeping track of the results of RMs like this one to help establish consensus over time. Thus having a closure for or against based on the arguments would be helpful. Even if the close is "no consensus -> default to current name with date". -- GreenC 02:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did find consensus not to move the page, the main arguments being that the current title is clearer and more precise, even if it's less concise. However, I tried to leave it open to the possibility that, with broader participation, consensus with respect to these kinds of articles changes. If it does (or is clarified one way or another), then I would expect that the next discussion for this specific case would take a different tack. So no, I would not close this as "no consensus" but as "not moved". (But consensus can change.) I hope that helps. Bradv 02:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Enycez99

Hi Bradv,

Sorry to interrupt you but I found that my article was declined for the reason of liking an advertisement. However， I refer to some independent, reliable, published sources to write this. It's really confused. Would you mind to help me?

Thanks Enyce — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enycez99 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this is your first Wikipedia article. If you're interested in contributing to Wikipedia, I would recommend starting out by editing existing articles, participating in talk pages, and finding areas that you can contribute to. If you're not here to help build an encyclopedia, but you're trying to promote your company or your products, then I suggest you read the guidelines at WP:PROMOTION. Bradv 02:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Ead345

Hi Bradv- I would love some assistance with the Liposarcoma Genome Project page. Liposarcoma is a rare cancer and thus not a great deal has been published about it. But how can people learn about rare cancers if the wikipedia page is denied due to insufficient sources. When the Director of the National Institute of Health posts an article about the lead liposarcoma genome project researcher at MGH/Harvard/Broad Institute, Bradley Bernstein,well what more evidence is needed to give this cancer credibility? I would like help please. Thank you. Ead345 (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)EAD345[reply]

I get what you're trying to do, but Wikipedia requires "significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (as indicated in my note on the draft). Of the references provided in the draft, only the New York Times article meets that criteria. The rest are either primary sources or not independent of the subject. Are there any other independent sources available? Bradv 01:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 01:19:59, 9 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Ead345

Hi Bradv- I am unclear why the liposarcoma genome project was denied. The articles listed were incredibly notable- the Director of the National Institute of Health just wrote an article about the project's lead researcher. The human genome project was new at one point in time before it became notable- so why wouldnt the liposarcoma genome project be credible? It is the same exact premise- basic research and an understanding of the epigentics of liposarcoma, an incredibly rare soft tissue cancer. It is an incredible shame that the wiki page was denied because how else are people going to be able to learn about this lifesaving research that is currently happening by some of the most brilliant minds in cancer research at MGH/Harvard/MIT/Broad Institute. How can we fix this?

Ead345 (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answered just above. Bradv 01:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:13:28, 10 December 2017 review of submission by Abmnn


Thanks for reviewing my article on Nimble Commander! You rejected it for notability reasons. I respectfully disagree and here is my argumentation that I hope you find reasonable:

Wikipedia's notability guidelines state that "a computer program can usually be presumed to be notable if it is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field [...]".

Of the four sources I used, the first two (Softpedia and MacTech) are well-known websites/journals in the Mac software domain that both have their own Wikipedia articles. The third is a well-known tech blog (lifehacker.ru). The fourth is a recommendation by the author of the golden standard file manager of the last two decades (Total Commander).

Objectively, the quality of these sources is at least equivalent to the ones used in the acticles of Nimble Commander's direct competitors, all dual-pane file managers for macOS:

Please take 2 minutes and see for yourself. Take Fman for example: In its Reception section, it cites three sources. The first is Softpedia, like I did in my article. The only difference is that Fman was rated 3/5 and Nimble Commander received a 5/5 rating. The second source is a journal, comparable to MacTech which I cited. The third is ProductHunt, a product launch website where everybody can post their product without any peer-review.

Please help me understand in detail why you rejected the article - and please don't be like the last reviewer who ignored and deleted my post twice without an answer. Help me add a good article for a popular piece of software - thanks! :)

Abmnn (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Abmnn: Are there any other sources available? This is probably right on the edge. Those other articles are also right on the edge (one is tagged as possibly non-notable, and one barely survived a deletion discussion). Nevertheless, any improvements you can make to the sources for your article will help the next time it gets reviewed. Bradv 01:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Message from T4mb4y 22

Hi there! Why did you delete my article for Angola at major beauty pageants? Well if that is the case delete all the Countries at major beauty pageant then...

Request on 00:40:05, 11 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by T4mb4y 22


Hi! Why did you delete Angola at major beauty pageants? You know what delete also countries at major beauty pageants.

T4mb4y 22 (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@T4mb4y 22: I didn't delete anything. I pointed out in my comment that this topic is already covered at Miss Angola. Bradv 01:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Recognition of same-sex unions in Austria

Is there any chance you could please close the move discussion at Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Austria and move the page per WP:SNOWBALL? Thanks. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree there is a good chance the outcome of this discussion can be predicted, I think it should run the full 7 days, just as with any other requested move discussion. I am not convinced of any pressing need to abbreviate this process. Bradv 05:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I can wait 3 more days. Thanks for your help! Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your close of RM for Victoria (TV series)

I'm not sure how you got a "no consensus" from Talk:Victoria (TV series)#Requested move 28 November 2017. There is clear consensus to move, with a couple of editors thinking that the discussion should be put on hold. However, they are in the minority. --woodensuperman 13:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I should have provided more information in my closing statement. There are three possible outcomes for a move discussion: consensus to move, consensus not to move, or no consensus. As there were two people supporting the proposed move, one opposing the move, and two suggesting it would be better to hold off until a relevant RfC is complete, there is no consensus. As the outcome of the RfC may affect this discussion, it would be disruptive to move the article and then move it back. Please note that as this is a "no consensus" move, there is no requirement to wait before nominating it again, although I would recommend waiting until the RfC is complete in order to satisfy those objections. Bradv 20:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, There are five people supporting the move, not two as you mention. --woodensuperman 09:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have you had another look at this yet, or do you need me to submit a move review? --woodensuperman 15:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend you open another requested move discussion once this RFC closes. If for some reason you cannot wait that long, you are welcome to open a move review. Bradv 15:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for Victoria (TV series)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Victoria (TV series). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. --woodensuperman 15:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Bradv, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
  • Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

  • If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

  • A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
  • Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
  • The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

SMILE!! 12 DECEMBER 2017

Hello Bradv, Me-123567-Me has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Close

I have to come by and say that your recent RM close at Cheryl (singer) is one of, if not the, finest and best written, well analyzed, and carefully explained closer statements I've seen here. Thank you. And you actually used a reading of the article itself in your consideration, which in my opinion should be done in most if not all RMs. I wish you had closed some of the ones I thought were incorrect, because a couple of crucial times the closer studied the issues involved, became familiar with the long statements and analysis offered up for evidentially purposes and then carefully debated in different styles by opposing good-faith editors, read some of the article itself, and then wrote and posted the close, all in less than two minutes. I will save and point to the wording of your Cheryl (singer) close as an example. Thanks again. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About Topface draft

If I want to find an experienced editor who can speak Russian, what should I do first? Answering your question: it's all translated of course. If there was another independent source, I would cite it.Antonzaitsev (talk) 08:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Antonzaitsev: I would try to find sources in English. If the subject is notable enough for an article in the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be available. Bradv 14:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:34:01, 15 December 2017 review of submission by Nurgul B


Hi Bradv,

Thank you for your review time. I was not sure whether I should have added any more information about Scandinavian Development Services (SDS) without sounding too subjective. However, in terms of notability, SDS is a leading scandinavian consultancy within life science industry in Scandinavia. SDS featured in "Dagens Industri"[1]. Dagens Industri is a financial newspaper in tabloid format published in Stockholm, Sweden[2]. Would this be enough source for notability?

Kind regards,

Nurgul B (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Nurgul B[reply]

@Nurgul B: The article in question does not have a single reliable source listed. Reliable source are what we use to build our articles, and specifically what we use to establish whether a topic is notable. Please carefully read the explanation given at the top of the article. Bradv 15:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Bradv: thank you for your response. I am sorry for not being clear in my previous question. I asked whether adding Swedish newspaper "Dagens Industri" as a source would suffice. In any case I added it as a source to the draft article. Is that ok? Thank you for your time :) Nurgul B (talk)

References

  1. ^ https://www.di.se/di/artiklar/2015/1/27/ratt-medicin-for-lakemedlet-1/
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagens_Industri

Message from Sludj re: Wrongworld

Hi there,

Thanks for the quick review - I was expecting to have to wait a couple of months before hearing anything back :)

I can see the page was declined, I think due to lack of citations, correct? There are many other articles about Wrongworld that exist, but I checked through the list of gaming press websites that Wikipedia classes as important/usable, and I couldn't find the websites in question listed, so I left them out of the article.

Do I just need to wait until the game is noticed by some of the larger press sites, then add those citations to the article? Just want to make sure there isn't anything else that's causing a problem, and it's just the lack of coverage from large press sites that's the issue.

Thanks, Jamie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sludj (talk • contribs) 05:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me that there's a fair bit of material that is sourced to non-third-party sites (i.e. Steam). Coverage by larger press sites, independent of the project, would be good. If you can find some, add them and resubmit the article. Bradv 05:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:14:33, 18 December 2017 review of submission by Abrobo819


Hi there, I'm not necessarily requesting a re-review just yet, but I am getting ready to edit this further so I can submit again. Can you further elaborate on why the submission was denied in regard to the following, "...and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed." The sources I list do not come from the subject or the subject's company. All those I have listed are external sources. Do you have recommendations on how I could make this better? I apologize if I haven't used the talk page correctly. I've only created a couple articles and never really used the talk page before. Thank you! Abrobo819 (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11:39:27, 19 December 2017 review of submission by Shouston17


Hi Bradv,

Thank you for reviewing my article. I would really like some suggestions as to how to make this article better as I have been trying for a long time to find new references and improve it. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bradv&oldid=816117943"