Jump to content

User talk:Bradv: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user has CheckUser privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user has oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user has been editing Wikipedia for at least fifteen years.
This user is proudly Canadian.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 247: Line 247:
[[User:TXTruthFinder|TXTruthFinder]] ([[User talk:TXTruthFinder|talk]]) 16:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)8/14/19
[[User:TXTruthFinder|TXTruthFinder]] ([[User talk:TXTruthFinder|talk]]) 16:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)8/14/19
:{{u|TXTruthFinder}}, Wikipedia articles are written based on what is said in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] that are [[WP:IS|independent]] of the subject. What the subject says about themselves is [[WP:PROMO|not appropriate]], and in many cases can constitute a [[WP:COPYVIO|copyright violation]]. If you have concerns about the [[WP:NPOV|neutrality]] of the article, please present your ideas on the [[Talk:Texans for Vaccine Choice|talk page]]. If you have any type of external relationship or [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]], do not edit the article directly. I hope this helps. – [[User:Bradv|<span style="color:#333">'''brad''v'''''</span>]][[User talk:Bradv|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]] 16:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
:{{u|TXTruthFinder}}, Wikipedia articles are written based on what is said in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] that are [[WP:IS|independent]] of the subject. What the subject says about themselves is [[WP:PROMO|not appropriate]], and in many cases can constitute a [[WP:COPYVIO|copyright violation]]. If you have concerns about the [[WP:NPOV|neutrality]] of the article, please present your ideas on the [[Talk:Texans for Vaccine Choice|talk page]]. If you have any type of external relationship or [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]], do not edit the article directly. I hope this helps. – [[User:Bradv|<span style="color:#333">'''brad''v'''''</span>]][[User talk:Bradv|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]] 16:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

[[User:Bradv|<span style="color:#333">'''brad''v'''''</span>]][[User talk:Bradv|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]], Does that mean the sources that are cited within the page aren't already enough evidence that TFVC is a neutral group, not an "anti-vaccine" group? Most of the articles either show them defending liberties or are one-sided opinion articles aimed against the group. I hardly find that "nuetral" opinion.

Revision as of 17:29, 14 August 2019

Messages
  • Please help keep discussions together.
  • If I left you a message on your talk page, please reply there (and ping me}.
  • If you leave me a message on my talk page, I will answer here.
  • If you have already started a conversation on this page, please reply there.
Click here to begin a new topic
  • Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
  • View or search the archives for old messages.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Links
Need Help?
Policies and Guidelines
Principles
Content policies
Conduct policies
Other policy categories
Directories


Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 8

Hope everyone is having a good winter (or summer, for those in the northern hemisphere). Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been nominated for adminship

Regards, AGK ■ 08:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my co-nomination statement. All that's left is for you to add your answers to the three standard RfA questions, sign the acceptance statement (usually with an acknowledgement of whether you have ever edited for pay), then take a deep breath and transclude! If you would like me to transclude it for you, just let me know and I would be happy to. Good luck!! Mz7 (talk) 10:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question 8

You already have my support – not that you need it – but I thought I'd share with you a view on the relationship between subject-specific guidelines (SNGs) and WP:GNG.

It's a truism that some subjects, such as sportspeople or entertainers, attract a disproportionate share of attention in the media; while other subjects, such as academics, are underrepresented in our mainstream press.

If you then examine the reasons why we have SNGs, you find two extremes:

  1. the subject is so likely to have press attention that we can assume that they meet GNG;
  2. the subject is not likely to meet GNG, but that would lead to a bias in our coverage of the general area, so we allow other criteria to substitute for GNG when establishing notability.

SNGs like WP:NFOOTY are of the first type, but although they give a strong indication that the subject is notable, it is still possible to argue in an AfD that they do not meet GNG if no sources can be found. So NFOOTY is not a replacement for GNG. We have no need to increase the number of articles about footballers as we already have plenty of coverage.

SNGs like WP:NPROF are of the second type, and we allow a subject who meets one of the alternative criteria for academics to be presumed notable. In these cases, NPROF is a replacement for GNG because we want to counter the bias in our coverage caused by a lack of mainstream sources for these subjects. Of course, we still have to find sources to write the article, but we are freed from the burden of finding sufficient sources to satisfy GNG.

Now, that's just one take on the issue, but it has a logic behind it which allows it to be extended to other SNGs. I hope it helps you when considering how SNGs ought to relate to the GNG. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS, thanks for your support, and for your message here. I think Q8 is mostly referring to subjects that meet the GNG but do not meet the applicable SNG, such as an associate professor who has attracted a lot of media attention but never won any awards. In this case some would argue that they're not entitled to an article as they don't meet NPROF, but I would suggest that BASIC is a suitable argument for inclusion. Is that not clear in my response? – bradv🍁 18:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course in the case of NPROF this isn't terribly relevant as C7 would cover most situations, meaning that pretty much any academic who satisfies the GNG also satisfies NPROF. – bradv🍁 18:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's perfectly true, but I was hoping to cast a little light on the reasons behind our policies. I would also hope it is abundantly clear that someone failing NPROF isn't automatically disqualified from notability – for example, both Roger Bannister and Rab Butler would arguably fail NPROF, but they are clearly notable via GNG. Your response in the RfA is perfectly fine; as you have observed, there's some lack of consensus among editors over what should really be very straightforward issues. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS, yeah I'm with you. I've written a few articles about people who meet NPROF but probably don't pass the GNG, e.g. Beverley Pearson Murphy. I've accepted plenty more through AfC. – bradv🍁 20:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

"help improve the encyclopedia and achieve its vision"

Thank you for quality articles such as Derrick Barnes and Blanket exercise, for dealing with articles for creation and deletion, for "indispensable" clerk services, for strike as protest against destruction but getting back to work, for "help improve the encyclopedia and achieve its vision", - Brad, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2263 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFA passed

-- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats Bradv! Please remember not to mushroom. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:11, August 11, 2019
Thank you DeltaQuad! And thank you to all who participated in my RfA – the thoughtful encouragement and constructive criticism (in all sections) is very much appreciated. I will take all of your comments to heart, and I will not let you down. – bradv🍁 16:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Successful RfA

Congrats..The admins' T-shirt for you. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
File:Successful requests for adminship 2019.png
With 173 supporters, Bradv's request for adminship is the tenth to succeed in 2019.

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Congrats on becoming an admin and thank you for blocking that IP @Joseph Efford. JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you!

I see you are already making use of the tools at RFPP which does not hurt my feelings :). With that said, if I do anything questionable please let me know. Thanks!

S0091 (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfD close

Hi Bradv. Would you take a second look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Lewis (Royal Navy officer). The whole thing, to me, hinges on an understanding of WP:SOLDIER, as those advocating for keep are using that guideline as their main rationale. Would you glance back and see if you agree, at first, with that assessment. If you do, would you then take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide#People (WP:SOLDIER) and see if you agree that the criteria in that guideline indicates the possibility of someone being notable, and that the criteria needs to be read in conjunction with the supporting notes, particularly "those who are only mentioned in passing in reliable secondary sources should not be considered notable for the purposes of a stand-alone article", and refer back to the RfD where both Icewhiz and myself raised awareness that WP:SOLDIER only indicates likely notability, and that "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources" is still required. And would you then check the sources in the article, to see if any of them meet the requirement for "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources", and - if you wish, if you find none - do your own search for such sources. While it is assumed that someone who is a flag officer will have enough notability to generate general interest to provide "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources" and so an article can be created and sources found later, in those cases where after the article has been created, sufficient sources are not found, and the article has been challenged, that on being challenged and still insufficient sources found, the article will be removed. I will watch your talkpage so you can respond here. And, congrats on being given the mop! SilkTork (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also note - WP:SOLDIER is an essay (a well regarded one, and often used at AfD, but never given formal status). I agree he should pass SOLDIER - though this has led to a lively debate at MilHist (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Commodores and brigadiers where we're having a !vote at present) - however SOLDIER never trumped GNG (besides being an essay, it states in its lead: "The key to determining notability is ultimately coverage in independent sources per the general notability guideline, although the following is provided to give a general understanding of who, or what, is likely to meet the site-wide notability requirements for creation as a stand-alone article."). When GNG is challenged on a SOLDIER-passing individual (or a NFOOTY-passing individual (an actual guideline, but also only a presumption of GNG)) - one still has to locate sources or at least indicate why sources are likely to be available (e.g. for non-English individual with hard to find online sources). In this case - there isn't a single source in the article that was reliable+secondary+indetph+independent (it's all connected organizations, and much of it is in passing - short blurbs in non-independent primary sources).Icewhiz (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious as to how being the recipient of a CBE is not a well-known and significant award or honor, per ANYBIO #1. The AfD did not reach consensus on this point. The lack of significant coverage is a concern, but the sources do appear to be sufficient to support the main claims of notability. Given the lack of clarity around whether a CBE qualifies for ANYBIO and the current discussion around whether a Commodore qualifies per SOLDIER, I don't see how this could be closed any other way. – bradv🍁 12:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to CBE and ANYBIO - see Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2019#ANYBIO#1 - "significant award or honor" instigated by a similar Polish award (instigated by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zdzisław Zakrzewski - closed delete) - in which I think there was no consensus any way on what the threshold should be (particularly in these awards with multiple grades). While it is clear the Nobel Prize passes ANYBIO#1 - these mid-grade awards are not clearcut (and in some cases - they are awarded merely for long service and/or for donating enough to good causes). CBE is far from clearcut for ANYBIO#1 (if it passes - its right at the threshold of what passes). WP:ANYBIO states - "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." - so again likely notability - but it does not supersede WP:BASIC (was is essentially WP:GNG). Myself - if there was one or two decent RSes (independent, secondary, good reputation, in depth) - coupled with these likely indications - it possibly would've swung me to Keep. However - in this case this is a bio with zero decent sources for an English speaking subject during the internet age - and in a long AfD - no one was able to pony up sources (and I looked extensively myself as well). Icewhiz (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no clear consensus either way on whether CBE qualifies for a "significant award or honor", and there is no consensus in this AfD to overrule ANYBIO and delete the article in spite of that claim. So your point about ANYBIO not superseding BASIC is correct, but I don't see consensus for that here. – bradv🍁 14:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ANYBIO is merely a "likely" indication - it expressly states that it "does not guarantee that a subject should be included" - it is insufficient in and of itself (I'll note that ANYBIO#2 (enduring historical record) and ANYBIO#3 (DNB) basically guarantee several or one (DNB) RSes, ANYBIO#1 does not (in this case - off of a gazette notice)). Even if we were to accept that the borderline CBE passes ANYBIO#1 - that's not a sufficient argument for inclusion once BASIC/GNG has been challenged, as it merely states "likely". Icewhiz (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for looking again Bradv. The ANYBIO point was brought up in the AfD discussion by myself and Icewhiz as signifying the same as SOLDIER - ie, that both of those guidelines indicate the possibility of notability, but that "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included", and so WP:GNG is required. The point here is that though ANYBIO and SOLDIER were invoked, the article when tested does not meet GNG. The ANYBIO and SOLDIER guidelines do stress, as has been pointed out, that they only indicate the likelihood of notability but do not guarantee it if significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is not found. Such significant coverage has not been found. Do you wish to look again or can I now go to DRV? SilkTork (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, DRV is appropriate. This could benefit from a broader discussion. – bradv🍁 12:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedy

Indeed I'm not the author however as explained in the edit summary A) the user is indeffed and B) this was the last edited version, I wondered if G6 would've been better but either way this still should've been deleted. –Davey2010Talk 17:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010, you're right - there is nothing useful in the history. I've deleted it as vandalism. – bradv🍁 22:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry was meant to have got back to this earlier - Many thanks for deleting it it's much appreciated :) (and many thanks for blocking the edit warrer too again much appreciated too! :)), Thanks and Happy editing :), –Davey2010Talk 14:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Martin Article

Bradv, I really think you've been deceived by the way James Martin (priest, born 1960) is written. The article purports to present a balanced view of fair criticisms, but if you read the underlying sources, you'll see right away that Thucyd has simply quote-mined them to find snippets that seem to be providing fair criticism of Father Martin, when in context they are part of articles that are actually about a campaign by extremist anti-LGBT organizations to discredit Father Martin.

Consider this example. Thucyd cites a NYT article for the following proposition: "According to journalist Frank Bruni, Martin did not "explicitly reject Church teaching" but question the language of the doctrine describing homosexuality as "intrinsically disordered"." Now look at what the article actually says:

Check out the websites and Twitter accounts of far-right Catholic groups and you’ll see why. To them Father Martin is “sick,” “wicked,” “a filthy liar,” “the smoke of Satan” and a “heretic” on a fast track to “eternal damnation.” They obsessively stalk him and passionately exhort churchgoers to protest his public appearances or prevent them from happening altogether.

And they succeed. After the New Jersey parish in which his remarks were supposed to be delivered was inundated with angry phone calls, the event was moved off church grounds. Father Martin will give his spectacularly uncontroversial talk — “Jesus Christ: Fully Human, Fully Divine” — at a secular conference center in a nearby town. Why all this drama? What’s Father Martin’s unconscionable sin? In his most recent book, “Building a Bridge,” which was published in June, he calls on Catholics to show L.G.B.T. people more respect and compassion than many of them have demonstrated in the past.

That’s all. That’s it. He doesn’t say that the church should bless gay marriage or gay adoption. He doesn’t explicitly reject church teaching, which prescribes chastity for gay men and lesbians, though he questions the language — “intrinsically disordered” — with which it describes homosexuality. But that hasn’t stopped his detractors from casting him as a terrifying enemy of the faith — Regan in “The Exorcist” and Damien in “The Omen” rolled together and grown up into a balding and bespectacled Jesuit — and silencing him whenever they can. A talk about Jesus that he was supposed to give in London last fall was canceled. So was a similar talk at the Theological College of the Catholic University of America.

And the vitriol to which he has been subjected is breathtaking, a reminder not just of how much homophobia is still out there but also of how presumptuous, overwrought, cruel and destructive discourse in this digital age can be. “Inexcusably ugly” was how the Roman Catholic archbishop of Philadelphia, Charles Chaput, described the attacks on Father Martin in an essay for the Catholic journal First Things in September. Archbishop Chaput is no progressive, but still he was moved to write that “the bitterness directed at the person of Father Martin is not just unwarranted and unjust; it’s a destructive counter-witness to the Gospel.” He cited a recent article in a French publication with the headline “Catholic Cyber-Militias and the New Censorship,” observing, “We live at a time when civility is universally longed for and just as universally (and too often gleefully) violated.”

After Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego published a similar defense of Father Martin in the Jesuit magazine America, one of Father Martin’s devoted inquisitors tweeted: “If you think the anti-sodomite bigotry in the church is bad, you should see hell.”

Do you see how this article is actually about the homophobic bigots who are attacking Father Martin, but Thucyd has quote-mined it in a way that attempts to paint a critical view of Father Martin? Is this acceptable per WP:BLP? --PluniaZ (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on the article talk page. – bradv🍁 22:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What about the rest of my concerns? I have made a good-faith BLP objection to the entire section (as I have explained yet again in a new section on the Talk Page). WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE is 100% clear that the burden is on Thucyd to gain consensus to restore the material. Until then, the material should be removed. --PluniaZ (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PluniaZ, I protected the article because of edit warring. Any changes made during full protection must be in accordance with the consensus on the talk page, or demonstrated to be blatant BLP violations which justify urgent removal. Removing all mention of the book does not fall into that category. – bradv🍁 22:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What Wikipedia policy says that? I cited clear Wikipedia policy at WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE - "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." Thucyd restored material without obtaining consensus, in clear violation of this policy and is refusing to engage at all on the Talk Page. Shouldn't that tell you something? --PluniaZ (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For goodness sake, one of the sources Thucyd uses is titled "Cardinal Sarah Confutes the Pro-Gay Jesuit". You protected a page that relies on this bigoted garbage as a source, and are ignoring requests to remove it??? --PluniaZ (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bradv, I've written a neutral description of the book here that describes the critical reception of the book by reputable institutions instead of homophobic bigots and requested an RfC on the change. Please change the section to this neutral version pending the outcome of the RfC. --PluniaZ (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PluniaZ, here's my advice:
  • Drop the over-the-top language. Calling people "homophobic bigots" isn't exactly endearing nor does it further your point of view.
  • Draw up a neutrally-worded version that actually covers the controversy (i.e. don't delete all mention of the book, don't just quote glowing reviews).
  • Make an edit request. – bradv🍁 01:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--PluniaZ (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:William Barr

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:William Barr. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Committee Request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#James Martin (priest, born 1960) and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,

--PluniaZ (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Message from TXTruthFinder

Hi, Your recent removal of my edit on the Texans for Vaccine Choice [1] seems very one-sided, as the current descriptive summary is far from "neutral", not to mention far from true. Please replace my edit to this page as it literally came from the groups' web page.

Respectfully, TXTruthFinder TXTruthFinder (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)8/14/19[reply]

TXTruthFinder, Wikipedia articles are written based on what is said in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. What the subject says about themselves is not appropriate, and in many cases can constitute a copyright violation. If you have concerns about the neutrality of the article, please present your ideas on the talk page. If you have any type of external relationship or conflict of interest, do not edit the article directly. I hope this helps. – bradv🍁 16:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

bradv🍁, Does that mean the sources that are cited within the page aren't already enough evidence that TFVC is a neutral group, not an "anti-vaccine" group? Most of the articles either show them defending liberties or are one-sided opinion articles aimed against the group. I hardly find that "nuetral" opinion.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bradv&oldid=910818813"