Jump to content

User talk:Bradv

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stevemidgley (talk | contribs) at 05:13, 19 April 2016 (→‎GovLab fixes: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User talk:Bradv/Talkheader

Smile!

A NobodyMy talk 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!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by A Nobody (talk • contribs) 19:16, February 22, 2009‎ (UTC)

Third Opinion on Wilson's Syndrome article

Hi Bradv!

Thanks for your willingness to offer a third opinion on this article, I have left my viewpoint on the talk page.

Best :) MedBoard2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MedBoard2 (talk • contribs) 22:03, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

2601:4C4:C206:BB20:841A:5666:D4C3:EF66

I am a new author . How do I create a bio page on wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4C4:C206:BB20:841A:5666:D4C3:EF66 (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Writing articles about yourself is discouraged. Bradv 17:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PicPick

Hey Bradv, How's it going? I added more external references and a download count that shows it's pretty popular with almost 2 million downloads on cnet. What's the notability criteria? If these types of apps don't deserve articles then most of these might need tags too?

Cheers

Sean — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanMack (talk • contribs) 18:35, April 8, 2016‎ (UTC)

Just because something is popular doesn't necessarily mean we can write an encyclopedia article on it. Wikipedia relies on third-party reliable sources for its information. You can read more about the notability guidelines here.
Please note also that if you are using Wikipedia to promote a particular company or product, that is considered a conflict of interest and your work will very likely be removed. Bradv 19:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I must say I find your reply unnecessarily abrupt and quite insulting. COI says "contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships...". I have no affiliation with PicPick apart from looking for a page for it that I found didn't exist yet - I saw the German Wikipedia had an article and decided to create a page for the English Wikipedia. I based it on the format of the German page but added 4 times the external references and links.
I have just passed 11 years on Wikipedia and I'm well aware of notability guidelines and also how arbitrarily they are applied in many cases. I'm also aware of reliable sources - which is why if you look at my edits you will see I heavily reference my own and others work.
You didn't actually answer either of my questions. What criteria are you applying specifically here? If it's valid and applicable to other software of the same type then the other articles need to be tagged too. Outside a few like Word, Snagit, IrfanView, it seems to me - everything else should have the same rules applied.


Actually - before I signed off I did read further and discovered this which I wasn't aware of Wikipedia:Notability (software). My reading of this line would suggest to me that it should be included:
It might be worth citing specifics like this when you tag.
Thanks for your time.
SeanMack (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Viliumes

[1] what ist Viliumes? :D :D --Tabbelio (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. What are you trying to do? Bradv 19:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Denham

It says to generally avoid external links to Facebook, but an exception is when it's an official page of the article's subject. It is Sam Denham; he's just called Denham Orbital on there. He is a member of Fanderson and occasionally comments on pictures in the Facebook group. He isn't verified with the blue tick, but we should assume good faith. Therefore I think we should keep the external link in the article. What do you think? Plankton55 (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that a link to Facebook is okay, but it does not count as a reference as Facebook is not a reliable source. The big problem right now is that we have an article about a living person which does not prove the accuracy of the information. Please read WP:BLP. Bradv 21:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I put the link to Facebook under "External links" - I didn't put it under "References" just in case someone thought it counted as one. There is one source in the article - Supermarionation Cross-Sections - an officially licensed product. Therefore it is an official source. Now getting onto the second sentence in the article which is unsourced: the source is the books themselves. On the front of the Haynes manual is his name. I think I should reword that sentence though. What do you think? Plankton55 (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Using his own book as a reference doesn't count as a third-party reliable source. I did a quick google search and I can't really find anything that would indicate this person warrants his own encyclopedia article. Where are you getting your information from? Bradv 21:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I mention in the article. Have you checked this out about Denham? http://www.technodelic.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/UpAnnSpec/PublishFuture.htm. Plankton55 (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Every source you've provided, including that one, is written by Sam Denham. None of those are considered reliable enough for the purpose of an encyclopedia. Again, please carefully read the reliable source guidelines and the guidelines on biographies of living people. Bradv 21:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does this source suffice? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2153356/Thunderbirds-manual-HAYNES-technical-experts-delve-engines-Tracy-Island-spacecraft.html. Plankton55 (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but that's not really enough information to write an encyclopedia article on him, is it? Does he satisfy the criteria at WP:NBIO? Bradv 22:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a very good question. By the way, here's some more sources mentioning him: http://www.paninicomics.co.uk/web/guest/news?id=89128 and http://www.jacketflap.com/sam-denham/138646. Plankton55 (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Tagging of Kebebasan Bersuara- Perkara 10 (1)(a)

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Kebebasan Bersuara- Perkara 10 (1)(a). I do not think that Kebebasan Bersuara- Perkara 10 (1)(a) fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because Pages not in English are specifically exempted from WP:CSD#A1. Use {{Non-English}} instead. I request that you consider not re-tagging Kebebasan Bersuara- Perkara 10 (1)(a) for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Katie Rodan

I reviewed this draft yesterday in AFC, and then requested a technical move of the draft over the redirect in order to move the draft into mainspace. This was declined by admin User:EdJohnston, who thought that the draft was promotional in tone. I was willing to defer to another experienced editor. It now appears that you have requested that the redirect be speedy-deleted to make way for the draft, which is basically just another way of requesting that the draft be moved into mainspace. If you agree with me that the draft is ready for mainspace, then we can just wait for the speedy deletion and one of us can then formally accept the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(If another editor thinks that the accepted article is too promotional, they can either edit the article to neutralize it, or nominate it for deletion. Nomination for deletion is, as we know, deprecated for articles that can be improved rather than deleted.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware you had reviewed it yesterday. I saw your comment about the redirect in the way, but not that you had rejected the article. It is still a bit promotional in tone, but that can easily be fixed in mainspace. Bradv 01:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't reject the article and I couldn't accept it, but I reviewed it. I didn't consider it promotional, but am willing to listen to the opinions of other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Archaeo optics

Hey, thanks for the comments. I am submitting this entry on behalf of a friend involved in this research. I've alerted him to your criticism.

Regarding the term "archaeo-optics," would changing it to "archaeological optics" be acceptable? This is a very new branch of archaeology, so I suppose "archaeo-optics" is only common among researchers in the field. Here's a ref for archaeological optics https://books.google.com/books?id=MMfV-jwRRHkC&pg=PA629&lpg=PA629&dq=archaeo-optics&source=bl&ots=vzvaim0NBA&sig=V-QEPJyli0bes4v1r_AscqJSJes&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjopLmE1oDMAhXD2BoKHQZqBlUQ6AEIMzAE#v=onepage&q=archaeo-optics&f=false

If you search for the longer term, there will be sufficient journal references to justify renaming the article.

As for the content, we erred on the side of completeness. I did, however, tell my friend that the article he gave me was overly detailed and not entirely suitable for a lay audience. I've asked him to make it more concise and readable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.wheaton (talk • contribs) 04:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review of the archaeo-optics submission. A word of explanation: The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Light, which brings together contributions from over twenty researchers, has been in process since 2011. The wheels of academia turn slowly, and sometimes it can take even more time for information to filter out from behind the ivy walls into a Googleable form. In terms of academic bona fides, Oxford University Press is among the most rigorous academic presses in the English-speaking world. The Wiki article itself has more than 140 citations to explain the long-term development of archaeo-optics, the core concept of which was broadcast to the world on the equally well-vetted Cosmos: A space/time odyssey. Aaron Watson PhD, a trained archaeoastronomer and the credited founder of the field of archaeoacoustics, is a leading proponent, and namer, of archaeo-optics.Paleo-camera (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AMC Hornet

Hello it appears you've undone my edit to the amc honet page but they never put a 304 in them it was a 302 thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDman204 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest discussing it at Talk:AMC Hornet. The link that you're changing points to an AMC 304 V8 engine. Bradv 13:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shyaway

Maari87 (talk) 06:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Hi Bradv, I have found that you have deleted my wiki page that I had created for Shyaway. Please note that I have just created the page for the website and am not doing any promotional activity through it. If in case you still feel that I am promoting the website kindly let me know the areas where you feel I am promoting so that I can review them and make necessary changes. Kindly review and give me a clear solution for this. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maari87 (talk • contribs) 06:42, April 9, 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the article has been deleted so I can't see it anymore. I suggest going to Articles for Creation, where you can create a draft and have it reviewed before going live. Bradv 13:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

09:20:54, 9 April 2016 review of submission by Arvindtamrakar


Request on 13:16:39, 9 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Dano67


I would like to address your comment on notability on my draft. My intent was to add a significant early release in the history of the label (Rhino) to the extensive number of articles on its compilation albums (with a wiki category sub-list that I included) . The subject, this recording, also is linked to a musical genre - teenage tragedy songs and could help to clarify the (muddled) definition of that genre.

Consider that this draft is a) not a stub and b) has met these criteria for notability: 1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries.

-- In response to the first review of the draft, by Robert McLenon, ("While this draft appears to satisfy the minimum notability requirements for references, more would be desirable.") I added more sources/references. This draft includes references to critical reviews and features in three national publications as well as a book chapter and two encyclopedic databases, one for recordings in general and another devoted to novelty songs.

2. The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart. -- The release data that I have referenced (sourced not only from my copy but as entered on Discogs) includes mention of chart positions for all of the tracks on the album. I also came across a chart mention for one of the songs by Joel Whitburn, that I chose not to use since his methods and Billboard chart research have been questioned).

Please look at my sources again and if you wish, make suggestions. Thank you Dano67 (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. You are correct, and I have approved the article submission. Thanks. Bradv 14:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bradv. I added a little clarification to my request and corrected a wikilink. Always editing! Dano67 (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:45:48, 9 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Sion55


Hey I'm wondering why my article was declined. It doesn't read like an essay because I don't have any personal opinions in it. I removed the only line that was an opinion. All sentences are cited. If there is an opinion in the article now, its the authors from the articles that I wrote from. Sion55 (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to begin the article with an explanation of what it's about. What does RBC stand for? Also, go through and fix the formatting issues (don't begin paragraphs with spaces), and make the whole article more readable. I honestly don't understand this article, and am not sure why it belongs in an encyclopedia. Bradv 19:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TheDman204

Hello Brady I believe you made a mistake on fixing my edit thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDman204 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What edit are you referring to? Bradv 19:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20:25:01, 9 April 2016 review of submission by Longfamily417

Hello,

I am working quite hard to get this submission done. I believe I have followed all the required guidelines. The Ottawa Citizen is Ottawa's largest newspaper, and part of a national chain of papers and media outlets. The other sources, such as the Ottawa Business Journal and Invest Ottawa are both major independent media sources. I am also curious why companies such as Intel are able to have pages on Wikipedia while the one I run is not. Both are commercial enterprises, however, for some reason that is not clear to me, SageTea is not allowed on Wikipedia.

I have gone to some length to cite the standards upon which SageTea is based. Unified Modeling Language has been standard in the software community for more than 20 years. SageTea is a modest improvement on that standard. It is also a published technology, having been recently approved after a lengthy review by the US Patent and Trademark Office.

So, I am a bit mystified as to why this article is not being accepted.

Comments welcome, I am open to suggestions ;-)

David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longfamily417 (talk • contribs) 20:25, April 9, 2016‎ (UTC)

David, I don't believe this company meets our criteria for inclusion for companies. I have read the article in the Ottawa Citizen, and it doesn't mention much about the company at all, and certainly not all the things that are included in your article. Furthermore, you have an obvious conflict of interest in creating this article, and so your participation in this process is strongly discouraged. If your company truly is notable enough, someone else will come along and create it. Bradv 20:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SageTea Feedback

Hi Brad,

the company is a supplier to the Government of Canada, which is the largest purchaser of software in the country. However, since this appears to be a point of contention, I will remove that part for now. I am sure someone else will fill that in at some point.

Thank you for your feedback. I hope you can bare with me while I resolve your excellent points.

More to come,

David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longfamily417 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for the work that you do maintaining our encyclopedia. Regards, Adam9007 10 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Azureick5

Hello, regarding my AFC submission "What Every Science Student Should Know," there was no feedback left as far as how the page can be improved. When it was previously reviewed and noted to read "more like an advertisement," I removed all language of this nature, and in its second review the only feedback was that it was not well cited but otherwise it appeared to be ready for implementation on Wikipedia. Since then, I added many new references before resubmitting, but very little new language. You have tagged it as "reading more like an advertisement," and I don't believe it does anymore. Would you please reconsider this decision or provide specific feedback for the article? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azureick5 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:What Every Science Student Should Know
You appear to be one of the authors of the book, and are writing this Wikipedia article in order to promote your product. That is strongly discouraged. If the book is truly notable, someone else will write about it. Not only does the article appear to be promotional in nature, I don't believe this book meets the notability standard for inclusion. Bradv 00:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:)

Humor Barnstar!
Yes you did! Thank you for being a Wikipedian. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Hawai'i Rainbow Wahine beach volleyball

This is so frustrating, and I'm NOT saying that it's you Bradv because I know that you're only doing what you can do.

My name is ShelbyLH and I've been doing volleyball (both indoor and beach) wiki's and stubs.

The latest one was the Hawai'i Rainbow Wahine beach volleyball, which was again declined. To answer the question, though, as it's been coming from a couple of ends if you will, I'm certainly including 3rd party sources. I say "coming from a couple of ends" because I believe that you as a editor/approver of articles (along with One|5969 and TwisterSister) you guys aren't the only individuals who've been assisting.

I some how got into the CreationsDesk group and have been helped, yes, as I've always been but WorldBruce had asked that I include citations from the Honolulu Star-Advertiser..and I did.

I'm kind of really into the sport of volleyball. The University of Hawai'i is a national power (USA) and the only Honolulu daily is the SA--which covers local sports extensively.

Bradv, could you please reconsider this stub? NCAA Beach VB is a brand new sport this season (2015-16) and it's the fastest growing to boot. I followed suit in what Georgia State University Beach VB did and I'm pretty certain that they'll be more collegiate Beach VB stubs which will be asking for notability also.

Thank you! ShelbyLH (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I understand that it can be frustrating getting all the references together to write an article, but I really do appreciate the effort. In this case, there are several statements that are not supported by the references given. The most reliable reference is the ESPN article, and it makes no reference to Jeff Hall. I'm not sure about the Staradvertiser reference as the link appears to be dead. I think the subject is probably notable enough, given the coverage in ESPN, but I'd like to see coverage from some other similar sources as well. Make sense? Bradv 01:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impostor

Thanks for reporting the impostor. How did you spot him so quickly? Adam9007 (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His signature linked to your user page. I opened up both the talk and the contribs page in separate windows (because I wanted to know what he was referring to) and I noticed they didn't match. He had only a handful of contributions, but had a full talk page. I checked the logs to see if someone had screwed up renaming a user, but couldn't see anything obvious. So I reported it to WP:UAA, and Bongwarrior (talk · contribs) cleaned it all up. All in a day's work, I suppose. ;) Bradv 01:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Out of interest, what was he referring to? I just saw him spamming barnstars all over the place. The first I knew of it was when I saw an edit that appeared to have been made by me that I hadn't made. Then I noticed everything. I suppose I should be thankful that he screwed up; he could have simply redirected his user and talk pages to mine, then it would have seemed much more authentic, and it may have actually worked (I hope he's not reading this :)). Adam9007 (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on AFC all day, so probably some grumpy user that I interacted with. He appeared to be a somewhat editor judging by his contributions - targeting AIV, reverting people, etc. Bradv 02:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm worried they might try it again, and if they do, that someone might actually fall for it and block me for vandalism and sockpuppetry. Thank god that didn't happen this time. Adam9007 (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No one's going to fall for that. It took me 4 minutes to report him (and someone else reported him to WP:ANI before I did), and it took Bongwarrior (talk · contribs) another 5 minutes to block him and revert all his edits. You have nothing to worry about. Bradv 02:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still, I can never be too careful, can I? Adam9007 (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure you can. You can be paranoid about some jerk vandalizing Wikipedia. That happens every minute of every day. We've got a system to deal with that, so there's nothing to worry about. ;) Bradv 02:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not paranoid about some prat vandalising Wikipedia, but I am about them making it look like I'm doing it. However, as no-one fell for it this time, maybe you're right and I'm fretting over nothing? Adam9007 (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. That's what I think. Bradv 02:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Hawai'i Rainbow Wahine beach volleyball

Here's the one and only other article: Georgia_State_Panthers_beach_volleyball

What do you think?!

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser has a paywall to get around also. I read the paper daily. I live in Seattle, another hot bed for volleyball. Volleyblog Seattle is another GREAT resource..very professionally done! ShelbyLH (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That article is probably a good template, although the references could be improved there too. I suggest keeping the conversation together at Draft talk:Hawai'i Rainbow Wahine beach volleyball so that others can see it, rather than spreading the conversation out over multiple pages. Bradv 02:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bradv, Are you still on your computer?? ShelbyLH (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bradv. You rock, fierce jungle king--you!! ShelbyLH (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse (rock)

Why would you recommend deletion of the pulse(rock) band page they are a touring band on pandora and national fm radio including xm satellite radio. Signed to a record label darkstar records — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiverz26 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe if you review the notability guidelines you will understand what is wrong with the article. We need to find multiple independent third-party reliable sources to confirm the accuracy of the information. If that cannot be done, the article needs to be deleted as it does not meet Wikipedia's standards of verifiability. If you have such sources, please add them to the article. Bradv 04:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Research Data Alliance

Hi Bradv,

You've just declined the article "Research Data Alliance" citing "submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability" however I have included references to 6 institution's information about the RDA in addition to the RDA's own website for all the imformation I ave presented in this article. What more can I do to show subject notability? Please note that some of the references are to major institutions such as the European Commission, the Australian National Data Service and Rensselear Polytechnic University.

Please let me know, thanks,

Provenator (talk) 04:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the references formats using the "cite news" template — Preceding unsigned comment added by Provenator (talk • contribs) 05:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the improvements you made to the article. I have approved it at Research Data Alliance. Bradv 17:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

07:28:06, 10 April 2016 review of submission by 2001:569:78B8:B500:E502:62E:3890:1663


The other Sangar articles found on Wikipedia are about the towns and military term. This article is about the surname.

Request on 12:04:37, 10 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Dilamm

Hello Brad and Happy Sunday, I have received an email that my adjusted article was denied as well. In addition there is now a note that the person is not notable enough. Members of the Art Directors Club and BFF only become members if they make an impact in the photographer industry. Please also not that cite 25 (Galerie Manfred Rieker) is regarding a different Manfred Rieker, they just share the same name. I have adjusted the article again, deleted all adjectives that could make it sound like an advertisement, and added several newspaper articles as preferences as well supporting my research. It is legit, I saw this in plenty other Wikipedia articles to use the person's website as a reference i.e. when it comes to date of birth.) If there is anything specific that needs to be changed, please let me know. Thank you so much in advance. Diana Dilamm (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the improvements you made to the article. I will let another reviewer take a look. Bradv 17:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Hello Bradv.

You recently commented on a page i am creating. Please guide me so that i can finish. 

  I want to create many pages from Nigeria. This is my first. I will improve from this one.

Thank you Dantunkuran (talk) 12:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:26:35, 10 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Gottsij

Hi, I saw that my article was rejected again because "previous issues were not addressed", and I thought I had corrected everything. I unbolded the artists names, deleted the "unofficial origins" section which was described as weak, and most importantly I referenced every artist I claim as calligraffiti artists. When I found multiple artists in the same source (like the Iranian artists), I referenced the section (ei I put the reference after "Iran" and before citing the artists). I am not sure what the issue still is... Gottsij (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work on this article. I performed some cleanup and accepted it. See Calligraffiti. Bradv 17:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Learning about Wikipedia rules

Hello!

Thank you for the message.

I hope now, after lerning the rules, I did well the references for the page i intended to create. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anca design (talk • contribs) 12:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

14:56:41, 10 April 2016 review of submission by Acalipeach

Can you tell me am I citing incorrectly? What is the definition of "notable" references? Is there a minimum number? Seems to be subjective to me as this guy has several citations that I would deem notable. Additional direction would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acalipeach (talk • contribs) 14:56, April 10, 2016‎ (UTC)

Please review the standards on biographies of living persons. Every single statement must be attributed to a reliable third-party source. Large sections of this article have no sources whatsoever. If it is not possible to gather enough sources, this subject is deemed not to be notable enough for Wikipedia. Hope this helps. Bradv 17:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Biancamaria Frabotta

Thank you for your review Bradv! I am about to re-submit the draft on Biancamaria Frabotta, I hope there will be enough references and external links this time to prove the notability an verifiability of the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giammei (talk • contribs) 23:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you made some improvements to the article, but there are still some statements that don't have any citations. Do you have any sources for the Selected Works section? Bradv 23:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
happening to drop by, I took care of that--it's a relatively trivial matter to source DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @DGG:. Bradv 04:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

01:17:07, 11 April 2016 review of submission by 2001:569:78B8:B500:E1A5:8D6F:CE26:C395


04:42:17, 11 April 2016 review of submission by Dmacfady


Dear Bradv Thanks for looking at the article. Could I please ask what constitutes peacock terms in the article? I have no professional connection to the artist in question and remain very uncertain of which terms are not proper. Without a list of them, I'll be guessing forever. Thanks very much for your expert insight. Once again, I would really appreciate a list, otherwise I'll remove the text from Wikipedia, since it doesn't seem proper in this context.I've already been trying for two months to submit two paragraphs. If we're talking about the "stature" of the newspapers quoted, the paper-based publication industry in Ukraine, Georgia, etc was decimated after the end of the Soviet system––and all publication subsidies ended. All news is therefore online and in venues we might in the West take to be "fleeting." I'm presuming the reviewers know the languages and social issues at hand, so that, I hope, is not the matter. I take, as suggested, the key issue to be inappropriate language, hence my initial query. I would be extremely grateful for detailed help.

Justin Matthew

Please see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Matthew7878 in connection to the AFD you started. Thanks. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11:16:44, 11 April 2016 review of submission by Dmacfady


I also forgot to mention that in the post-Soviet context, centralized or state-run media sources, which––say, in the UK––would be a source of *objective* journalism/notability, are in fact the opposite, i.e, dubious in their bias. Russia would be a fine example: objective information regarding a cultural phenomenon would not come from major press outlets, which are fiscally bound to their governmental sponsors. Truth instead is more likely to be found in minor, peripheral publications. Those same lesser outlets are obliged to fund themselves, of course, and will have more ad copy surrounding them (as banners, pre-roll video, etc), giving the *visual* impression of ephemeral and less trustworthy information! Sadly, the juxtaposition in Eastern Europe between state-run and "underground"journalism, for want of a less dramatic phrase, has not changed much.

The singers and songwriters on state TV/radio are only aired because they pay for their airtime. They are, therefore, not actually famous in the true sense, but merely able to pay for airtime and therefore cultivate an air of artistic impact and/or import. Hence the need to document, explain, and foreground other performers.

One could draw a parallel here with the teaching of Soviet literature in US schools for the last 60/70 years. We never read the works celebrated on Russian/Ukrainian/Georgian state channels, but instead those authors or poets, who–in purportedly minor quarters––played a more significant and notable cultural role. Most were ignored their entire lives.

I should also note that the Villy articles in Russian, Georgian, and Ukrainian––with which I have zero connection!––have long met the notability criteria. My problem, I'm guessing, is doing the same within an English-language context. In summary, therefore, I'm totally at loss after 4/5 edits to see either any peacock terms or notability issues. Hopefully I can be proven and fix the offending lines at once. Thanks!

12:50:27, 11 April 2016 review of submission by SaaSy2016


Hi Bradv,

I'm trying to submit the Draft:Cloudreach article but you've rejected this because the article seemed too much like an advertisement. There are multiple secondary sources in the article which show why the company is notable, including two major UK newspapers, and a prestigious national award. Can you please read over the article again and suggest any changes that could be made to make it more acceptable? Thanks!"

15:04:51, 11 April 2016 review of submission by Mwmconnelly


Hello, I wondered, as this is my first time of doing a Wikpedia page if you could help with our draft. I wondered whether it is more likely to be accepted if I remove the Impact Reports which have been created using Researchfish data. The publications are external publications written and refer to Researchfish so are neutral and not influenced by us.

Thanks Lisa Mwmconnelly (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lisa. It sounds like you may have a substantial conflict of interest when it comes to creating this article. Wikipedia actively discourages people from working on things when they have such a conflict. If this organization truly is notable, someone else will create it soon enough. Bradv 15:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17:01:04, 11 April 2016 review of submission by Sekyaw


Hi there and thanks for reviewing my draft. I noticed that you mentioned how there is already a page for the subject of my draft, yet it is a redirect. Would I have to copy my draft over onto the redirect page, or is there something else that you would recommend that I do? Thanks. Sekyaw (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:LemonLDAP::NG proposal

Hello, I'd like to understand what sort of "multiple, reliable, arm's length sources" do you want for this article ? The proposed article just described what is implemented by this free software. It is used by many french organizations, and all French government departments in their internal networks. Google reports 624 public sites authentication portal that contains the string "service provided by lemonldap::NG", but I've no other evidence that the source code... --Guimard (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are four references given in the article. Two of them ([2], [3]) are links to the project website, which is a primary source. Two other sources ([4] [5]) only mention the project in passing. Unfortunately, none of these sources provide the verification that Wikipedia requires. What we need is articles or books written elsewhere about this project, that we can cite on Wikipedia. If no such articles or books exist, then this project is not notable enough to be included at this time. Bradv 20:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pages

Your not an admin, how can you block me? Also, stop flagging my pages please, nothing bad happened until today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xboxmanwar (talk • contribs) 22:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WiBrugherio: Santa Maria degli Angeli

I have added more references to the article Santa Maria degli Angeli. For what concernes the notability of it, the church is important due to the fact that it is annexed to Cascina Guzzina, that is one of the most important farmhouse in Brugherio for municipality's history.FrOsmetti (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I see that you have resubmitted the article for review. I will let someone else take a look at it. Bradv 12:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Message

Hi,

I have been informed that this article has elements of being written like an advertisement; could you please show me quotations from the article to which this applies? All that is written in the article is factual and neutral, so I do not understand how this could be deemed to be like an advertisement. Orlagh Davies (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Message

In regard to notability, Fisher House UK is the place where military patients and their families can stay while receiving treatment at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, which is the centre for military medicine in the UK; this, therefore, makes Fisher House UK more than worthy of an article.

As well as this, Fisher House UK is a registered charity, which adds to it being of note. Orlagh Davies (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the subject is probably notable enough, but the article doesn't have sufficient references to support that. The best thing to do is to find more sources and cite them in the article. If you need help doing that, bring it up at Talk:Fisher House UK where more people will see it. Bradv 17:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Hello Bradv

Citations added from BBC. Please pin point the exact errors for me to correct. Thank you Dantunkuran (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What article are you referring to? Bradv 12:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12:35:11, 12 April 2016 review of submission by Rouken


Hi there, thank you for taking the time to review my article submission. I am however confused as to specifically which elements of the page you deem are more like an advertisement than Wikipedia entry - I took a great deal of time and effort to write the article as neutrally as I possibly could, so any additional help regarding particular lines, words and tone would be greatly appreciated so I can edit the entry for resubmission. Thanks in advance for your time.

It looks like a lot of the references from the article are going to websites that are just quoting a press release, so much of the article (and its sources) have a promotional tone. However, perhaps my initial assessment was unfair, and the article should actually be approved. Please submit it for review again and I'll let another editor take a look. Bradv 17:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:22:45, 12 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by 3fivesix


Hi Bradv,

Thanks much for your help with the wikipedia entry I submitted for review (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Janice_Marturano). It's my first wikipedia submission so I definitely need help figuring out how to best write these to conform to wikipedia standards.

At the moment, I'm at a bit of a loss because I'm not sure how to accommodate your last round of suggestions. In your note, it was recommend that I make all the changes recommended by the previous reviewer, which I did (as far as I can tell) point-by-point as they had requested. Note that they wanted me to remove references, not add to them to improve the article.

Also, I'm not sure which of the language is promotional. I'm more than happy to make the changes but I honestly don't know what sentences or parts of the entry read like a advertisement. Let me know what you think.

Thanks in advance!

3fivesix (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The previous reviewer asked you to remove references to some sources as they only mentioned the subject in passing and didn't give any further weight to the substance of the article. However, they did ask for you to provide additional references as well, and suggested some places you might look.
My primary concern, and the main reason I sent the article back, was the first paragraph. [a]n organization that educates business and organizational employees on strengthening the fundamentals of leadership excellence through mindfulness meditation, contemplative leadership practices and their practical applications in the workplace reads like advertising. I would clean up this paragraph, and language such as this in the rest of the article, and continue to establish notability by referring to solid independent sources. Once you've done that, submit it for review again and another reviewer will take a look. Bradv 17:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse notifications

Hi there. Thanks for answering some questions at the Teahouse. Can I ask that when you do so, you notify the editor who asked the question that it has been responded to by either pinging them as part of the answer or by using Wikipedia:Teahouse/Teahouse talkback? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: Yes, sorry, I can do that. I'll track down the people I replied to. Thanks. Bradv 19:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm just mindful that new users might not find their way back to the page easily, and need all the help they can get. I posted about this at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse#Reminder to notify guests of answers the other day, so rest assured I'm not picking (only) on you! Cordless Larry (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Message

re: Pattie Santos

Thank you Bradv. I modified to redirect to the band Pattie was in, It's a Beautiful Day.

I am researching this further about this artist and maybe in the future I will have the required and proper info for an individual article.

Thank you for your advice! April 12, Timle53 (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Timle53: That makes sense, I think. Thanks! Bradv 20:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20:15:58, 12 April 2016 review of submission by Marysdogs


Hi, and please excuse me if this is redundant. I've cleaned up some obvious stylistic errata, but since I'm not sure what the real trouble was, I'm checking back. If something's still not right, please let me know and I'll get right on it. Thanks so much. Marysdogs (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marysdogs: Yes, I've been working on cleaning up the article as well, and I think it is almost ready to submit. I also noted on the talk page that it needs a new name before it can be approved. Bradv 20:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv, awesome, thank you. As I said in another thread: this particular Michael Goldberg is not the same as any existing-on-Wikipedia Michael Goldbergs. For this reason, I followed the lead of the page of my pal David Gans the musician, who is not David Gans the 17th century rabbi, and included parenthetical descriptors in the title. Since the man's never used a middle initial or other distinguishing info professionally, it would probably add MORE confusion to force the introduction of one at this late date. So if you've got an elegant way to deal with this, I'm all ears. Thanks so much! Marysdogs (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My reply is on the talk page. Bradv 20:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

08:21:40, 13 April 2016 review of submission by FishKat

Hi Bradv Thanks for your feedback on the page. I went to the wikipedia live chat to get some advice on improving the page to solve the issues you identified. I've implemented their suggestions. I'm hoping it reads appropriately now. Please can you let me know if there are any other specific changes you think I need to make? Thank you FishKat (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FishKat: It looks greatly improved. If you don't have any other changes you want to make at this time, go ahead and submit it again and another editor will take a look. Bradv 13:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Reference to Draft Derrick May

I think I'm confusing people with my intention for creating this Derrick May Sandbox... I do not want to replace his existing Wikipedia page.

I was creating this as a rough draft to see what are the good moves to edit. I spoke with the founder the other day Jimmy Wales. He said it was a good thing to draft articles in Sandboxes and he was surprised that I did this because so many people just start editing pages and get into trouble.

So I'm learning, and I really apologize for making it look like I want to replace the article. Thank-you for taking the time to check out what I've been doing and giving me advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatChickOverThere (talk • contribs) 18:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that's totally fine - you are allowed to use draft space for that. However, you submitted it as an article for creation, which I cannot approve as the article already exists. If you're just playing around, the AFC templates at the top of the page should be removed. I will update it for you. Bradv 19:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ThatChickOverThere: See my changes here. Does this make sense? Bradv 19:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Alexander

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bradv, I think you've done an admirable job mediating, but I think this situation needs outside eyes. WormTT(talk) 19:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GovLab fixes

Hi Bradv, I noticed the proposed GovLab has some issues that your rightly flagged. I tried to go in there and fix them with more notable sources, and neutral language. If you don't mind, please review and let me know what you think. I'll resubmit (or you can) if you think the issues of concern are resolved? Draft:The_GovLab Stevemidgley (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bradv&oldid=715990384"