User talk:Bradv
- 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.
- Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (
~~~~). - View or search the archives for old messages.
New Movie Page "Delaware Shore"
Hi, I have updated the section with references based on beginners guide. Kindly request you to review it. Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Delaware_Shore — Preceding unsigned comment added by VengalK (talk • contribs) 05:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- @VengalK: My last comment on that page was asking you to please review Help:Referencing for beginners, as that draft does not contain proper WP:Inline citations. Please do that and make the necessary changes. Also, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Bradv🍁 05:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Sigmund Freud Institute
Dear bradv, dear Cassiopeia, dear DDG, though being an intensive user of the Wikipedia for many years, as a contributor, I am still a bloody rookie. Learned a lot from you three guys but obviously not enough. My request: would you please have a look at the SFI entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sigmund_Freud_Institute in regard to its acceptance. Since my latest exchange with bradv (documented on the talk pages), I put several new references into the entry. The notability, which from my understanding & observation is a big issue in the intern Wikipedia discourses, seems to be given, alone because of the very special, fascinating history of the SFI before, during and after Hitler-Germany. Thank you for your attention, happy to hear from you.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudyguy21 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Rudyguy21: I see DGG has accepted the draft before I could respond. Thank you for your hard work in writing this. Bradv🍁 20:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Norwegian football
I want to formally request you revert your close of Norwegian First Division → 1. divisjon and close the new RM I started. I should have asked you to do that before I started the new RM. I think the RM you closed needs more input from more people who understand our title policy better. People there cited COMMONNAME in favor of a name that is never used in English sources. That’s just wrong. Thanks. —В²C ☎ 15:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Born2cycle: I recommend you close the new RM you started, wait for the other one to conclude, and then find an appropriate way to resolve the conflict if necessary. Another RM at that point would be considered appropriate. I already tried this, and you reverted me. Bradv🍁 15:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Closing my RM without reverting your previous close to allow discussion to continue there makes no sense. Do you not see a problem with people using COMMONNAME to support names not used in English sources? Am I missing something? --В²C ☎ 17:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Born2cycle: I evaluated the consensus based on the arguments presented in the discussion, and you've already stated that my close was correct. There was only one editor who opposed, and there were supporting arguments that also appealed to the common name. Closing the discussion any other way would have been a supervote, and reopening the discussion now would only add to the confusion and drama. The cleanest way forward is to wait until the other related RM closes, and then decide whether to open a new RM to resolve any conflicts. All the other editors on the talk page agree that this is the way to proceed, so can you please just do that? Bradv🍁 17:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- I can do that, of course, but very reluctantly. Do you not see a problem with people using COMMONNAME to support names not used in English sources? Do you not see the problematic title based on that problem causing further problems? I will just add that I advise any experienced closer who sees a consensus like that going so obviously against policy should weigh in opposing the proposal (in this case endorse what the one experienced participant said rather than close in favor of the misguided majority at that time). Citing policy does not mean the policy supports the position. You have to evaluate arguments a little deeper than that. Citing COMMONNAME in favor of a title never used in English sources is absurd. It would be much better if you reversed your close (go ahead and close mine as well). I don't see how that would be confusing at all. Unless you still don't see the problem with the decision in the RM you closed. --В²C ☎ 17:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Born2cycle: I evaluated the consensus based on the arguments presented in the discussion, and you've already stated that my close was correct. There was only one editor who opposed, and there were supporting arguments that also appealed to the common name. Closing the discussion any other way would have been a supervote, and reopening the discussion now would only add to the confusion and drama. The cleanest way forward is to wait until the other related RM closes, and then decide whether to open a new RM to resolve any conflicts. All the other editors on the talk page agree that this is the way to proceed, so can you please just do that? Bradv🍁 17:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Closing my RM without reverting your previous close to allow discussion to continue there makes no sense. Do you not see a problem with people using COMMONNAME to support names not used in English sources? Am I missing something? --В²C ☎ 17:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I've closed that 2nd RM now. Now, please answer my question. As a closer, how can you not oppose a name for a title per COMMONNAME that is not used in any English sources? If you have no answers, I urge you to revert and relist that previous RM, and ideally weigh in in opposition. Please? --В²C ☎ 18:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'd say Brad, per even say common sense, if there is another RM on basically the same issue where is no consensus, an RM shouldn't be closed as having a consensus. And you can reopen a discussion if it didn't have too much participation and significant opposition appears just after it is closed. IMO the best way forward is to reopen the discussion on 1. divisjon and close the discussion on Talk:2017 Norwegian First Division with a ping to all the participants there who didn't comment on the discussion on 1. divisjon. That would centralize the discussion and produce a clear result. Galobtter (pingó mió)
- @Galobtter: I closed this RM in an effort to centralize the discussion in one place. You'll note that this discussion was opened earlier, had already been closed as move, and the second RM was opened pursuant to the close of the first. This is the main topic, so I don't see why it would make sense to leave this open and close the secondary discussion as no consensus. As I've already stated, I will be happy to revisit this once the other discussion closes, if you still want my input at that time. But having two active discussions is not likely to result in any further clarity — the discussion at Talk:2017 Norwegian First Division can, and should, continue. Bradv🍁 18:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- How does it make sense to have the centralized discussion be the Talk:2017 Norwegian First Division RM and not the Talk:Norwegian First Division RM? And once you've closed the Talk:Norwegian First Division RM as Move that pretty much seals the results of secondary RMs as Move. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- But the second RM was opened as a result of the first, which was the correct procedure. The first RM was then reopened, and only one person opposed it by the time I got to it. How many more times do we reopen it because people didn't get a chance to vote? Bradv🍁 19:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- The problem is, there is no way for the second RM to overturn the first - there is no way for it to not close as MOVE because the main article has been moved and absolutely no one is going to oppose consistency with the main article; they are going to argue for moving back the main article which can't happen in that RM.
- And people did oppose the move before you closed it, just on the wrong one: Steel1943 opposed on Talk:2017 Norwegian First Division and In ictu oculi on Talk:2008 Norwegian First Division; including that opposition makes it seem a no consensus. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Galobtter, sure there is. If the second RM results in a different outcome, that's grounds for a new RM based on a reasonable assumption that consensus has changed. Nevertheless, I've reverted the close. Someone else can sort this mess out. Bradv🍁 19:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks! I've sorted it out, I think :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks to both of you. Brad, hopefully you've learned from this. When a discussion is so obviously contrary to policy a good experienced closer will weigh in to support community consensus and policy, not perpetuate the ignorance and close in favor of the mistaken local consensus. Galobtter - that was a really a good way to combine the confusing related discussions. Thanks! --В²C ☎ 19:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- It is not "obviously contrary to policy" — what you're advocating here is your opinion, and there are other opinions that are also grounded in policy (for example, the opinion that "Norwegian First Division" is not an actual common name). I maintain my close was correct based on the evidence presented in the discussion, and I reopened it based on the presumption that consensus may have changed persuant to Galobtter's comments. However, I do not care for the idea that closers should reopen discussions because people didn't get a chance to vote, which has happened twice now on this RM. I hope that doesn't become a trend. Bradv🍁 20:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Whether COMMONNAME is not an actual common name is not relevant, and any closer should know that. COMMONNAME states on the outset: "an article title is a natural language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article", a definition which the current title ("Norwegian First Division") certainly meets. Besides, when there is no COMMONNAME from looking in English reliable sources, we use WP:NATURAL disambiguation, also guided by usage in relevant English sources. Only when a topic has no references in English sources do we fall back to using non-English terms (per UE), which was not the case here. So, yes, the proposed non-English title is "obviously contrary to policy", and any closer should be able to recognize that. I'm disappointed that you still don't recognize this and am concerned about future RM discussions you may be closing. --В²C ☎ 21:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- The current title is also against WP:COMMONNAME though, as that's not generally how it's referred to in reliable sources. The sources I found generally called it "Norwegian first division" without caps, or "1. division" or "1. divisjon", or simply described it as the second-level league. Bradv🍁 21:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- I’m still waiting for a citation to a single English source that used “divisjon”. Whether there is yet another even better title is not relevant to deciding which of these two is better. One clearly violates policy, the other is merely maybe not the best choice (but a clearly better one has not even been suggested much less identified). Night and day. —В²C ☎ 22:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- The current title is also against WP:COMMONNAME though, as that's not generally how it's referred to in reliable sources. The sources I found generally called it "Norwegian first division" without caps, or "1. division" or "1. divisjon", or simply described it as the second-level league. Bradv🍁 21:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Whether COMMONNAME is not an actual common name is not relevant, and any closer should know that. COMMONNAME states on the outset: "an article title is a natural language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article", a definition which the current title ("Norwegian First Division") certainly meets. Besides, when there is no COMMONNAME from looking in English reliable sources, we use WP:NATURAL disambiguation, also guided by usage in relevant English sources. Only when a topic has no references in English sources do we fall back to using non-English terms (per UE), which was not the case here. So, yes, the proposed non-English title is "obviously contrary to policy", and any closer should be able to recognize that. I'm disappointed that you still don't recognize this and am concerned about future RM discussions you may be closing. --В²C ☎ 21:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- It is not "obviously contrary to policy" — what you're advocating here is your opinion, and there are other opinions that are also grounded in policy (for example, the opinion that "Norwegian First Division" is not an actual common name). I maintain my close was correct based on the evidence presented in the discussion, and I reopened it based on the presumption that consensus may have changed persuant to Galobtter's comments. However, I do not care for the idea that closers should reopen discussions because people didn't get a chance to vote, which has happened twice now on this RM. I hope that doesn't become a trend. Bradv🍁 20:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks to both of you. Brad, hopefully you've learned from this. When a discussion is so obviously contrary to policy a good experienced closer will weigh in to support community consensus and policy, not perpetuate the ignorance and close in favor of the mistaken local consensus. Galobtter - that was a really a good way to combine the confusing related discussions. Thanks! --В²C ☎ 19:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks! I've sorted it out, I think :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Galobtter, sure there is. If the second RM results in a different outcome, that's grounds for a new RM based on a reasonable assumption that consensus has changed. Nevertheless, I've reverted the close. Someone else can sort this mess out. Bradv🍁 19:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- But the second RM was opened as a result of the first, which was the correct procedure. The first RM was then reopened, and only one person opposed it by the time I got to it. How many more times do we reopen it because people didn't get a chance to vote? Bradv🍁 19:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- How does it make sense to have the centralized discussion be the Talk:2017 Norwegian First Division RM and not the Talk:Norwegian First Division RM? And once you've closed the Talk:Norwegian First Division RM as Move that pretty much seals the results of secondary RMs as Move. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Galobtter: I closed this RM in an effort to centralize the discussion in one place. You'll note that this discussion was opened earlier, had already been closed as move, and the second RM was opened pursuant to the close of the first. This is the main topic, so I don't see why it would make sense to leave this open and close the secondary discussion as no consensus. As I've already stated, I will be happy to revisit this once the other discussion closes, if you still want my input at that time. But having two active discussions is not likely to result in any further clarity — the discussion at Talk:2017 Norwegian First Division can, and should, continue. Bradv🍁 18:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I have initiated a discussion specifically about the redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 18#Christian. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your Article Work!
Thanks for your recent content work that falls in the scope of the Children's Lit WikiProject. I wanted to let you know that you were recognized in our last newsletter. Happy editing and Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hey, look at that! Thanks Barkeep49. Good job resurrecting that newsletter, too! Bradv🍁 19:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Peace Dove Christmas
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.
Happy Holidays
.jpeg)
|
Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år! |
Happy Holidays!
|
|
|
Happy Holidays! |
--Cameron11598 (Talk) 04:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
About Donna Strickland
I know that you might have been asked about this before, but why did you decline the Donna Strickland draft and what did you think of all the backlash the draft decline received in the media after it was revealed that she didn't have a Wikipedia article thanks to you declining the draft and lastly what do you think about the people who labeled this decision to decline the draft as Wikipedia discriminating and/or being biased against women? 344917661X (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- You can read all about it in the 28 October version of the Signpost. Bradv🍁 05:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Wow, I feel so sorry for you. The media claimed it was Wikipedia's fault for not having an article, but it's technically their fault because the media does not cover women enough for them to be considered notable on Wikipedia. I wish you the best of luck in the future and I hope you have a very Merry Christmas and a happy new year! 344917661X (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Yo Ho Ho
_(14586469407).jpg)
Liz Read! Talk! is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.
Message from AirWave II
Hi Bradv,
I was working on the "Overlord (album)" article and I noticed you removed the article and changed it to a redirect.
Looking at the definition of WP:NALBUM, this is the criteria that "Overlord" clearly meets:
"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[note 2] except for the following: Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about the recording, and all advertising that mentions the recording, including manufacturers' advertising. Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases."
The draft page for Overlord included multiple published reviews of the kind listed above.
There are also MANY online reviews for this same album, and it is a big gray area what constitutes a legitimate/illegitimate online review for a heavy metal music release. I see no objective standards listed on Wikipedia for this and this is an issue that is very subjective IMHO.
Thank you and happy new year, AirWave II (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Message from Olijack23
Hello there, I hope this message finds you well. I saw you added to the Jxy n' cuso Article. Sadly, I think you may have been mistaken. As I am sure you are doing your best and do want the correct info for Wikipedia, please research the design duo before adding comments. Let me know if you would like to discuss further. Thank you. -best Oliver J. https://www.google.com/search?biw=1717&bih=886&ei=w4QnXPzNNrG5ggek9prgBQ&q=jxy+n+cuso&oq=jxy+n+cuso&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0.2746.6931..7164...3.0..0.82.836.13......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i67j0i131j0i10.NjGuJsA2d3U