User talk:Bradv

---

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

---

• Quick directory
• Department directory
• Community Portal
• Maintenance
• Requests
• Tips
• Tools

---

Need Help?

---

• The Teahouse
• Articles for Creation Help Desk

---

Policies and Guidelines

---

Keith Ellison

Hi Bradv. Could you take another look at your edit because it did not place it back in the condition it was in just prior to opening RfC. The article was substantially edited by Volunteer Marek prior to closure of the RfC [1]. Thanks! Bennycat (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The RfC has not been closed. Volunteer Marek 04:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I tried to restore the version from a few hours before the RfC was opened, as it was the later edits that prompted the RfC. It's a shame that the article was left in that state for so long—we should have reverted to the shorter section for the duration of the discussion. Bradv 02:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree with that as it makes a presumption that the shorter edit is the right one, as if an RfC was unnecessary. It was the edit warring coming from both sides that prompted the RfC, particularly the efforts to blank the section entirely, coming from those in favor of the short form edit. Additionally, an admin was happy to protect the page in its long form. However, I have no wish to add another layer of difficulty to a difficult issue, and it does look like the RfC is ripe for closure soon. Thanks, in good faith.Bennycat (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Admins protect whatever version happens to be present when they click the button. It's not an endorsement. And in fact, in cases like this where this is a serious BLP issue, they're *suppose* to protect the version which does not have potential BLP violations - so yeah, the admin who protected the page, screwed up here anyway. Volunteer Marek 04:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

First of all, there were no "serious BLP issues" despite what User:Volunteer Marek asserted; there was absolutely nothing libelous and all of the information was well-sourced [2]. I'm confused as to why, between the two options in the RfC (A and B) you reverted so that B remains in the article while the RfC is still open? Wouldn't it be better to have a happy medium between the two while the RfC is worked out? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Message from 75.0.196.50

Please remove the pejorative term pseudoscientific. Neither Creationism nor Evolution are scientifically verifiable theories. 75.0.196.50 (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)John Tudder

I presume you are referring to this edit. I reverted that for being very unconstructive. Creationism denies science, but pretends to be science. That's why it's called pseudoscience. We have articles on all of these things — read them and educate yourself. Bradv 14:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Can you check on The Smart Mind =

I have an issues with user The Smart Mind (talk), I feel like his edits do not follow Wikipedia guidelines and his edits are coming of as Disruptive editing. I feel like that he ignores my suggestion to come to the talk page and make his arguements and is acting in [[ Wikipedia:Assume bad faith|bad faith]]. Also, a spokeperson should not be in the Ottawa11 (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2018

@Ottawa11: You're both edit warring. I've left both of you talk page notices, but I have not reported either of you yet. I see you self-reverted the last time—that's a good call. Going forward, you may want to consider adopting WP:BRD as a personal policy for editing. Bradv 19:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Seriously though

If your mission is to document all human knowledge and your filter is academic you will fail to reach your goal. To profess is only foolish. If my culture's highest form of expression is Saami Joik and you expect to communicate the wisdom of ages to you through the farce of peer review, you will be lost to history. Some things do not translate. Like the lyrics said: "What do you mean I'm not kind? I'm just not your kind."

The walls of ancient Rome were littered with graffiti. Who are you to chisel it away, like 404s, lost like tears in the rain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.33.2.102 (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about, and don't see anything relevant in your contribs. Did you forget to log in? Bradv 18:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

This means you did not do the needful before taking actions. A human would remember the reference to graffiti on the walls of ancient Rome. 37.33.2.102 (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

František Smotlacha

Hi, you undid the restore of František Smotlacha that I made. I suppose that you did not read the talk-page. So, I paste here what I wrote there:

This page redirects to the wrong person!

František Smotlacha (1884-1956) is not the same person as Miroslav Smotlacha (1920-2007). Compare the page of cs:Miroslav Smotlacha with cs:František Smotlacha on Czech Wikipedia.

Here is an entry for František Smotlacha on Databazeknih ("knih" is Czech for "fungus"). Here is the entry on Miroslav Smotlacha. Etiher the page on František Smotlacha should be about František Smotlacha or it should be erased. It should not redirect to his son Miroslav, because they are different persons. And here is another reason why: If you check Imperator rhodopurpureus you can find the auctor abbreviation Smotl. and if you click on that link you might end up in believing that "Smotl." means Miroslav Smotlacha (because it is where the link sends you) and that he described this species: But he did not! His father did! Episcophagus (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

It didn't redirect to the wrong person—the content was merged to Miroslav Smotlacha in 2010 as František Smotlacha was determined to not be notable enough for his own article. Whether that was the right decision or not remains to be seen, but it appears to be have been intentional and not a mistake. Bradv 13:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

A determination made by whom? The mycologist that was important enough to have a botanical (mycological) author abbreviation is František Smotlacha, not his son. If something should be merged it is more likely the other way round. Episcophagus (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, to be true, you have no idea of what you are talking about, do you? You just speak out of ignorance, don't you? And why isn't František Smotlacha relevant? Because no one has written about him im (American) English? A lot of articles were written im Czesch though. But Czech is not a language, or is it? And Czech is not relevant because the only language that is relevant for PROUD AMERICANS is AMERIKANISH (it can't be "English", true OXFORD ENGLISH, can it?). Do not speak out of ignorance again Mr Brady. I am not impressed. Episcophagus (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I restored the redirect because the page you created had no sources at all. Bradv 04:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Xmonad_(3rd_nomination)

Hey I'm sure you know this already and I'm quite sure you removed a comment of mine on accident, but just letting you know you removed something I wrote on the talk page. Also, if you'd like to discuss my collapsing of various threads on the AFD discussion for readability, please let me know what issues you have with it. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 22:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It's kind of a neat trick — adding a comment and then collapsing the thread to make sure you get the final word.

The general rule of thumb is not to collapse threads that you're involved in. Collapsing threads at AfD is especially pointless as the closing admin is expected to read everything. Bradv 01:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Message from Nordervalk

HI Bradv - you declined my biography on composer Dalia Raudonikyte With. This composer was featured in the Lithuanian encyclopedia of Music - why is that not enough of a reliable source for Wikipedia? Please advise.

Thank you. @nordervalk (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll let someone else take a look, as I don't have access to those sources. Also, the first link is dead, and the entire "Major works" section is unsourced. While neither of these issues are insurmountable, a few more sources would definitely help verify the information in the article. Bradv 04:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

HI again, thanks for letting me know about the dead link. It was changed because of Dalia Raudonikyte With´s sudden death on September 7th. I have repaired that now. I will continue to search for ways to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nordervalk (talk • contribs) 18:33, September 30, 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Islamophobia and Israel

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Islamophobia and Israel. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Message from Modernmaven - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Corey_Ellis_(Sculptor)

Hello Bradv,

This is my first article so please bear with me.

You wrote you rejected the article because it was unsources.

1st Section: This is coming from the Artist himself and the articles and blogs I read about him.

2nd Section: This also comes from the Artist. What people have Wrote and the stats I have seen from his sales. i.e. on eBay in the sold section of art sculptures he is the #1 artist. in sections Art-Sculptures-Artists: He is listed as an artist and they recognize him. Saatchi Art did a whole Artist of the day article for him on their social Sites. When I asked, It is because he is one of the highest paid artist on their site, but they only put it on a social site so I cannot use it.

3rd Section. Now I did add something that shows each location, but it is kind of hard to show these specific places. They are on Their Google Business pages? I will be going to the Garland Hotel in west where he has 14 pieces and making a video of it, if that helps?

In the News Section.

I did add more reference as of today he was asked to be in a Huge art Awards Ceremony on the 6th of October and had to send them a sculpture they asked for directly. After the 6th. I will be updating this reference to state what awards he has won, but I cannot announce them at this point as I do not know what they are.

As for Corey he is a Professional Artist who makes over $100,00 a year and receives 1-4 commissions a month which will change after the ceremony. A lot of his High End Clients do not wish to be known and that is completely understandable. So it is pretty difficult to prove that he is indeed a well known Professional Sculpture Artist.

This page is to give Corey Ellis notoriety and not customers.  

How many times can I resubmit before it is completely rejected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modernmaven (talk • contribs) 21:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Modernmaven, it sounds like you have a conflict of interest regarding the subject of the article. I recommend not trying to write this yourself. If you would like to contribute to Wikipedia, there are plenty of other ways to get involved. Bradv 00:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for getting back to me so soon. I did not know how to answer the original message.

I have a freelancer who is doing the page for me. I am just helping here and there. He suggested I answer the issues you had. I did resubmit the article as suggested by him.

But I do agree. He asks Corey Ellis the questions and filled out the original page. then when it was declined we did work on it together. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modernmaven (talk • contribs) 01:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Modernmaven: First of all, use of one account by two people is not permitted by Wikipedia policy, and secondly, undisclosed paid editing is a violation of the WMF terms and conditions. Bradv 01:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Media mention

Just a heads up, you are referenced (but not named) in this article [3], and possibly in several others.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

SamHolt6, thanks for letting me know. Bradv 21:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yep, waiting on the day it happens to me... I reject many AfCs.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

In the light of the above, please review you process for dealing with draft articles, and especially welcoming and supporting new good-faith editors. Consider writing up the changes you make to such, for the benefit of other AfC reviewers, and the project at large. You may also consider it appropriate to leave another note on the talk page of the person who contributed the draft discussed in this specific case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, please see my responses below. There is no way I could have accepted the draft in that state without violating policy, and the suggestion that I should have completed the article myself is unrealistic. Unless you're alluding to something I'm missing, I'm not sure what there is to "write up". Bradv 14:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Andy, enough already. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

About your rejection of the AfC on Donna Strickland

Dear Bradv,

I'm sure you expected that this would come your way sooner or later. After reading many of the aggressive comments that you have been subjected to, I thought it would perhaps not be a bad idea to start a discussion in a more civil way. So first, I will say that I truly appreciate your efforts and contributions to Wikipedia. Reviewing many of your edits I felt that in many cases you are aiming for equipoise and objectivity, two qualities that are essential to an encyclopaedia. You also seem to be a seasoned Wikipedia editor, very knowledgable, able to navigate the jungle of policies and guidelines.

All this makes it all the more surprising that you seemed to have reached a rushed and erroneous decision regarding Donna Strickland. Of course, that may seem unfair of me to come after you now, because her notability was made so obvious that it is easy to be outraged, retrospectively, by her page delete. But in May, she didn't have the Nobel Prize, so let's forget about it for a moment. No, instead, her notability was guaranteed, if nothing else, by her being a fellow, and later the president, of The Optical Society [4]. Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I'm aware, item 3 of the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) guidelines is referring to exactly this. What I find troubling is that your rejection seems to be based on the general guidelines Wikipedia:Notability (people) rather than the ones for academics. I feel that you should perhaps have started a discussion instead of simply axing the page. Granted, the original contributor could have argued back and it's a pity they didn't. But seeing how many contributions they have (none apart from this one), it seems clear that they can be entitled to a more naive attitude than a seasoned editor like yourself.

Now, experienced or not, everyone can make mistakes. In the face of public scrutiny, what seemed a negligible event in the past can grow to significant importance. In a context where there is increased scrutiny in discrimination against female scientists, many people will want to know if your decision was guided by a conscious or unconscious personal bias against women. Seeing your contributions, my opinion is that this was an earnest mistake. But I am wondering if you have anything to answer to this before the press or social media unleash a storm upon you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egaudrain (talk • contribs) 11:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Egaudrain, at the point I reviewed the draft, it didn't have a single reference to a reliable source that was independent of the topic. We can't accept unsourced or poorly sourced content about living people on Wikipedia. Had even a single reliable source been added, myself or any one of the other draft reviewers would likely have accepted it.

The message left for the author read "Please improve the submission's referencing so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia," and it invited them to talk to me about it or ask a question at the Teahouse. They didn't respond or make any further attempts to improve the article.

This rejection isn't about gender bias, or negligence, or looking at the wrong notability criteria – this is how Wikipedia works. It's a shame that no one wrote a better article until now, but don't try put that on me. Bradv 13:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

(Sorry I forgot to sign...) Thanks for the clarification. I agree with all your points: the article was not very well written, and most importantly poorly sourced. I'm very glad to hear that this wasn't about gender bias, and I mostly started this conversation to give you an avenue to make that point. It took me a while to understand that a draft article submitted for creation, when declined, just remained in Draft space where it can be improved by contributors before being resubmitted. With that (fresh) knowledge, I also take note that the original author and the subsequent editors did not address the issues you had raised. Perhaps commenting on the Talk page would have helped subsequent contributors to know what they had to do, though. Anyway, thanks! Egaudrain (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Egaudrain, thanks. It is clear that the media also needs a better understanding of how this process works. Declining a poorly sourced draft is not the same as declaring that a subject is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bradv 15:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• FYI: (if you do Facebook) https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/1844098188971337/ Andy Dingley (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  Andy Dingley, thanks. Most of the criticism here seems to be around two ideas: (1) I should have accepted the article in that state, or (2) I should have found more sources and written the article myself. The first is a violation of policy, and the second confuses WP:AFC with WP:RA. We already have a backlog of over 4000 drafts for review at AfC, which would dramatically increase if reviewers were expected to complete articles themselves. People contributing to Wikipedia need to take the demand for reliable sources seriously - it's not optional. Bradv 14:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Without addressing the merits of declining the draft, I'd like to offer a statistical aside. Since Wikipedia's Jan. 2001 launch:

• of 212 Nobel laureates, 69 (33%) had no Wikipedia bio when prize was announced;
• of 48 laureates in physics, 17 (35%) had no WP page when award was announced—all except Donna Strickland being male, including one each in 2014 & 2015. KalHolmann (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Bradv, your rejection of the Strickland draft is now in the news: [5] Also, the Guardian has apparently promoted you to Wikipedia "moderator" (whatever that means). IntoThinAir (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

IntoThinAir, cool, a promotion! Seriously though, the attention about a lack of articles about women in science is a good thing. And if I have to take a beating for this, at least it's a worthy cause. Bradv 20:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

"Articles for Creation" Barnstar

		The Articles for Creation barnstar
		Are Barnstars still a thing? I have not been editing for a while. If so, thanks for your tireless work on AfC submissions. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ebikeguy: Thank you! I shall treasure this. Bradv 17:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)