This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bradv. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Bradv, thank you for your efforts and helpful annotations, though the submission was rejected again. Please read my comment.
1. German Wikipedia: the contribution about Vera King was accepted without any objections. Maybe that contribution was easier to assess because Ms. King is a globally renowned social scientist, as such she is well known in Germany. I wonder about the different assessments.
2. To your assessment whereas the references ".... do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for academics)." please allow me a personal comment: This is exactly why I reworked the submission diligently.
Please consider your recommendations: "Find sources: "Vera King" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources" which is what is exactly done.
Please look e.g. at reference Nr. 10: ‘Lost in Perfection.‘ Impacts of Optimisation on Culture and Psyche. London: Routledge. The reference goes to https://www.google.de/search?q=books%20details%209781138894365 which is a correct citation due to the requirements of citation for Wikipedia. The same is correct for the citations 11 to 19 which are all related to independent sources (University of Frankfurt, Volkswagen Foundation etc.).
Hopefully, these pieces of evidence are sufficient and helpful for a new review. Please let me know if the changes meet your objections and if you have additional recommendations which help to improve this contribution to the Wikipedia for the sake of its users.
@Rudyguy21: One of the sources you added is an interview with the subject of the article, which is not considered a reliable source. Also, there are still a number of statements sourced only to the subject's own works (books, biographies, etc.), which do not contribute to the subject's notability. Please continue to improve the article, and resubmit when you feel it is ready for another reviewer to have a look. Bradv23:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Why do you take away the sources that shows the adding I made to William Rodriguez page true? William himself says that American media has suppressed his words about explosions. What evidence Wiki needs if William's own words were not enough?
The same editor has made edits likethis one to change the name - I don't read Chinese so can't check whether the three sources support the change. PamD15:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Bradv! Just dropping by to let you know that I have made a correction to one of your comments, here. I thought it was obvious that "ALT1 or ALT2" meant "option 1 or 2", but now that an actual "ALT2" (i.e. option 3) has been proposed, I've changed it to "ALT0 or ALT1" to avoid confusion (the "option 1" proposal is being referred to as both "ALT0" and "original"). Feel free to review my edit to ensure that it is correct, or revert or modify my change in any way you see fit. Swarm♠00:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@Swarm: Already done. I originally voted for ALT1, but was convinced by Tryptofish's arguments that this may be perceived as creating a new policy (and an editnotice is not the place for that). Bradv00:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I apologize for the mistake! How foolish of me! I honestly thought I remembered your comment being that way beforeTryptofish proposed ALT2, and that's why I didn't check the edit history, but I guess I was wrong. Swarm♠00:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
No, that was entirely my mistake — I edited my comment without noting the change. It should not be necessary to check the history in order to understand a discussion. Bradv00:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I have included more sources and believe it is ready for approval.
Thanks!
Also the account is not being used by a company, when I said we I meant my partner and I were discussing notability. This page is only run by me, sorry for the confusion.
With respect to notability of the above page, you mention the requirememt to cite newpapars, books etc that that mention his work. He work has been often cited in other books, would that be sufficient? He is a scientist so it's less likely he'll be in newspapers Rhodydog (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I found this passage in the notability page of Wikipedia:
"Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."
As for the text on the current page, it is my own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodydog (talk • contribs) 16:19, August 30, 2018 (UTC)
The relationship is irrelevant, what is important is the notability of the person. To calm your fears, I am not him. He lives in the UK, I live in the USA.
1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
True, with over 12000 citations plus a highly cited textbook I believe this is true.
5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).
He was Professor of Systems Biology at Oxford Brooke University
8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
He was also chairman of the Policy Committee of the Biochemical Society as well as committees of the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.
Okay, so if you are not the subject, where did you get this information? Where is the source for "He was Professor of Systems Biology at Oxford Brooke University"? One of the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia is verifiability, so we need to know that what you say is true. Bradv16:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't notice it was in draft, I just saw a deleted page. Where did I get the information from? From the website at Oxford Brookes University, plus my own personal knowledge of the person. Are you ok with me building up the page over the next few weeks and then submit to you for review? Rhodydog (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Sure, there is no deadline for drafts. But you must include your sources or the draft will not be accepted. Your own personal knowledge of the subject is not a valid source, as it is not verifiable. Bradv16:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.
Technical news
Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
thank you for your answer to the Vera King draft and sorry for my very late response.
Honestly, I feel somewhat depressed after having improved the article several times.
According to the notability guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability, I do not see an essential reason disputing the sources of the article. These are verifiable sources, independent from the subject, third-party sources (Google Scholar etc.), there is no self-promotion. The notion "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." is fulfilled too. Furthermore, the subject, as a renowned member of the international scientific community, has been covered manifold outside of Wikipedia which is documented in diverse sources in the article.
Compared with articles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Aaker or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Gardner, colleagues of Vera King, I recognize no substantial, systemic difference. I agree, the first submission was admittedly insufficient according to the Wikipedia guidelines and that is why I was asked to improve the article which I do ever since. Now I feel somewhat clueless about what could be done else.
To avoid a never-ending-story trap, where every improvement is not enough, I would like you to advise me what should be improved in particular so that the next submission will satisfactory for you and successful for me.
@Rudyguy21: I'll take another look. In the future, please provide a link to the article when discussing it, and remember to sign your posts with 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thanks. Bradv13:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I didn't see consensus for the move, which is why I closed it the way I did. A better use of the community's time would be to expand the article and add some references. Bradv13:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
No one had opposed to the alternative proposal which would be needed if the Hampshire river was primary for "Meon". Should I just start a new RM then? Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
You can't just write, "if not, then it should be moved to..." in an RM and expect the article to be moved either way. I interpreted the Oppose votes as opposition to any move, as only one of them mentioned the secondary request. In my personal opinion, the encyclopedia would be better served if you took some time to expand the article rather than opening yet another RM. Bradv13:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
The oppose arguments were that the hamlet isn't primary, thus that it requires disambiguation from the river. Either way the current title is unacceptable, this argument said neither was primary. Some even said that the river is primary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
The river is clearly primary, based on consensus and reinforced by a quick Google search. What you have not done is present any argument for why Meon, Hampshire needs to be moved to Meon (hamlet). What I am suggesting now is that you give it a bit — work on the article for now and then present a new argument based on that research. Bradv13:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I have added a little and started a new RM but you're comment "The river is clearly primary, based on consensus and reinforced by a quick Google search" shows that this would thus apply to the disambiguated title, you're missing the fact that both river and hamlet are in Hampshire. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't see why it matters that they're both in Hampshire. Are you proposing redirecting Meon, Hampshire to River Meon? If so, you should spell that out in your request (with a reason). The general practice is to spell out your plan and your rationale clearly up front, appealing to both policy and consensus. Replying to every oppose vote with further rationale and argumentation discourages people from contributing to the discussion and makes it difficult to gauge consensus. Bradv14:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Give SPECIFICS of why you are removing most of the language for Vistage. It's all public and it all information that is extremely relevant to the Public. Sources are court filings and San Diego Business Journal.
Text is as follows:
Extended content
Vistage Worldwide, Inc. is a Peer-to-peer membership organization for CEOs, business owners and executives of small- to mid-size businesses. Founded in 1957 and headquartered in San Diego, Calif., Vistage has more than 23,000 members in 20 countries.
Locations
Vistage Worldwide, Inc. is based in San Diego, California. Vistage is also active in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Chile, Germany, Ireland, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, the United Kingdom and Uruguay.
History
The company was founded in 1957 by a Wisconsin businessman named Robert Nourse,[1] who wished to connect with other CEOs and key executives to discuss ways to improve and advance his business while helping others do the same. He brought together executives from similarly-sized companies in non-competing industries for the sole purpose of learning from each other. The meetings were so successful and engaging that Nourse turned the model into a business, called The Executive Committee (TEC), which then became Vistage Worldwide.
Nourse expanded TEC by creating additional groups. As TEC grew, it began to include the following elements in its monthly meetings: professional development coaching, business-practice sharing, confidential help with critical business issues, and debates on factors impacting small and mid-sized businesses. TEC later added a facilitator (known as a “Chair”) to lead each group meeting and serve as confidential, personal coach to each member.
Since 2003,[2] the company has conducted quarterly economic surveys of its CEO members. The results of this survey, known as the Vistage CEO Confidence Index, offers a barometer of CEO confidence in U.S.
2006 - Company Name Changed from The Executive Committee (TEC) to Vistage
In 2006, Vistage underwent a name change, prior they were known as TEC (The Executive Committee). During the name change, however, not all of the company’s licensees adopted the new name. Currently the company operates under the name "Vistage", (a portmanteau of vista and advantage) and several of its licensees operate under the name TEC, but both provide identical services.
2012 - TowerBrook Capital Partners and Education Growth Partners acquire majority interest from Michael Milken
In approximately November of 2012 Vistage was acquired by TowerBrook Capital Partners and Education Growth Partners. The previous majority owner had been Michael Milken.[3]
2014 - Vistage Sued by Former COO for Wrongful Termination
In May of 2014, a wrongful Termination lawsuit was filed against Vistage by Ruby Randall, who was the former President and COO of Vistage.[4]
2018 - Providence Equity Partners Acquires Vistage for $500MM+
In approximately February of 2018 Vistage was acquired by Providence Equity Partners for over $500mm in a highly leveraged transaction. [5]
2018 - Federal Court Jury Delivers $2mm++ Verdict against Vistage Chair for Stealing Vistage Member's Business
After 3 years of litigation, Direct List LLC, has won a $2mm + costs and legal fees trial verdict against former Vistage Chair Phil Kessler. A Federal Court jury unanimously found Kessler responsible for [6]:
1) Intentional Fraud;
2) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage;
3) Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage;
4) Misappropriation of Trade Secrets; and
5) Violation of the California Comprehensive Computer Data and Fraud Act.
--- Direct List, LLC is beneficially owned by Eran Salu, who was a member of Vistage at the time the Fraud occurred.
--- Phil Kessler was Eran Salu's Vistage Chair at the time the Fraud occurred.
2018 - Vistage Sues Multiple Vistage Chairs who decide to Quit Vistage
In early 2018, Vistage sued 3 Vistage Chairs in Wisconsin who allegedly left Vistage with their Group Members. [7]
This edit effectively restores an older version of the page which does not have sufficient sources.
The information about the lawsuit is poorly sourced (which is potentially libelous, especially if the information is not true).
The information added to the article is not neutral.
There's no indication that the lawsuit is relevant to Vistage International. (Who is this Phil Kessler? Where is the source connecting him to Vistage?)
There is no consensus to include this information in the article, nor any attempts at starting a discussion about it on the talk page.
Several different account names and IP addresses have been used in attempting to post this information, and it's quite disruptive.
1) San Diego Business Journal article references Kessler as a Chair and the lawsuit. It also explains that many people have good experiences with Vistage and is a neutral article.
2) San Diego Business Journal a news organization that has been around for many years and is highly respected.
3) There is nothing more neutral than a jury verdict, which is also sourced
4) There is nothing libelous in displaying a jury verdict (its public information)
Please disclose any affiliation or commercial relationship you have with Vistage. If none, why don't you propose edits to the language rather than removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DallasBusiness (talk • contribs) 03:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Both of the sources you provide are behind a paywall. If you think this information is relevant to an overall perspective and understanding of Vistage, please make your proposal on the article's talk page, together with multiple publicly-available reliable sources.
OK - I see the issue with the pay wall. I will fix sourcing. If you feel there is editorializing, please feel free to edit out editorializing. I have read the article in the San Diego Business Journal and believe the multiple lawsuits are part of Vistage story (just as, for example, there is a controversies section in the Wells Fargo page.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DallasBusiness (talk • contribs) 04:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
How does an 8 to 6 straw poll, with varying rationales on both sides equate to "consensus"? I'm aware consensus isn't a simple vote, but there was clearly not an agreement on that move in anyway that consensus would be arguable. BIGNOLE (Contact me)18:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
@Bignole: I think it's a little more complicated than that. I evaluated consensus based on 3 different points, as mentioned in my closing statement. The consensus is not just based on the number of votes, but on the strength of the arguments. For example, if there is a consensus that NCTV doesn't cover this particular scenario, that weakens the "per NCTV" arguments. That said, whether NCTV should cover this particular scenario may be a worthwhile conversation to have. Bradv18:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Consensus is not always easy to determine, but it's not based on a headcount (that would be too easy). Policy-based arguments, especially relating to WP:AT, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:RS all contribute to consensus. That said, a simple head count would have resulted in the same outcome. Bradv18:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
@Banderslav: Articles need substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I don't see much of that, either in the draft here or in the Ukrainian version. If sources cannot be found, this will not satisfy the notability requirements. Bradv12:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
hi brad im not good at understanding this new article process is there a quicker way? You been on wikipedia awhile just thought i would ask. Harwn733 (talk) 04:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@Harwn733: Cullen's advice to read your first article is excellent. You could also try using the Article Wizard. Either way, I would definitely recommend creating the article as a draft, or in your sandbox, so you have more time to work on it before having it reviewed by other editors. Bradv04:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@Harwn733: I noticed you started work on a draft already. I declined it for now as it doesn't provide enough context (see the links in the template at the top of the article). But please feel free to keep working on it there. Cheers. Bradv05:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
However, it has been more than 8 weeks and the review has not taken place. I have attempted to put multiple credible sources including Indian and international outlets to verify the notability of the subject. Additionally, I am in no way associated with the subject matter involved, and this is an attempt to increase my submissions and contributions on Wikipedia.
Please let me know in case this article is good enough to be accepted according to Wiki guidelines. In case I need to make any improvements, I would appreciate support from your end.
It is inappropriate to display one's ISP, because of the fact that such can be used as a malicious attack vector. It was therefore removed for security considerations as per my ISPs formal policies regarding abuse procedures. This was done in lieu of taking up the issue between the two ISPs, which could potentially result in domain name suspension. 71.91.178.54 (talk) 03:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
It's common practice on Wikipedia to display WHOIS information for IP addresses, as that information is readily available and it helps admins in their anti-vandalism efforts. If you want to hide this, create an account. Also, next time you can reply on your own talk page in order to keep conversations together. Bradv03:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Message from Wikiwriterpro
Dear Sir,
I am Daniel. As mentioned to you before, the kid (Rishav Kumar) has done significant work in the technology industry and deserves a Wikipedia page. It is very great and kind of you to accept the page for your Wikipedia articles. Thanking You, Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwriterpro (talk • contribs) 18:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018
Hello Bradv, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.
Project news
The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.
As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.
Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing
Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget.
In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions.
MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues.
User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page)
User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50).
User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you.
User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).
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 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. Bradv19:57, 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)
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:
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. Bradv13:49, 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)
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 [5]. Thanks! Bennycat (talk) 02:04, 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. Bradv02:15, 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 [6]. 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)
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. Bradv01:49, 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.
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. Bradv04:04, 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)
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.
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. Bradv00:21, 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)
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)
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 edits08:51, 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". Bradv14:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
My suggestion was not that you "accept the draft in that state", nor "complete the article", but that you "review you process for dealing with draft articles, and especially welcoming and supporting new good-faith editors". Please do so; and then you will have something to write up. You may find some useful inspiration (albeit on page about AfD, not AfC) at WP:BEFORE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits11:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.
Technical news
Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.
Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
For any interested parties and talk page stalkers, I have documented the events of the last few days at User:Bradv/Strickland incident. This essay is intended as a personal reflection and review, with the hope that we as a community may learn from this going forward. Comments and constructive advice are more than welcome. Bradv17:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
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[8]. 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. Bradv13:06, 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. Bradv15:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
We can wish for that, but it's unlikely they'll get it. The "deeper" WP-stuff is often a mystery to many, media included. Even in press we would generally consider RS big and small misunderstandings are common. There are exeptions, but rather few. Anyway, I hope you're not to shaken by your unexpected rise as world-known hater of all that's good and decent, you have my heartfelt sympathies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:30, 4 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. Bradv14:38, 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: [9] 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. Bradv20:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Regrettably, the Grauniad is famed for misprints and on this occasion it's really got the wrong end of the stick, but glad you're able to take it in good heart and see it as welcome attention to the need for more articles about women in science. Always a delicate balance on ensuring adequate reliable sources for a BLP, and biographies aren't always welcome! Thanks for you work in helping new editors to get articles started, though in this case the editor concerned failed to persist and no-one else took up the task. . . dave souza, talk22:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
There's probably a terrible pun in there somewhere about physics, moderators, and a glass of heavy water. I'm going to leave construction of the actual joke as an exercise for the reader. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I think that even if an article had issues, if you are here to build an encyclopedia you should push for the improvement in some way, so the point is IMHO if all the ways have been actually tried. If enwikipedia "works" in a way that if a draft like this is simply left abandoned, if this is recurring it does not really "work" on this issue. User talk:Campbpt0 has enough information but it looks too "cold". I don't do this job but I work with newbies, in your shoes with this CV I would have picked an expert users to help them directly. I know there are not enough of them for all the articles but part of the job should be to dig further to recognize which drafts are worth an extra effort. In general, they should be linked to the wikiprojects not just to "random" users. The article was left there for two months, but like unlinked from many other pages. It's not you, really. I am sure you did your best, but this sytem maybe can be improved.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
@Alexmar983: What exactly are you suggesting they should have done? It isn't the fault of the AfC reviewer that the person who wrote the failed draft doesn't bother improving the draft after it is rejected, assuming the AfC rejection wasn't bitey, which this wasn't. Canvassing other editors to improve an article isn't the job of AfC reviewers. Asking that of people participating in AfC will only drive people away and increase the persistent backlog. Per the MOS, Do not create links to user, WikiProject, essay or draft pages in articles, except in articles about Wikipedia itself (see Self-references to avoid).{{u|zchrykng}} {T|C}14:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
zchrykng why are you telling me it wasn't bitey... I din't say that. I agree. I said it's kinda cold, which is how something optimized for a generic workflow usually looks. I don't understand the warning about the links (just at a quick glance). Is it so complicated to put drafts of certain topics in the related projects? In two months you have all the time to put it in a very neutral one-month summary listing awaiting drafts. Not putting people in contact with the work it might be of their interest does not sound "wiki" to me. Compartimentalization is never really the top strategy in a link-based environment, it cannot be fully efficient.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
@Alexmar983: Did you notice that there are currently 4,000 drafts waiting to be reviewed? If reviewers were expected to complete each draft, this number would balloon enormously. As it is, getting these drafts reviewed and new articles patrolled is a game of catch-up. If someone is interested in creating an article, they can create and improve it. It's ridiculous to expect reviewers to complete all of the drafts submitted. Natureium (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I noticed and I said that because you wait two months you have all the time to link to expert users in projects. This will reduce your back log.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Alexmar983, you're asking for further work by reviewers. Reading this, the current problems could have been avoided by more diplomatic terminology – avoid the rather feudal terms "submission" and "declined" or "rejected", instead having "proposed draft" and "assessed as not yet ready". Same effect, much less bitey. It could also help the backlog if a bot could automatically alert relevant projects, but that's simply a way of alerting more potential reviewers. If positive reactions here, will propose the language change at talk:Donna Strickland as a next step. . . dave souza, talk15:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
a tag that tells a bot how to make an automatic list in a specific project after few weeks is not a lot work. it is maybe to build up the bot but not the work of the reviewer. I do this stuff manually many times, even in that manual case it's mostly copy and paste. In any case I totally support the change of name. But again, "not yet ready" is something that should be useful to the main author but also to everybody else, in a wiki. We have efficient way to find good articles, stub articles and so on about a specific project... So why not draft articles? It's an unbalanced framework. My work on a stub, an article that requires reference improvement or a bad draft it's quite the same--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the problem is this: Right now, the Wikipedia attitude is that we can delete an article without any fact-checking process, but we can not create an article without being hit on the head about reliable references. Let me give you one example: I went through Template:Monospaced_fonts either removing red links or replacing the red links with stub articles. Pretty soon, other editors started putting up “notability” templates on some of the articles I wrote. The entire experience was very frustrating; I tried to make Wikipedia a better place by getting rid of red links; I was then having to deal with people complaining the articles were not “notable” enough.
The deletionists took over Wikipedia back in 2007; if you look at a graph of the number of people contributing to the Wikipedia over the years, it peaked in 2007 — then started declining. It started declining because the deletionists took over; before then, people could just click on a redlink, start up an article, and make Wikipedia a slightly better place; after 2007 or so, people who did that would find their article deleted in short order unless they could prove it was on the front page of The New York Times (and, yes, we have deleted — or converted in to redirects — subjects which have been on the front page of NYT!), so new editors just gave up. And the Wikipedia has been languishing since then, having a hard time getting new editors.
The problem is that the deletionists drive away editors like Campbpt0. Wikipedia shouldn’t be deciding that some random professor (woman or no) is not notable until she wins the Nobel prize. Samboy (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I actually did remove redlinks which I couldn’t find any information for or for articles which failed AfD. The point is this: Before 2007, it was OK to create an article about something as long as one could verify it existed. After 2007, we decided someone has to be discussed in a “reliable source”—which is a problem for things like typefaces, since while I can show you evidence that Open Sans is widely used and very popular, that evidence does not meet Wikipedia’s arbitrary notability guidelines (things like: “Number of pages using this font” should be allowed to establish notability, and “number of stars on GitHub” should also be allowed to establish notability). (Cryptographic Hashes gets a pass since we allow academic publications, but even here establishing that BLAKE2 is a commonly used hash is tricky; the only evidence I was able to earth up was usage in a popular UNIX software suite) Samboy (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
@Samboy: It looks like you're nursing a longstanding grudge about typefaces. We're really not discussing those here. And for the record, "deletionists" did not drive away Campbpt0. He fled of his own accord after contributing exactly two edits. KalHolmann (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
@KalHolmann: No, I am nursing a long standing grudge about deletionism taking over Wikipedia circa 2007. It has made the Wikipedia a worse place, and, yes, it still leaves me angry and bitter. And, yes, I think Campbt0 would have stayed if we were more welcoming of them. Samboy (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
It is clear that the "non-acceptance" of this article was NOT 'deletionism' and that eventually WP PR disasters like this will continue to arise because non-experienced outsiders don't care about WP's internal 'rules' which they don't understand, let alone even know about.
Deletionism has driven away many of us past editors who now refuse to "sign up" any more - having articles in a Project deleted entirely by someone with no connection to that project WHILE ACTUALLY TYPING/UPLOADING CONTENT!!!! with the then existing flag that the article was under construction! is more than merely "discouraging" it is blatantly rude and antisocial arrogant behavior (easily called bullying!) which clearly informs people that they do not fit in and are not wanted, as well as showing that the trigger happy "speedy deleter" has no knowledge or experience of the topic. Further, someone who is a newbie can easily believe that the complicated "Rules" for inclusion are bizarre and inconsistent. Allegedly, entries can not have "original/personal research", yet there are numerous entire plots of whole TV Series and Movies often only published a VERY short time before (main thing my friends and I only use WP for now) with zero linked external written referenced documentation of the plots, so can only have been created by a watcher of the content. Also entire pages of eg unknown (not notable) local minor bands over years of a minor arts/music festival "must not be deleted" - anyone questioning whether the content should be retained is attacked as a "troll". Bluntly, there are large areas of "crap that does not meet the alleged rules" - but heavily protected, yet other new material is rejected far too rapidly. I remember stumbling across something internationally acclaimed, being rejected as not notable because some ignorant fool deemed that because he was ignorant of it because it was not something of his local national culture, that it must be a rip off of something previous by the same production and govt funding body doing an also widely acclaimed follow up work on the same theme.
Administrator changes
None
Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz
Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Kingdamian1 clearly NOTHERE. funplussmart (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Interface administrator changes
Oversight changes
